Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6922 (2)Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 1 of 28 Agenda Subject/Title: Ordinance No. 6922, CPA23-0001, CPA23-0002, CPA23-0003, CPA- 0004 - 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments – Private and City-Initiated Policy/Text & Map Amendments Background Summary: The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then, the Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. At the end of 2015, the City adopted a substantially updated Comprehensive Plan in compliance with state-required periodic updates. Annual Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by private parties (private-initiated). This year the city is initiating: • Four policy/text amendments • Three map amendment This staff report and recommendation addresses the all Private and City-initiated amendments, specifically: • Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 1 through # 4, and; • Map (CPM) Amendment CPM # 1-3 In terms of process, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs, but is not required, prior to the end of the year. The following report identifies Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) and Map (CPM) amendments scheduled for the City Council Study Session on November 13, 2023. A. General Findings 1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law and City Code, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city legislative body no more frequently than once per year. 2. The City of Auburn established a June 2, 2023 deadline for the submittal of private initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the public of the application submittal deadline was provided on the City’s website. The City received two private- initiated map amendments by the submittal deadline. 3. The City of Auburn is processing one city-initiated amendment pertaining to the Bridges Annexation property, which involves comprehensive plan map and zoning map and text amendments. 4. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four (4) school district Capital Facilities Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 2 of 28 Plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These Capital Facilities Plans, as well as the City’s Capital Facilities Plan are proposed to be incorporated by reference in the current Capital Facilities Element (Volume 3), of the 2015 Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments. 5. Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of privately- initiated amendments and the general processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows: “Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing. b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing. 2. For area-wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)” 6. As provided in the City code, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action which generally occurs, but is not required to, prior to the end of the year. 7. Due to the nature of policy/text changes, and the minimal amount of private-initiated map amendments, the optional process for holding a public open house as provided for in the city code, was not conducted. Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 3 of 28 The following reports identify findings and staff recommendations for Private and City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) and Map (CPM) amendments scheduled for City Council action on December 4, 2023. B. City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments (P/T) (File No. CPA23-0004) 1. Findings Specific to City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments a. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state agencies for the required state review. The Washington State Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on September 1, 2023, by Submittal ID: # 2023-S-6408. No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. A copy of the transmittal and acknowledgement is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information & Correspondence” tab. b. The notice of Determination of Non-Significance was published on September 7, 2023, and notice Public Hearing is to be published on October 6, 2023 in the Seattle Times Newspaper and on the city website which is at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 17, 2023. A copy of the Determination of Non-Significance request to publish is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information & Correspondence” tab. c. Site-specific noticing by mailing by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet was conducted for CPM #1 (CPA23-0004). Private-initiated site-specific noticing by mailing by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet was conducted. d. The environmental review decision under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the school district capital facilities plans were prepared separately by each school district acting as their own lead agency, as allowed by State law (State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)). 2. Discussion of School-Specific Policy and Text Amendments (P/T) P/T #1 Incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023 through 2029 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2023-2029. The CFP was prepared by the District staff and adopted by the Auburn School District School Board of Directors on June 12, 2023 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 4 of 28 of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Six–year enrollment projections • Auburn school district level of service standards • An inventory of existing facilities • The district’s overall capacity of the 6-year period • District capital construction Plan • Impact fee calculations Findings of Fact A review of the Auburn School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a decrease in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $5,957.02, a decrease of $2,005.59 and the requested fee for multiple-family dwellings is $9,913.64, an increase of $0.82. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023 through 2029 as incorporated by reference in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (CPA23-0004). P/T#2 Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2023 - 2029. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors on June 20, 2023. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Overview • An inventory of existing facilities • Six–year enrollment projections • Standard of service • Capacity projects • Finance plan • Impact fee calculations Findings of Fact A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District has calculated an increase in fees compared to those currently adopted. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is $8,054, an increase of $1,887; Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 5 of 28 and the fee for multiple family dwellings is $3,400, an increase of $1,340. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action, and fees are generally consistent with those adopted by Pierce County Council where the requested fee exceeds the established Pierce County fee. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2039 as incorporated by reference in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (CPA23-0004). P/T #3 Incorporate the Federal Way School District 2024 Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2024. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board June 27, 2023. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Introduction • Inventory of educational facilities & non-instructional facilities • Needs forecast, existing & new facilities • Six–year finance plan • Maps of district boundaries • Building capacities & portable locations • Student forecast • Capacity summaries • Student forecasts • Impact fee calculations Findings of Fact A review of the Federal Way Public Schools’ updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is not requesting to retain the $0 impact fee for single-single family development and increase the multiple family dwellings impact fee to $6,998, an increase of $6,998. Federal Way Public Schools requested to not adopt school impact fees for 2023. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plans incorporated by reference in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (CPA23-0004). Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 6 of 28 P/T #4 Incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board in June 2023 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Executive Summary • Six-year enrollment projection & history • District standard of service • Inventory, capacity & maps of existing schools • Six-year planning & construction plan • Portable classrooms • Projected classroom capacity • Finance Plan, cost basis and impact fee schedules • Summary of changes to previous plan Findings of Fact A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is not requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be maintained at $0, and the fee for multi- family dwellings is proposed to be maintained at $0. The District notes in the Capital Facilities Plan impact fees are not proposed in 2024 based on revised student generation rates, and capacity and enrollment projections. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 incorporated by reference in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (CPA23-0004). C. City-Initiated Comprehensive Map Amendments (CPM) (File No. CPA23-0003) CPM #1 – “Bridges” (Annexation) This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map and text. A Staff Report was prepared and shared at the November 7, 2023, Planning Commission meeting as is found in the ‘Working Binder’ in the “Staff Reports/Presentations” section. The following section includes a Discussion, Findings, Decision Criteria, and Staff Recommendations from that Staff Report. Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 7 of 28 Discussion Adopt amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map (rezone), and zoning text for City-initiated application (City File No. CPA23-0004 (CPM #1)) to reflect annexation of the area from the city of Kent for a 155-acre area commonly known as The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave. SE, SE 304th St., and 118th Ave. SE. Staff is proposing to establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the area on Lea Hill known as the “Bridges”. Changes will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment of “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges zoning Overlay, which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. Zoning map and text amendments are proposed to be processed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments. Findings of Fact Background Summary and Proposal: 1. Beginning in 2019, the cities of Kent and Auburn determined that it is advantageous to both cities that the area located on Lea Hill known as the “Bridges” to be annexed to Auburn. The Bridges area is an approximately 155-acre area island of incorporated city of Kent surrounded completely by the city of Auburn. 2. As part of the process of annexation by Auburn and de-annexation Kent, the cities have committed to coordinate and cooperate with respect to any emergency services, utilities, transportation, planning, and development issues affected by the annexation. 3. The City’s Zoning Code (Title 18) provides Auburn the authority to establish zoning and land use designations for all lands within the City. Specifically, per ACC 18.02.100 prior to any parcel of land being annexed to the city, properties can be rezoned to an Auburn zoning classification and the Comprehensive Plan (Map) can be amended to reflect the future annexation area. In preparation of the annexation effective date, staff has analyzed which land use designations and zoning classifications are appropriate for the Bridges area. 4. Generally, all land within a City is assigned a land use designation and is divided into zoning districts. 5. The Bridges area was developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) by a single developer using Kent standards and code provisions. 6. Upon annexation, the Bridges area will adopt Auburn comprehensive plan land use designations and Auburn zoning classifications (also known as zones or zoning districts). 7. Under Kent’s jurisdiction the Bridges area features two land use designations. The northern portion of the Bridges area (approx. 63 acres) is currently designated Single Family 3 Units Per Acre (SF-3) and the southern portion (approx. 92 acres) is designated Urban Separator. The SF-3 designation allows densities of up to three dwelling units per acre and implemented by the SR-3 zoning district. The Urban Separator designation is implemented by Kent’s SR-1 zoning district. 8. Staff is proposing to designate the majority of the Bridges area to Auburn’s Single- Family Residential Designation. The Single-Family Land Use Designation is the predominant land use category in the city and accommodates interconnected subdivisions, neighborhoods, and communities that have a mix of lower density housing types. This designation is appropriate for previously the developed single-family residential areas in Bridges. Staff is proposing to designate these tracts as Moderate Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 8 of 28 Density Residential. 9. Staff is proposing to rezone the area into three Auburn zoning districts. The developed northern portion, currently zoned SR-3 under Kent’s zoning, will be zoned R-5, Residential 5 dwelling units per acre. The southern developed portion, currently zoned SR-1 under Kent’s zoning, will be zoned R-1, Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre. Both the R-1 and R-5 zoning districts implement Auburn’s Single Family land use designation. The four “future development tracts” located in the southeast portion of Bridges are proposed to be zoned R-10, Residential 10 dwelling units per acre. 10. To accommodate the Kent standards and approvals by which the Bridges area was developed, staff is proposing a zoning overlay, and will be herein referenced as the “Bridges Overlay”. The intent of the zoning overlay is to adopt the development standards under which the PUD was developed. 11. In conjunction with the proposed Bridges Overlay, Staff is proposing a new section, ACC 18.21.040, of code within Chapter 18.21 “Overlays” of the Auburn City Code. This new section of code will contain the zoning development standards under which the Bridges PUD was developed. 12. Following annexation, the four future development tracts will be developed under Auburn’s jurisdiction. This future development will require Auburn permit applications (building, architectural and site design review, civil, and utilities) as well as an environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 13. The proposed comprehensive plan land use map amendment, zoning map amendment, and zoning text amendment has been discussed with the Planning Commission previously at the October 3, 2023 regular meeting, the October 17, 2023 special meeting, and at the November 7, 2023 regular meeting. Staff has provided three memorandums and presentations as follows: a. At the October 3rd meeting staff introduced the comprehensive plan land use map, zoning map, and text amendment to the Planning Commission. b. Following the Oct. 3rd meeting staff provided a supplemental memo addressing commissioners concerns and questions regarding changing the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning classification of the project including four “future development tracts” (Tracts LLL, MMM, NNN, and OOO) shown on the Bridges PUD Plat Map. Staff addressed four main issues in the supplemental memo including: 1) impacts to wetlands and associated buffers, 2) opportunity to provide public comment, 3) impacts to services and impact fees, and 4) increased density in the surrounding area. c. At the Oct. 17th special meeting staff provided an overview presentation of the proposed amendment. Commissioners asked questions regarding opportunities for the public to comment on the proposed amendments. By the date of the public hearing on Oct. 17th no comment public had been received. After staff’s presentation a public hearing was held. Following close of the public hearing a recommendation to City Council was provided. d. At the Nov. 7th regular meeting, staff requested that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing to allow the opportunity to accept public comment by the Commission in response to staff providing additional noticing methods prior to the hearing. Following another presentation by staff, in which the additional noticing methods and public comment were discussed, Planning Commission reopened the public hearing. Following close of the public hearing a recommendation to City Council was provided by the Commission. Procedural Steps: 1. Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A, the text and map amendment were transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on September 1, 2023. The 60-day notice period ends October 31, 2023. Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 9 of 28 2. A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) non-project environmental checklist was prepared that evaluates the environmental impacts of the map and text amendments. 3. A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), City File No. SEP23-0029, was issued on September 22, 2023, and the City observed a fourteen-day public comment period, which expired on October 6, 2023. No comments were received. 4. A Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) was issued on October 3, 2023. Pursuant to Chapter 14.22 ACC, the following methods of noticing for the Planning Commission public hearing were conducted: a. The NOH was published in the Seattle Times on October 3, 2023. b. The NOH was posted in two conspicuous locations public locations (City Hall and the City Annex). The notice was also posted to the City’s Public Land Use Notice webpage). 5. A supplemental Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) was issued on October 24, 2023. Pursuant to Chapter 14.22 ACC, the following methods of noticing for the Planning Commission public hearing were conducted: a. The NOH was published in the Seattle Times on October 24, 2023. b. The NOH was mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment. c. The NOH was mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request. d. The Notice was posted in four conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment (City Hall, City Annex, one notice board at the Bridges entrance off of 124th Ave. SE, and one notice board near the intersection of SE 304th St. and 124th Ave. SE). The notice was also posted to the City’s Public Land Use Notice webpage). Decision Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments: The City Code provides certain criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map under ACC 14.22.110. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis. 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Staff Analysis: City of Auburn staff are proposing comprehensive plan and zoning amendments in preparation of annexation so that there are land use controls in place upon annexation. The application of a designation and classification prior to annexation will help ensure an orderly transition of the Bridges area into the City. This is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy No LU-128 (provided below in italics). LU-128 Prior to annexation, develop strategies and agreements that address the orderly transition of areas into the City such as transfer of permit authority, infrastructure financing, financing of fire and police services, and interim development regulations. 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; Staff Analysis: On September 18, 2023 Auburn City Council adopted Resolution No. 5736 is an initiating action the triggers several procedures and actions designed to achieve an annexation of the Bridges area on Lea Hill into the City of Auburn by an effective date of January 1, 2024. Per the resolution both cities have committed to coordinate and cooperate with respect to any emergency services, planning, Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 10 of 28 utilities, transportation or development issues that may arise subsequent to Auburn' s annexation of the Bridges and acquisition of ownership of the roads, bridges, and rights- of-way within the Bridges. 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; Staff Analysis: This provision is not applicable. Upon annexation it is necessary to adopt a city of Auburn land use designation and zoning classification for the Bridges annexation area. 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; Staff Analysis: The annexation of the Bridges area of Lea Hill into the City of Auburn is a change in conditions. Annexation necessitates the adoption of a city of Auburn land use designation and zoning classification for the Bridges area. 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region; At the Nov. 7th regular meeting, staff requested that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing to allow the opportunity to accept public comment by the Commission in response to staff providing additional noticing methods prior to the hearing. Following another presentation by staff, in which the additional noticing methods and public comment were discussed, Planning Commission reopened the public hearing. Following close of the public hearing a recommendation to City Council was provided by the Commission. 6. If the request is to change the land use designation of a specific property on the comprehensive land use map, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Staff Analysis: Consistent with ACC 14.22.110(A)(6)(c), the annexation of the Bridges area of Lea Hill into the City of Auburn is a change in conditions (Option C). Annexation necessitates the adoption of a City of Auburn land use designation and zoning classification for the Bridges area. Decision Criteria for Rezones The City Code provides criteria for amending the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map under ACC 18.68.040. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis. Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 11 of 28 A. The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan; or Staff Analysis: City of Auburn staff are proposing comprehensive plan and zoning amendments in preparation of annexation so that there are land use controls in place upon annexation. The application of a designation and classification prior to annexation will help ensure an orderly transition of the Bridges area into the City. This is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy No LU-128 (provided below in italics). LU-128 Prior to annexation, develop strategies and agreements that address the orderly transition of areas into the City such as transfer of permit authority, infrastructure financing, financing of fire and police services, and interim development regulations. B. The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning; and Staff Analysis: The annexation of the Bridges area of Lea Hill into the City of Auburn is a change in conditions. Annexation necessitates the adoption of a city of Auburn land use designation and zoning classification for the Bridges area. C. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff Analysis: Representatives of the cities of Kent and Auburn have worked cooperatively together and have determined that it is advantageous to both cities for the Bridges aera to be annexed into the city of Auburn. Both cities have committed to coordinate and cooperate with respect to any emergency services, planning, utilities, transportation or development issues that may arise subsequent to Auburn' s annexation of the Bridges and acquisition of ownership of the roads, bridges, and rights- of-way within the Bridges. Planning Commission Recommendation At the November 7, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval to amend Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the Bridges site where City of Auburn land use did not apply prior to annexation. Amendments will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges Zoning Overlay , which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. D. Private-Initiated Comprehensive Map Amendments (CPM) (File No. CPA23-0001, CPA23-0002) CPM #2 – MultiCare Site (CPA23-0001, REZ23-0003) This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map and text. A Staff Report was prepared and shared at the October 17th, 2023, Planning Commission meeting as is found in the ‘Working Binder’ in the “Staff Reports/Presentations” section. The following section includes a Discussion, Findings, Decision Criteria, and Staff Recommendations from that Staff Report. Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 12 of 28 Discussion Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of five contiguous parcels of land totaling approximately 2.27 acres from the current designations of “Single-Family” and “Light Commercial” to “Public/Quasi-Public” and amend the Comprehensive Zoning Map (Rezone) the five contiguous parcels from “R- 7, Residential Seven Dwelling Units per Acre” and “C-1, Light Commercial” to “P-1, Public Use”. The map amendments are non-project actions. The proposal consists of five parcels (King County Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, 1921059140, 1921059160) located on the north side of 12th St. SE, approx. 350 west of Auburn Way S. Four of the five parcels are currently zoned “C-1, Light Commercial” (Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, 1921059140). The remaining parcel (no. 1921059160) is currently zoned “R-7, Residential 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre”. General Findings of Fact 1. The Applicant, Meghan Howey of BCRA Design, representing MultiCare Health Systems, submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment (Comprehensive Plan map amendment) (File No. CPA23-0001) and a related Comprehensive Zoning Map amendment (Rezone) (File No. REZ23-0003). More specifically, the applications request a change in the designation of five contiguous parcels of land totaling approximately 2.27 (the “subject site”) acres from the current designations of “Single-Family” and “Light Commercial” to “Public/Quasi-Public” and rezone the site from “R-7, Residential Seven Dwelling Units per Acre” and “C-1, Light Commercial” to “P-1, Public Use”. The Applicant identifies that this is a non-project action. 2. The subject site is located on the north side of 12th St. SE and to the west of Auburn Way S, the properties are southwest of the Les Gove Park Campus. The total site area is 2.27 acres or 98,675 sq ft. and is flat, sparsely vegetated, and mostly undeveloped. Parcel no.1921059111 contains an approximately 12,760 sq ft. single-story medical office building and an associated parking lot, parcel no. 1921059140 to the north contains an additional parking lot to support the medical building. On July 20, 2023, a Demolition Permit was issued for the medical building on site (File No. DEM22-0027). 3. The subject site, comprised of five parcels, is located on the north side of 12th St. SE and approximately 350 west of Auburn Way S. The parcels are identified as King County Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, 1921059140, 1921059160. 4. The site is bordered to the northeast by Auburn Way S, which is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation, serving as State Route 164, and classified by the City as a “Principle Arterial” street. South of the site is bordered by 12th St. SE, a public road classified as a “Residential Collector”. 5. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. Records indicate the annexation of this and surrounding properties occurred in 1954. Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 13 of 28 6. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for the application by MultiCare Health Systems for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone was applied for under City File No. SEP23-0019 on May 26, 2023. The staff review was completed and a DNS was issued on August 16, 2023. The appeal period expired on September 14, 2023. 7. The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on October 4, 2023, which is at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 17, 2023. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on-site and on the city’s webpage. 8. The following report identifies a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone requested by MultiCare Health Systems scheduled for the Planning Commission’s October 17, 2023, public hearing with a staff recommendation. 9. As indicated by the Applicant’s narrative statement submitted with the application, the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and related rezone have been requested for the purpose of preparing for the anticipated sale and development of the site for city services use. 10. The current Comprehensive Plan land use designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are as follows: Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 14 of 28 Comprehensive Plan Related Findings 11. The Applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment application on May 31, 2023, before the year 2023 application submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments (June 1, 2023). 12. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review (Submittal ID: 2023-S-6408). No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. Zoning Code Related Findings 13. In June 2018 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6655 which allows the Planning Commission and City Council to consider associated map changes (for Comprehensive Plan map amendments and rezones), concurrently. This eliminates the need for the Hearing Examiner to subsequently consider and conduct a public hearing for a rezone application when it is related to a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. 14. Chapter 18.68 ACC Amendments outlines the process for submittal of privately- initiated zoning amendments and the general processing. Per ACC Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 15 of 28 18.68.030(B)(1)(b), when the Planning Commission is considering a rezone which requires a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, the public hearings shall be conducted concurrently and a recommendation on both shall be forwarded to the City Council. 15. The intent of the P-1, Public Use Zone (P-1 zone) is “…intended to provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community.” The “Public/Quasi-Public” Comprehensive Plan designation is the most closely related comprehensive plan land use designation to the P-1zone. Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policy guidance, as it relates to this application: Volume 1 – Land Use Element “Public and Institutional Land Use Designations” Character Sketch “Public and institutional uses will occur in both low and high-density environments. For passive uses, land and views will be protected; limited access to these areas will be typical. For more active uses, usability and accessibility will be key features and new development will be subject to standards reflecting programmed space and interconnectivity. These spaces will be varied in type, providing service to areas large and small, urban and more rural in character. Sustainable solutions and innovations that are responsive to the native ecology will be typical of public and institutional uses.” General Policies A general policy appropriate to this request is: “Policy LU-89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited.” Description “This category includes those areas that are reserved for public or quasi-public uses. It is intended to include those of a significant extent, and not those smaller public uses that are consistent with and may be included in another designation. These public uses include public schools, developed parks, and uses of quasi- public character such as large churches and private schools. Public uses of an industrial character are included in the industrial designation, and small-scale religious institutions of a residential character are included in the residential designation. Streets, utilities, and other separate uses are not intended to be mapped separately as Public/Quasi-Public.” Designation Criteria 1. Previously developed institutional uses; or 2. Meets the development parameters of the Public/Quasi-Public designation. 3. Properties identified in the Airport Master Plan as Landing Field. Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 16 of 28 Public/Quasi-Public-related policy appropriate to this request are: “Policy LU-101 A responsible management entity and the purpose for the public/quasi- public designation should be identified for each property interest within this designation. Management policies and plans are appropriate for all lands in this designation.” “Policy LU-102 Appropriate uses for this designation include facilities that serve the needs of the larger community such as public schools, active parks, city operated municipal facilities, large churches, and fire stations.” “Policy LU-103 This designation permits a wide array of uses that tend to be located in the midst of other dissimilar uses. For this reason, the following must be considered of new requests for this designation: a. The impacts that the designation may have on the surrounding community. b. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to new requests for this designation that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community. c. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to development proposals that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community.” “Policy LU-104 Coordination with other public or institutional entities is essential in the implementation of this land use designation.” The Capital Facilities Element also contains objectives and policies relevant to the request, as follows: Volume 3 – Capital Facilities Element Planning Approach “The Capital Facilities planning approach is to manage growth in a manner that enhances rather than detracts from community quality and values by actively coordinating land use type and intensity with City facility and service development and provision.” Objectives and Policies “Objective 1.1. Ensure that new development does not outpace the City’s ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations that can support the public services they require.” “Policy CF-3. Development shall be allowed only when and where such development can be adequately served by public services (police and fire) without reducing the level of service elsewhere.” “Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of public services through an effective system of public facilities.” “Policy CF-10. Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 17 of 28 of facility designed to serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this Comprehensive Plan.” “Objective 1.8. To site public and institutional buildings in accord with their service function and the needs of the members of the public served by the facility.” “Policy CF-63. Public and institutional facilities that attract a large number of visitors (City Hall, museums, libraries, educational facilities, permit and license offices, health and similar facilities, etc.) should be sited in areas that are accessible (within ¼ mile) by transit.” The purpose of the City’s Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent as required by the following city code provision: “ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency. The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the comprehensive plan. “ The City code provides certain criteria for decision-making for comprehensive plan amendments as follows: “ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments. A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2050: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.” Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Rezone Related – Conclusions City Staff completed an analysis of the proposal and criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map under ACC 14.22.110 and the Comprehensive Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 18 of 28 Plan Zoning Map under ACC 18.86.040. This evaluation can be found in the complete CPM #2 – MultiCare Site Staff Report found in the ‘Staff Reports/Presentations’ tab in the ‘Working Binder’. Planning Commission Recommendation At the October 17, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the MultiCare Site Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Rezone (CPA23-0001 & REZ23-0003) request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to change the map designation of five contiguous parcels, parcel No. 1921059160 from “Single-Family” to “Public/Quasi- Public” and Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, and 1921059140 from “Light Commercial” to “Public/Quasi-Public”. And rezone parcel No. 1921059160 from “R-7, Residential Seven Dwelling Units Per Acre” to “P-1, Public Use” and Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, and 1921059140 from “C-1, Light Commercial” to “P-1, Public Use”. CPM #3 – Auburn Dairy This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map and text. A Staff Report was prepared and shared at the October 17th, 2023, Planning Commission meeting as is found in the ‘Working Binder’ in the “Staff Reports/Presentations” section. The following section includes a Discussion, Findings, Decision Criteria, and Staff Recommendations from that Staff Report. Discussion Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designation of six contiguous parcels consisting of approximately 3.11 acres from the current designation of “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial”. Request to rezone parcel no. 3915000085 from “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” to “M-1, Light Industrial” and to rezone parcel nos. 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125 from “R-20, Residential 20 Dwelling Units per Acre” to “M-1, Light Industrial”. The map amendment is a non- project action. Project site is located south of the T-intersection of W Main Street and G Street SW within SE ¼ of Section 13 Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125. General Findings of Fact 1. The Applicant, Jacob Miller of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, representing Auburn Dairy submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment (File No. CPA23-0002) and a related contract rezone (File No. REZ23-0004). More specifically, the applications request a change to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designation of six contiguous parcels consisting of approximately 3.11 acres from the current designation of “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial”. The contract rezone consists of a request to rezone parcel no. 3915000085 from “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” to “M-1, Light Industrial” and to rezone parcel nos. 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125 from “R-20, Residential Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 19 of 28 20 Dwelling Units per Acre” to “M-1, Light Industrial”. The Applicant identifies this is a non-project action. 2. The Site, comprised of six parcels, is located south of the T-intersection of W Main Street and G Street SW within SE ¼ of Section 13 Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125. 3. The existing Auburn Dairy operation consists of two parcels on the west side of G Street SW, and four parcels east of G Street SW. The four parcels are proposed for future expansion and improvements to the existing dairy operation. 4. The existing operation was established in 1923. Across G Street SW to the east, Auburn Dairy purchased two parcels (3915000120 and 3915000125) in 2013 and purchased two parcels (3915000085 and 3915000115) in 2020. The four recently purchased parcels are vacant. Demolition permits were issued in 2022 to demolish existing buildings on those parcels. 5. The site is bordered to the west by railroad tracks and the Interurban Trail, a recreational path that runs north/south through the City of Auburn. Development to the west is predominantly warehouses, large outdoor storage areas and industrial uses. To the east of the site the land is developed as an older single-family residential neighborhood. 6. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are as follows: Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 20 of 28 7. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for the application by Auburn Dairy for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone was applied for under City File No. SEP23-0020 on June 1, 2023. The staff review was completed and a DNS using the optional process was issued on October 2, 2023. The appeal period expired on October 30, 2023 8. The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on October 2, 2023, which is at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 17, 2023. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on-site and on the city’s webpage. 9. As indicated by the Applicant’s narrative statement submitted with the application, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map amendment and related contract rezone have been requested for the purpose of future expansion and improvements of the existing Auburn Dairy operation. 10. The following report identifies a Comprehensive Plan Land Use map amendment and contract rezone requested by Auburn Dairy scheduled for the Planning Commission’s October 17, 2023 public hearing with a staff recommendation. Comprehensive Plan Findings of Fact Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 21 of 28 11. The Applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan Land Use map amendment application on June 1, 2023, before the year 2023 application submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments (June 1, 2023). 12. The City of Auburn first adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended in 1995. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually each year since generally for housekeeping items and for capital facilities plan coordination. 13. The City of Auburn adopted a substantially revised Comprehensive Plan (including map amendments) in response to periodic updates required by the GMA by Ordinance No. 6584 on December 14, 2015. 14. City Code Section 14.22, “Comprehensive Plan” provides the city’s laws for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city- initiated) and by private citizens (privately-initiated). 15. RCW 36.70A.130 (GMA) provides for annual amendments to locally adopted comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law, Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be considered by the city or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year. The annual limitation and exceptions are also restated in city code at ACC 14.22.060. 16. The City of Auburn established a June 1, 2023 submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments for the year 2023 (map or policy/text amendments). Notice to the public of the application filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, publication of a legal notice the Seattle Times Newspaper, and sent to a notification list of potentially interested parties. 17. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22, “Comprehensive Plan”, outlines the process for submittal of private initiated amendments and the processing of Comprehensive Plan amendments as follows: “Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area-wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 22 of 28 c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)” 18. Per Chapter 14.22 Auburn City Code (“ACC”), privately-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall have at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission who then forward on a recommendation to the City Council. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs, but is not required, prior to the end of the year. 19. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review. No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. 20. Due to the scope and limited number of privately initiated policy/text changes, the optional process as provided in the city code for a public open house was not conducted. Zoning Code Findings of Fact 21. In June 2018 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6655 which allows the Planning Commission and City Council to consider associated map changes (for Comprehensive Plan map amendments and rezones), concurrently. This eliminates the need for the Hearing Examiner to subsequently consider and conduct a public hearing for a rezone when it is related to a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. 22. Chapter 18.68 ACC Amendments outlines the process for submittal of privately- initiated zoning amendments and the general processing. Per ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(b), when the Planning Commission is considering a re-zone (zoning map amendment) which requires a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment, the public hearings shall be conducted concurrently and a recommendation on both shall be forwarded to the City Council. 23. The intent of the “M-1, Light Industrial Zone” is “…is to accommodate a variety of industrial, commercial, and limited residential uses in an industrial park environment, Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 23 of 28 to preserve land primarily for light industrial and commercial uses, to implement the economic goals of the comprehensive plan and to provide a greater flexibility within the zoning regulations for those uses which are non-nuisance in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare or odor.” The light industrial/commercial character of this zone is intended to address the way in which industrial and commercial uses are carried out rather than the actual types of products made. The Auburn Dairy manufacturing operation is conducted inside of buildings. Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application seeks to change the designation of six parcels, King County Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125. The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policy guidance, as it relates to this application: Volume 1 – Land Use Element “Industrial Land Use Designations” Character Sketch “Industrial uses will become a more integrated part of the physical and social life of the City. Since so many people work in these areas and these companies contribute so much to the financial life of the city, it is important that they are connected though paths, roads and by public transportation. Locations that have access to rail and highways that also encourage intelligent growth patterns will be prioritized. Innovation will be a key requirement of new and infill projects as the City looks to mitigate impacts of production and limit damage to the environment.” General Policies A general policy appropriate to this request is: “Policy LU-72. A wide range of industrial uses may be permitted, subject to performance standards.” “Light Industrial Designation” Description “This category is intended to accommodate a wide range of industrial and commercial uses. This designation is intended to provide an attractive location for manufacturing, processing and assembling land use activities that contribute to quality surroundings. A wide variety of appropriate commercial uses in this designation benefit from the location, access, physical configuration, and building types of these properties. It is distinguished from heavier industrial uses by means of performance criteria. All significant activities shall take place inside buildings, and the processing or storage of hazardous materials shall be strictly controlled and permitted only as an incidental part of another use.” Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 24 of 28 Designation Criteria 1) Previously developed light industrial areas; or 2) Located along high-visibility corridors; 3) Provides buffering for heavy industrial areas or is buffered from the single-family designation by landscaping, environmental features, or the Residential Transition designation and buffered from all other Residential designations; and 4) Meets the development parameters of the Light Industrial designation. Light Industrial-related policies appropriate to this request are: “Policy LU-76. A wide range of industrial uses may be permitted, subject to performance standards. Heavy commercial uses that serve the needs of workers in light industries are also appropriate. These uses include indoor manufacturing, processing, and assembling of materials from previously prepared or raw materials and ancillary and necessary warehousing and distribution of finished goods associated with manufacturing and industrial uses.” “Policy LU-77. Parking lots must be located and designed in a manner that softens their appearance from adjacent public roads. This is accomplished through landscaping, pedestrian spaces, and the location of buildings on the property. Where practicable, low-impact development techniques and landscaping should be used to promote on site stormwater infiltration and shading of hard surfaces. Minimum and maximum parking ratios must be established for each type of permitted use.” “Policy LU-80. Where a light industrial use is located adjacent to a property with a less intense zoning designation, the light industrial use bears the burden of incorporating techniques that mitigate the visual, noise, dust, and odor impacts.” The Capital Facilities Element also contains objectives and policies relevant to the request, as follows: Volume 3 – Capital Facilities Element Planning Approach “The Capital Facilities planning approach is to manage growth in a manner that enhances rather than detracts from community quality and values by actively coordinating land use type and intensity with City facility and service development and provision.” Objectives and Policies “Objective 1.1. Ensure that new development does not outpace the City’s ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations that can support the public services they require.” Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 25 of 28 “Policy CF-3. Development shall be allowed only when and where such development can be adequately served by public services (police and fire) without reducing the level of service elsewhere.” Volume 6 – Economic Development Element Planning Approach “To ensure the long-term economic health of the City and the region through a diversified economic base that supports a wide range of employment opportunities for Auburn’s residents and those of the region, and through the promotion of quality industrial and commercial development that matches the aspirations of the community.” “Objective 9.1. Promote a diversified economic base capable of withstanding changes in interest rates, inflation, tax structure and market conditions.” “Policy ED-3. The importance of downtown Auburn as unique retail environment and subregional center of commerce should be considered in the City’s economic plan.” The purpose of the City’s Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent as required by the following city code provision: “ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency. The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the comprehensive plan. The City code provides certain criteria for decision-making for comprehensive plan amendments as follows: “ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 26 of 28 between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.” Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Rezone Related – Conclusions City Staff completed an analysis of the proposal and criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map under ACC 14.22.110 and the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map under ACC 18.23.020. This evaluation can be found in the complete CPM #3 – Auburn Dairy Staff Report found in the ‘Staff Reports/Presentations’ tab in the ‘Working Binder’. Planning Commission Recommendation At the October 17, 2023 Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Auburn Dairy Products, Inc. (CPA23- 0002) request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to change the map designation of six parcels, King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125 from Downtown Urban Center to Light Industrial and to rezone (REZ23-0004) Parcel No. 3915000085 from “Downtown Urban Center” to “M-1, Light Industrial” and rezone Parcel Nos. 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125 from “R-20, Twenty Dwelling Units per Acre” to “M-1, Light Industrial” zoning district. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In accordance with Auburn City Code 18.68.060 Contract Rezone. “In order to mitigate any impacts that may result from a rezone the city may enter into a contract with the property owner. The contract shall outline the conditions of approval and the obligations of the property owner. The contract shall be binding upon the owner and the owner’s heirs, assigns and successors, and the contract shall run with the land. The Conditions of Approval below are recommendations from Planning Commission heard at the October 17, 2023 meeting. These Conditions have been revised from the Planning Commission October 17, 2023 Staff Report found in the ‘Working Binder’ and should be reflected in City Council’s decision as Planning Commission recommendations. Zoning Development Standards Conditions 1. Due to the proximity of residences, residential zoning, and location within the Downtown Urban Center comprehensive plan designation certain uses allowed by Auburn City Code 18.23.030 in the “M-1, Light Industrial” zoning district shall be prohibited for the four parcels identified by King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, and 3915000125. The prohibited uses are as follows: INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING, WHOLESALING a. Building contractor, heavy b. Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – Medium intensity c. Marijuana processor Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 27 of 28 d. Marijuana producer e. Marijuana researcher f. Marijuana retailer g. Marijuana transporter h. Outdoor storage i. Warehousing and distribution requiring frequent deliveries (more than once a day) or deliveries by commercial vehicles or vehicles not licensed to operate on public streets RECREATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES j. Commercial recreation facility, outdoor k. Religious institutions, lot size more than one acre l. Sexually oriented businesses m. Sports and entertainment assembly facility RETAIL n. Building and landscape materials sales o. Construction and heavy equipment sales and rental p. Drive-through espresso stands q. Drive-through facility, including banks and restaurants r. Nursery s. Outdoor displays and sales associated with a permitted use (auto/vehicle sales not included in this category) t. Tavern SERVICES u. Outdoor equipment rental and leasing TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE v. Ambulance, taxi, and specialized transportation facility w. Heliport x. Towing storage yard VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICES y. Automobile washes (automatic, full or self service) z. Auto parts sales with installation services aa. Auto/vehicle sales and rental bb. Fueling station cc. Mobile home, boat, or RV sales dd. Vehicle services – Repair/body work OTHER ee. Any commercial use abutting a residential zone which has hours of operation outside of the following: Sunday 9:00 a.am. to 10:00 p.m. or Monday – Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2. For the four parcels identified by King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, and 3915000125, the front, side interior, and rear setbacks for new structures shall comply with the standards of the Downtown Urban Center zoning district. 3. For the four parcels identified by King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, and 3915000125, landscaping shall be provided as defined in the Downtown Auburn Design Standards (ACC 18.29.060.J). Staff Member: Tate Ordinance No. 6922 – Exhibit A Date: November 2, 2023 Page 28 of 28 Architectural and Site Design Related Conditions 4. For the four parcels identified by King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125, new development shall comply with all City of Auburn Downtown Urban Center Architectural and Site Design Standards, adopted 2/12/07 with revision effective 09/20/21 and ACC 18.31.200, ‘Architectural and Site Design Review Standards and Regulations, except for the standards listed as follows: a. A parking structure is not required, and parking shall be located over, under, behind, or to the side of principal buildings (Site Design Standard 1.A.1). b. A public plaza is not required (Site Design Standard 4.). c. Access to rooftops provided to the City which allows the installation of devices for wireless coverage and maintenance of said devices, is not required (Building Design Standard 8.B.). d. Installation of outdoor speaker systems and AM receiver is not required (Building Design Standard 8.C.). e. Along Pedestrian 1 Streets, ground floor uses that face the sidewalk shall be human-scale, active uses that create visual interest for pedestrians. Examples include breakrooms, lobbies, office spaces, etc. (Pedestrian Street Standard 1.A.). f. Twenty-five (25) foot-wide storefronts along Main Street, doors and windows reflecting the historic Main Street are not required (Pedestrian Street Standard 3.C.). Revised 11-2-23 Page 1 Overview of Contents 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Working Binder 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Schedule, dated 11-2-2023 2023 Comprehensive Plan Docket (spreadsheet listing) Tab: Staff Reports/Presentations: a. Staff Report of City-initiated Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, dated September 1, 2023 (CPA23-0003, CPA23- 0004) b. Staff Report for City-Initiated “Bridges” (Annexation) amendment, dated October 27, 2023 (CPA23-0004, CPM #1) c. Staff Report for Private-Initiated “MultiCare Site” amendment, dated October 2, 2023 (CPA23-0001, CPM #2) d. Staff Report for Private-Initiated “Auburn Dairy” amendment, dated October 2, 2023 (CPA23-0002, CPM #3) e. Memorandum for Planning Commission meeting 7-18-23 describing overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments dated 7-11-23 f. Memorandum for Planning Commission meeting 10-3-23 describing overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments dated 9-8-23 g. Memorandum for Planning Commission meeting 10-17-23 describing overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments dated 10-17-23 h. Staff presentation to Planning Commission on 7-18-23 providing overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments i. Staff presentation to Planning Commission on 10-3-23 providing overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Revised 11-2-23 Page 2 j. Staff presentation to Planning Commission on 10-17-23 providing overview of Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Public Hearing k. Staff presentation to Planning Commission on 11-7-23 for continuation of 10-17-2023 Public Hearing related to “Bridges” (Annexation) (File No. CPA23-0004) Tab: Environmental Review: a) Notice of Application and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for City-initiated amendments (File No. SEP23-0029) b) (SEPA) Completed Environmental Checklist Application for City-Initiated amendments (File No. SEP23-0029) c) Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) for City-Initiated amendments (File No. SEP23-0029) Tab: General Information & Correspondence a. Agency Correspondence i. Washington State Dept. of Commerce acknowledgement of receipt of proposed 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments to WA State Dept. of Commerce for review (File No. CPA23-0001, CPA23-0002, CPA23-0003, CPA23- 0004). ii. Washington State Dept. of Ecology acknowledgement of receipt of proposed 2023 City-Initiated Annual Comprehensive Plan (File No. CPA23-0003, CPA23-0004). b. Notice of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Notice of Application and Determination of Non-Significance i. Affidavit of Publication - Seattle Times Newspaper Ad for City-initiated amendments c. Notice of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Noice of Public Hearing i. Affidavit of Publication - Seattle Times Newspaper Ad for City-initiated amendments Tab: City-Initiated Comp Plan Policy/Text Amendments P/T #1 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN i. Cover letter describing impact fee rates Revised 11-2-23 Page 3 ii. Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023 thru 2029 iii. (SEPA) Environmental Checklist Application iv. Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) P/T #2 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN i.Cover letter describing impact fee rates ii.Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 iii.(SEPA) Environmental Checklist Application iv.Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) P/T #3 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN i.Memorandum to Planning Commission for Public Hearing ii.Cover letter describing impact fee rates iii.Federal Way Public Schools Capital Facilities Plan 2024 iv.(SEPA) Environmental Checklist Application v.Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) P/T #4 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN i. Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022/2023 through 2028/2029 ii. (SEPA) Environmental Checklist Application iii. Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) Tab: City-Initiated Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPM#1 (CPA23-0004): “Bridges” (Annexation) Volume 1: Land Use Element. This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map and text to incorporate the proposed City-initiated “Bridges” (Annexation) map amendment. i. Staff Memorandum on “Bridges” (Annexation) dated August 31, 2023 ii. Staff Memorandum on “Bridges” (Annexation) dated October 10, 2023 iii. Staff Supplemental Memorandum on “Bridges” (Annexation) dated October 23, 2023 iv. Proposed Land Use Map and Amendment v. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment vi. Proposed Zoning Text Amendment vii. Affidavit of Mailing Revised 11-2-23 Page 4 viii. Affidavit of Posting Tab: Private-Initiated Comp. Plan Map Amendments CPM#2 (CPA23-001): MultiCare Site Amendment Volume 1: Land Use Element. This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map to incorporate the proposed Private-initiated MultiCare map amendment. i. Staff Memorandum on MultiCare Site ii. Existing and Proposed Land Use Map Amendment iii. Existing and Proposed Zoning Map Amendment iv. Completed CPA and REZ Application v. SEPA Environmental Checklist Application vi. Combined Notice of Application and Determination of Non- Significance vii. Notice of Public Hearing viii. Affidavits of Publication, Mailing, and Posting CPM#3 (CPA23-002): Auburn Dairy Amendment Volume 1: Land Use Element. This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map to incorporate the proposed Private-initiated Auburn Dairy map amendment. i. Staff Memorandum on Auburn Dairy Site dated September 1, 2023 ii. Staff Supplemental Memorandum on Auburn Dairy Site dated October 17, 2023 iii. Existing and Proposed Land Use Map Amendment iv. Existing and Proposed Zoning Map Amendment v. Applicant Written Narrative vi. SEPA Environmental Checklist vii. Notice of Hearing and Determination of Non-Significance viii. Confirmation of Noticing ix. Affidavit of Publication x. Auburn Dairy Traffic Impact Analysis City of Auburn 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposed Schedule Page 1 of 1 Revised 11/2/2023 7-18-23 10-3-23 10-17-23 11-7-23 11-13-23 11-20-23 11-27-23 12-4-23 12-18-22 Planning Commission (PC) Regular Meeting Planning Commission Regular Meeting Planning Commission Extra Meeting Planning Commission Regular Meeting City Council Study Session City Council Regular Meeting City Council Study Session City Council Regular Meeting City Council Regular Meeting City-initiated Text Amendments CPA23-0004 • School district CFP’s P/T #1-4 City-initiated Map Amendments CPA23-0003 • Land Use Map CPM #1 Private-initiated Map Amendments CPA23-0001, CPA23-0002 • Land Use Map CPM #2 CPM #3 Introduction to 2023 Comp Plan Amendment docket Briefing on 2023 Comp Plan amendments Conduct Public Hearing #1 Suggested agenda order: School District Amendments (SD staff, if present) City Staff briefing on City-Initiated Amendments City Staff briefing on Private- Initiated Amendments Continue Public Hearing for CPA23-0003 Discussion of PC recommendation. Council Action Continued discussion of PC recommendation, if needed. Council Action, if needed Council Action, if needed Item Page(s)Area to be changed Change Reason Pros Cons Comments P/T # 1 Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Volume 3: Capital Facilities Element (District document is incorporated by reference on Page CF-2). N/A Incorporate updated information Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development activity and projection of student levels. None The Auburn School District Board of Directors adopted the CFP on June 12, 2023. P/T # 2 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan Volume 3: Capital Facilities Element (District document is incorporated by reference on Page CF-2). N/A Incorporate updated information Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development activity and projection of student levels. None The Dieringer School District Board of Directors adopted the CFP on June 20, 2023. P/T # 3 Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan Volume 3: Capital Facilities Element (District document is incorporated by reference on Page CF-2). N/A Incorporate updated information Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development and projection of student levels. None The Federal Way Public School's Board of Education published the CFP on June 27, 2023. P/T # 4 Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan Volume 3: Capital Facilities Element (District document is incorporated by reference on Page CF-2). N/A Incorporate updated information Reflect new projects and remove projects that have been completed as well as updated information related to development activity and projection of student levels. None The Kent School Board published the CFP in June 2023. 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS DOCKET CITY INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS CPA23-0003 9/8/2023 1 CPM #Page Area to be changed Potential change Reason Pros Cons Comments Corresponding Zoning Map Change CPM #1 Map Section Comprehensive Plan Map #1.1 Revise Land Use Element to establish Comprehensive Plan map designations of "Single Family Residential" and concurrent zoning of "R-1, and R-5 Residential" and establish "Moderate Density Residential" and establish concurrent zoning of R-10, Residential" for this future annexation area. CPA23-0004 Create consistency between Land Use Plan & Map and Zoning maps for a mostly developed area, known as "The Bridges" surrounded by Auburn to become part of the City of Auburn. Create consistency between Land Use Plan & Map and Zoning maps for a mostly developed area, known as "The Bridges" surrounded by Auburn to become part of the City of Auburn. None. Concurrent zoning of "R-1 and R-5 Residential" and estblish "Moderate Density Residential" and establish concurrent zoning of R-10, Residential" for this futue annexation area. Yes, establish Comprehensve Plan map designations of "Single Family Residential" and concurrent zoning of "R-1, and R-5 Residential" and establish "Moderate Density Residential" and establish concurrent zoning of R-10, Residential" for this futue annexation area. CPM #Page Area to be changed Potential change Reason Pros Cons Comments Corresponding Zoning Map Change CPM #2 Map Section Comprehensive Plan Map #1.1 BCRA Design, acting as Agent on behalf of MultiCare Health Systems, property owner, submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and associated Rezone. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Land Use Designation of five contiguous parcels of land totaling approximately 2.27 acres to “Public/Quasi-Public” and a zoning map amendment or rezone of the properties to the P-1, Public Use District. No Comprehensive Plan policy/text wording is proposed to be updated. The purpose of this rezone request is to prepare for anticipated sale and development of the site for city services use. Create consistency between Land Use Plan & Map and Zoning maps. Create consistency between Land Use Plan & Map and Zoning maps. None Yes. Change Comprehensive Plan map designation of "Single Family Residential" and "Light Commercial" to "Public/Quasi-Public." CPM #3 Map Section Comprehensive Plan Map #1.1 Request by Chris Ferko, Director of Planning Services, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc. on behalf of Auburn Dairy Products Inc. to change the comprehensive plan designation six parcels totaling approximately 3.11 acres near W. Main Street & G Street SW from “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial” Comprehensive Plan map designation. The action also includes an associated zoning map amendment (rezone) for the eastern four of the six parcels representing approximately 0.67 acres from current classifications of DUC, Downtown Urban Center and R-20, Residential 20 dwelling units per acre zoning districts. The zoning is proposed to change to M-1, Light Industrial zoning district as a contract rezone where certain land use and architectural & site design conditions are applied. Create consistency between Land Use Plan & Map and Zoning maps. Create consistency between Land Use Plan & Map and Zoning maps. None Yes. Change Comprehensive Plan map designation of "Downtown Urban Centerl" to "Light Industrial." CITY INITIATED MAP AMENDMENTS CPA23-0004 PRIVATE INITIATED MAP AMENDMENTS CPA23-0001, CPA23-0002 STAFF REPORTS/PRESENTATIONS 24 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Subject/Title: CPA23-0001, CPA23-0002, CPA23-0003, CPA23-0004, 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Specifically, City Initiated Plan Policy/Text & Map Amendments Date: September 1, 2023 Department: Community Development Budget Impact: Current Budget: $0 Proposed Revision: $0 Revised Budget: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and recommend to City Council approval of the 2023 City-Initiated and Private-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Policy/Text & Map Amendments). Background Summary: The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then, the Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually. At the end of 2015, the City adopted a substantially updated Comprehensive Plan in compliance with state-required periodic updates. Annual Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by private parties (private-initiated). This year the city is initiating: • Four policy/text amendments • One map amendment This year private parties submitted applications and are initiating: • Two map amendments This staff report and recommendation addresses the city-initiated and private-initiated amendments and specifically: • Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 1 through # 4, and; • Map (CPM) Amendment CPM # 1-3. In terms of process, the Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs but is not required prior to the end of the year. Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 8, 2023 Page 2 of 8 A. Findings 1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law and City Code, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city legislative body no more frequently than once per year. 2. The City of Auburn established a June 2, 2023 deadline for the submittal of private initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the public of the application submittal deadline was provided on the City’s website. 3. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four (4) school district Capital Facilities Plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These Capital Facilities Plans are proposed to be incorporated by reference in the current Capital Facilities Element (Volume 3), of the current Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments. 4. The environmental review decision under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the school district capital facilities plans were prepared separately by each school district acting as their own lead agency, as allowed by State law (State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)). 5. The environmental review decision under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the private-initiated amendments were prepared separately by city staff with the City acting as the lead agency, as allowed by State law (State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)). See appropriate section of the working binder. 6. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the remaining city-initiated policy/text and map amendments, resulted in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on September 7, 2023 (City File # SEP23-0029). The comment period will end at 5:00 p.m. September 22, 2023 and the appeal period will end at 5:00 p.m. October 6, 2023. A copy of the DNS and environmental checklist application is provided in the working binder behind the “Environmental Review” tab. 7. Auburn City Code (ACC) Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of privately- initiated amendments and the general processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows: “Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 8, 2023 Page 3 of 8 b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area-wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)” 8. As provided in the City code, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action which generally occurs, but is not required to, prior to the end of the year. 9. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state agencies for the required state review. The Washington State Department of Commerce acknowledged receipt on September 1, 2023, by Submittal ID: # 2023-S-6408. No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. A copy of the transmittal and acknowledgement is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information & Correspondence” tab. 10. The notice of Determination of Non-Significance was published on September 7, 2023, and notice Public Hearing is to be published on October 6, 2023 in the Seattle Times Newspaper and on the city website which is at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 17, 2023. A copy of the Determination of Non-Significance request to publish is provided in the working binder behind the “General Information & Correspondence” tab. Since there are no city initiated site-specific map changes, only city- wide map changes, the site-specific noticing by mailing by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet was not conducted. Private-initiated site-specific Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 8, 2023 Page 4 of 8 noticing by mailing by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet was conducted. 11.The following report identifies Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) and Map (CPM) amendments scheduled for the Planning Commission’s October 17, 2023 public hearing with a staff recommendation. Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments (File No. CPA23-0003, CPA23-0004, City initiated) P/T #1 Incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023 through 2029 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2023-2029. The CFP was prepared by the District staff and adopted by the Auburn School District School Board of Directors on June 12, 2023 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: •Six–year enrollment projections •Auburn school district level of service standards •An inventory of existing facilities •The district’s overall capacity of the 6-year period •District capital construction Plan •Impact fee calculations A review of the Auburn School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is requesting a decrease in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be $5,957.02, a decrease of $2,005.59 and the requested fee for multiple-family dwellings is $9,913.64, an increase of $0.82. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023 through 2029 to the City Council. P/T#2 Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 into the City of Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 8, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2023 - 2029. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors on June 20, 2023. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: •Overview •An inventory of existing facilities •Six–year enrollment projections •Standard of service •Capacity projects •Finance plan •Impact fee calculations A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District has calculated an increase in fees compared to those currently adopted. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is $8,054, an increase of $1,887; and the fee for multiple family dwellings is $3,400, an increase of $1,340. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2039 to the City Council. P/T #3 Incorporate the Federal Way School District 2024 Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan 2024. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board June 27, 2023. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: •Introduction Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 8, 2023 Page 6 of 8 •Inventory of educational facilities & non-instructional facilities •Needs forecast, existing & new facilities •Six–year finance plan •Maps of district boundaries •Building capacities & portable locations •Student forecast •Capacity summaries •Student forecasts •Impact fee calculations A review of the Federal Way School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is not requesting to retain the $0 impact fee for single-single family development and increase the multiple family dwellings impact fee to $6,998, an increase of $6,998. Federal Way Public Schools requested to not adopt school impact fees for 2023. The actual impact fees are established by ordinance through subsequent City Council action. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Federal Way School District’s 2024 Capital Facilities Plan to the City Council. P/T #4 Incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is provided in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Policy/Text Amendments” tab. Discussion The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board in June 2023 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the District. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: •Executive Summary •Six-year enrollment projection & history •District standard of service •Inventory, capacity & maps of existing schools •Six-year planning & construction plan •Portable classrooms •Projected classroom capacity •Finance Plan, cost basis and impact fee schedules •Summary of changes to previous plan A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 8, 2023 Page 7 of 8 District is not requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is proposed to be maintained at $0, and the fee for multi- family dwellings is proposed to be maintained at $0. The District notes in the Capital Facilities Plan impact fees are not proposed in 2024 based on revised student generation rates, and capacity and enrollment projections. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 to the City Council. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments (File No. CPA23-0004, City-initiated map changes) CPM #1 This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map and text. The changes are shown in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab. Discussion Comprehensive Land Use Map to be updated to reflect annexation of the area from the city of Kent for an approximately 155-acre area commonly known as The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave SE, SE 304th ST, and 118th Ave SE. Staff is proposing to establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the site where there were previously none. Changes will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges zoning Overlay , which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. Zoning map and text amendments are proposed to be processed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of map amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Map and Zoning map and related zoning updates. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments (File No. CPA23-0001, CPA23-0002, Private- initiated map changes) CPM #2 This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map. The changes are shown in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab. Staff Member: Steiner Date: September 8, 2023 Page 8 of 8 Discussion BCRA Design, acting as Agent on behalf of MultiCare Health Systems, property owner, submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and associated Rezone. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Land Use Designation of five contiguous parcels of land totaling approximately 2.27 acres to “Public/Quasi-Public” and a zoning map amendment or rezone of the properties to the P-1, Public Use District. No Comprehensive Plan policy/text wording is proposed to be updated. The purpose of this rezone request is to prepare for anticipated sale and development of the site for city services use. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of map amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Map and Zoning map. CPM #3 This proposed amendment updates the Comprehensive Land Use Map and related zoning map. This is consistent and in conjunction with P/T #6. The changes are shown in the working binder behind the “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab. Discussion Request by Chris Ferko, Director of Planning Services, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc. on behalf of Auburn Dairy Products Inc. to change the comprehensive plan designation six parcels totaling approximately 3.11 acres near W. Main Street & G Street SW from “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial” Comprehensive Plan map designation. The action also includes an associated zoning map amendment (rezone) for the eastern four of the six parcels representing approximately 0.67 acres from current classifications of DUC, Downtown Urban Center and R-20, Residential 20 dwelling units per acre zoning districts. The zoning is proposed to change to M-1, Light Industrial zoning district as a contract rezone where certain land use and architectural & site design conditions are applied. Recommendation Planning Commission to recommend approval of map amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Map and Zoning map. AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND: Agenda/Subject Title: City File No. CPA23-0004 (CPM#1) - Bridges Annexation Amendments Department: Community Development Date: October 27, 2023 Administrative Recommendation: Establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the site where there were previously none. Changes will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges zoning Overlay , which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. Notice of Application/SEPA DNS: September 7, 2023 Application Complete: September 3, 2023 Permit Application: August 9, 2023 File No. CPA23-0004 Applicant’s Representative: Alexandria D. Teague, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn 25 W Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 Applicant: Josh Steiner, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn 25 W Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 Property Owner: N/A Location: The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave. SE, SE 304th St., and 118th Ave. SE. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 27, 2023 Page 2 of 7 PROPOSAL: Adopt amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map (rezone), and zoning text for City-initiated application (City File No. CPA23-0004 (CPM #1)) to reflect annexation of the area from the city of Kent for a 155-acre area commonly known as The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave. SE, SE 304th St., and 118th Ave. SE. Staff is proposing to establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the area on Lea Hill known as the “Bridges”. Changes will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment of “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges zoning Overlay, which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. Zoning map and text amendments are proposed to be processed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments. FINDINGS OF FACT: Background Summary and Proposal: 1. Beginning in 2019, the cities of Kent and Auburn determined that it is advantageous to both cities that the area located on Lea Hill known as the “Bridges” to be annexed to Auburn. The Bridges area is an approximately 155-acre area island of incorporated city of Kent surrounded completely by the city of Auburn. The Bridges area is already mostly subdivided into single family residential lots of varying sizes. The southeast portion of the Bridges area contains four “future development tracts”. 2. As part of the process of annexation by Auburn and de-annexation Kent, the cities have committed to coordinate and cooperate with respect to any emergency services, utilities, transportation, planning, and development issues affected by the annexation. 3. The City’s Zoning Code (Title 18) provides Auburn the authority to establish zoning and land use designations for all lands within the City. Specifically, per ACC 18.02.100 prior to any parcel of land being annexed to the city, properties can be rezoned to an Auburn zoning classification and the Comprehensive Plan (Map) can be amended to reflect the future annexation area. In preparation of the annexation effective date, staff has analyzed which land use designations and zoning classifications are appropriate for the Bridges area. 4. Generally, all land within a City is assigned a land use designation and is divided into zoning districts. 5. The Bridges area was developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) by a single developer using Kent standards and code provisions. 6. Upon annexation, the Bridges area is proposed to adopt Auburn comprehensive plan land use designations and Auburn zoning classifications (also known as zones or zoning districts). 7. Under Kent’s jurisdiction the Bridges area features two land use designations. The northern portion of the Bridges area (approx. 63 acres) is currently designated “Single Family 3 Units Per Acre (SF-3)” and the southern portion (approx. 92 acres) is designated “Urban Separator”. The SF-3 designation allows densities of up to three dwelling units per acre and implemented by the SR-3 zoning district. The Urban Separator designation is implemented by Kent’s SR-1 zoning district. 8. Staff is proposing to designate the majority of the Bridges area to Auburn’s “Single-Family Residential Designation”. The Single-Family Land Use Designation is the predominant land use category in the city and accommodates interconnected subdivisions, neighborhoods, and communities that have a mix of lower density housing types. This designation is Staff Member: Teague Date: October 27, 2023 Page 3 of 7 appropriate for previously the developed single-family residential areas in Bridges. Staff is proposing to designate these tracts as “Moderate Density Residential”. 9. Staff is proposing to rezone the area into three Auburn zoning districts. The developed northern portion, currently zoned SR-3 under Kent’s zoning, will be zoned “R-5, Residential 5 dwelling units per acre”. The southern developed portion, currently zoned SR-1 under Kent’s zoning, will be zoned “R-1, Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre”. Both the R-1 and R-5 zoning districts implement Auburn’s “Single Family Residential” land use designation. The four “future development tracts” located in the southeast portion of Bridges are proposed to be zoned “R-10, Residential 10 dwelling units per acre”. 10. To accommodate the Kent standards and approvals by which the Bridges area was developed, staff is proposing a zoning overlay, and will be herein referenced as the “Bridges Overlay”. The intent of the zoning overlay is to adopt the development standards under which the PUD was developed. 11. In conjunction with the proposed Bridges Overlay, Staff is proposing a new section, ACC 18.21.040, of code within Chapter 18.21 “Overlays” of the Auburn City Code. This new section of code will contain the zoning development standards under which the Bridges PUD was developed. 12. Following annexation, the four future development tracts will be developed under Auburn’s jurisdiction. This future development will require Auburn permit applications (building, architectural and site design review, civil, and utilities) as well as an environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The future processing of these applications will necessitate observance of future public comment periods. 13. The proposed comprehensive plan land use map amendment, zoning map amendment, and zoning text amendment has been discussed with the Planning Commission previously at the October 3, 2023 regular meeting, the October 17, 2023 special meeting, and at the November 7, 2023 regular meeting. Staff has provided three memorandums and presentations as follows: a. At the October 3rd meeting staff introduced the comprehensive plan land use map, zoning map, and text amendment to the Planning Commission. b. Following the Oct. 3rd meeting staff provided a supplemental memo addressing commissioner’s concerns and questions regarding changing the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning classification of the project including four “future development tracts” (Tracts LLL, MMM, NNN, and OOO) shown on the Bridges PUD Plat Map. Staff addressed four main issues in the supplemental memo including: 1) impacts to wetlands and associated buffers, 2) opportunity to provide public comment, 3) impacts to services and impact fees, and 4) increased density in the surrounding area. c. At the Oct. 17th special meeting staff provided a presentation of the proposed amendment. Commissioners asked questions regarding opportunities for the public to comment on the proposed amendments. By the date of the public hearing on Oct. 17th no comment public had been received. After staff’s presentation a public hearing was held. Following close of the public hearing, the planning commission a recommendation to City Council was provided. d. At the Nov. 7th regular meeting, staff requested that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing to allow the opportunity to accept public comment by the Commission in response to staff providing additional noticing methods prior to the hearing. Following another presentation by staff, in which the additional noticing methods and public comment were discussed, Planning Commission reopened the public hearing. Following close of the public hearing a recommendation to City Council was provided by the Commission. Staff Member: Teague Date: October 27, 2023 Page 4 of 7 Procedural Steps: 1. Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A, the text and map amendment were transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on September 1, 2023. The 60-day notice period ends October 31, 2023. 2. A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) non-project environmental checklist was prepared that evaluates the environmental impacts of the map and text amendments. 3. A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), City File No. SEP23-0029, was issued on September 22, 2023, and the City observed a fourteen-day public comment period, which expired on October 6, 2023. No comments were received. 4. A Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) was issued on October 3, 2023. Pursuant to Chapter 14.22 ACC, the following methods of noticing for the Planning Commission public hearing were conducted: a. The NOH was published in the Seattle Times on October 3, 2023. b. The NOH was posted in two conspicuous locations public locations (City Hall and the City Annex). The notice was also posted to the City’s Public Land Use Notice webpage). 5. A supplemental Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) was issued on October 24, 2023 for the November 7, 2023 meeting. Pursuant to Chapter 14.22 ACC, the following methods of noticing for the Planning Commission public hearing were conducted: a. The NOH was published in the Seattle Times on October 24, 2023. b. The NOH was mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment. c. The NOH was mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the proposed map amendment request. d. The Notice was posted in four conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment (City Hall, City Annex, one notice board at the Bridges entrance off of 124th Ave. SE, and one notice board near the intersection of SE 304th St. and 124th Ave. SE). The notice was also posted to the City’s Public Land Use Notice webpage). DECISION CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS: The City Code provides certain criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map under ACC 14.22.110. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis. 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Staff Analysis: City of Auburn staff are proposing comprehensive plan and zoning amendments in preparation of annexation by the City of Auburn so that there are land use controls in place upon effective date of annexation. The application of a land use designation and classification prior to annexation will help ensure an orderly transition of the Bridges area into the City. This is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy No LU-128 (provided below in italics). LU-128 Prior to annexation, develop strategies and agreements that address the orderly transition of areas into the City such as transfer of permit authority, infrastructure financing, financing of fire and police services, and interim development regulations. 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; Staff Member: Teague Date: October 27, 2023 Page 5 of 7 Staff Analysis: Resolution No. 5736, adopted on September 18, 2023, is an initiating action the triggers several procedures and actions designed to achieve an annexation of the Bridges area on Lea Hill into the City of Auburn by an effective date of January 1, 2024. Per the resolution, both cities have committed to coordinate and cooperate with respect to any emergency services, planning, utilities, transportation or development issues that may arise subsequent to Auburn' s annexation of the Bridges and acquisition of ownership of the roads, bridges, and rights-of-way within Bridges. Also, the jurisdictions have coordinated Valley Regional Fire Authority (VRFA). The required process by the Washington State Boundary Review Board (BRB) for King County prior to annexation will provide additional opportunity for coordination and address concerns of utility providers and special purpose districts. 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; Staff Analysis: This provision is not applicable since the Bridges as part of the City of Kent has not previously been addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. Upon annexation it is necessary to adopt a city of Auburn land use designation and zoning classification for the Bridges annexation area and this is addressed in Item 1 above. 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; Staff Analysis: The annexation of the Bridges area of Lea Hill into the City of Auburn is a change in conditions. Annexation necessitates the adoption of a City of Auburn land use designation and zoning classification for the Bridges area. 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2050: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region; Staff Analysis: Annexations are authorized and codified under Washington State Law. Specifically, RCW 35.10.217( 2) authorizes the legislative body of a city that desires to annex all or part of another, second city to initiate the annexation process by adopting a resolution indicating that desire and transmitting a copy of the resolution to the other city. The annexation will be effective upon the Kent City Council' s adoption of a resolution concurring in the annexation, which may not be adopted until the proposed annexation has been approved by the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. Staff from both cities have worked on the preparation of the 1) initiating resolution and Interlocal Agreement (ILA), which defines details between the two cities for how assets will be managed and transferred (e.g. roads and utilities), how to manage open permits and code, and 2) preparation of a Boundary Review Board (BRB) application. 6. If the request is to change the land use designation of a specific property on the comprehensive land use map, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; Staff Member: Teague Date: October 27, 2023 Page 6 of 7 c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Staff Analysis: Consistent with ACC 14.22.110(A)(6)(c), the annexation of the Bridges area of Lea Hill into the City of Auburn is a change in conditions (Option C). Annexation necessitates the adoption of a City of Auburn land use designation and zoning classification for the Bridges area. DECISION CRITERIA FOR REZONES: The City Code provides criteria for amending the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map under ACC 18.68.040. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis. A. The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan; or Staff Analysis: City of Auburn staff are proposing comprehensive plan and zoning amendments in preparation of annexation so that there are land use controls in place upon annexation. The application of a designation and classification prior to annexation will help ensure an orderly transition of the Bridges area into the City. This is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy No LU-128 (provided below in italics). LU-128 Prior to annexation, develop strategies and agreements that address the orderly transition of areas into the City such as transfer of permit authority, infrastructure financing, financing of fire and police services, and interim development regulations. B. The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning; and Staff Analysis: The annexation of the Bridges area of Lea Hill into the City of Auburn is a change in conditions. Annexation necessitates the adoption of a city of Auburn land use designation and zoning classification for the Bridges area. C. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff Analysis: Representatives of the cities of Kent and Auburn have worked cooperatively together and have determined that it is advantageous to both cities for the Bridges aera to be annexed into the city of Auburn. Both cities have committed to coordinate and cooperate with respect to any emergency services, planning, utilities, transportation or development issues that may arise subsequent to Auburn' s annexation of the Bridges and acquisition of ownership of the roads, bridges, and rights-of-way within the Bridges. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the Bridges site where City of Auburn land use did not apply prior to annexation. Amendments will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges Zoning Overlay , which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Member: Teague Date: October 27, 2023 Page 7 of 7 Exhibit A – Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment Exhibit B – Proposed Comprehensive Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit C – Proposed Text Amendment to Chapter 18.21 ACC “Overlays” AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Subject/Title: CPA23-0001, MultiCare Site Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone Date: October 2, 2023 Department: Community Development Budget Impact: Current Budget: $0 Proposed Revision: $0 Revised Budget: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and recommend to City Council approval of MultiCare Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendment and Rezone. APPLICANTS/OWNERS: MultiCare Health Systems PO Box 5299 Tacoma, WA 98415 AGENT: BCRA Design Attn: Meghan Howey, Associate 2106 Pacific Ave, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 REQUEST: City File No. CPA23-0001 & REZ23-0003: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation of five contiguous parcels of land totaling approximately 2.27 acres from the current designations of “Single- Family” and “Light Commercial” to “Public/Quasi-Public” and amend the Comprehensive Zoning Map (Rezone) the five contiguous parcels from “R-7, Residential Seven Dwelling Units per Acre” and “C-1, Light Commercial” to “P-1, Public Use”. The map amendments are non-project actions. LOCATION: The proposal consists of five parcels (King County Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, 1921059140, 1921059160) located on the north side of 12th St. SE, approx. 350 west of Auburn Way S. EXISTING ZONING: Four of the five parcels are currently zoned “C-1, Light Commercial” (Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, 1921059140). The remaining parcel (no. 1921059160) is currently zoned “R-7, Residential 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre”. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Four of the five parcels currently have a land use designation of “Light Commercial” (Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 2 of 14 1921059088, 1921059140). The remaining parcel (no. 1921059160) located to the west currently has a land use designation of “Single Family Residential”. SEPA STATUS: A application was received on May 6, 2023. A SEPA Environmental Checklist – Non Project Action, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Exhibit and Rezone Exhibit were submitted and reviewed with the application. A DNS was issued on August 16, 2023, with the appeal period expiring on September 14, 2023. GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant, Meghan Howey of BCRA Design, representing MultiCare Health Systems, submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment (Comprehensive Plan map amendment) (File No. CPA23-0001) and a related Comprehensive Zoning Map amendment (Rezone) (File No. REZ23-0003). More specifically, the applications request a change in the designation of five contiguous parcels of land totaling approximately 2.27 (the “subject site”) acres from the current designations of “Single-Family” and “Light Commercial” to “Public/Quasi-Public” and rezone the site from “R- 7, Residential Seven Dwelling Units per Acre” and “C-1, Light Commercial” to “P-1, Public Use”. The Applicant identifies that this is a non-project action. 2. The subject site is located on the north side of 12th St. SE and to the west of Auburn Way S, the properties are southwest of the Les Gove Park Campus. The total site area is 2.27 acres or 98,675 sq ft. and is flat, sparsely vegetated, and mostly undeveloped. Parcel no.1921059111 contains an approximately 12,760 sq ft. single-story medical office building and an associated parking lot, parcel no. 1921059140 to the north contains an additional parking lot to support the medical building. On July 20, 2023, a Demolition Permit was issued for the medical building on site (File No. DEM22-0027). 3. The subject site, comprised of five parcels, is located on the north side of 12th St. SE and approximately 350 west of Auburn Way S. The parcels are identified as King County Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, 1921059140, 1921059160. 4. The site is bordered to the northeast by Auburn Way S, which is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation, serving as State Route 164, and classified by the City as a “Principle Arterial” street. South of the site is bordered by 12th St. SE, a public road classified as a “Residential Collector”. 5. The property is located within the King County portion of the City of Auburn. Records indicate the annexation of this and surrounding properties occurred in 1954. 6. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for the application by MultiCare Health Systems for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone was applied for under City File No. SEP23-0019 on May 26, 2023. The staff review was completed and a DNS was issued on August 16, 2023. The appeal period expired on September 14, 2023. Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 3 of 14 7. The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on October 4, 2023, which is at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 17, 2023. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on- site and on the city’s webpage. 8. The following report identifies a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone requested by MultiCare Health Systems scheduled for the Planning Commission’s October 17, 2023, public hearing with a staff recommendation. 9. As indicated by the Applicant’s narrative statement submitted with the application, the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and related rezone have been requested for the purpose of preparing for the anticipated sale and development of the site for city services use. 10. The current Comprehensive Plan land use designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are as follows: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Existing Land Use On- Site “Single-Family’ and “Light Commercial” R-7, Residential 7 Dwelling Units per Acre and C-1, Light Commercial Medical Office Building North “Light Commercial” C-1, Light Commercial Commercial Building South “Single-Family” and “Light Commercial” R-7, Residential 7 Dwelling Units per Acre and C-1, Light Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Center and Single-Family dwellings East “Heavy Commercial” and “Public/Quasi- Public” C-3, Heavy Commercial Commercial Gas Station West “Single Family” R-7, Residential 7 Dwelling Units per Acre Single-Family Dwelling Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 4 of 14 Vicinity Map with Site outlined: Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 5 of 14 Comprehensive Plan Related Findings 11. The Applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment application on May 31, 2023, before the year 2023 application submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments (June 1, 2023). 12. The City of Auburn first-adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended in 1995. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually each year since generally for housekeeping items and for capital facilities plan coordination. 13. The City of Auburn adopted a substantially revised Comprehensive Plan (including map amendments) in response to periodic updates required by the GMA by Ordinance No. 6584 on December 14, 2015. 14. City Code Section 14.22, “Comprehensive Plan” provides the city’s laws for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by private citizens (privately-initiated). 15. RCW 36.70A.130 (GMA) provides for annual amendments to locally adopted comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law, Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be considered by the city or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year. The annual limitation and exceptions are also restated in city code at ACC 14.22.060. 16. The City of Auburn established a June 5, 2023, submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments for the year 2023 (map or policy/text amendments). Notice to the public of the application filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, publication of a legal notice the Seattle Times Newspaper, and sent to a notification list of potentially interested parties. 17. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22, “Comprehensive Plan”, outlines the process for submittal of private initiated amendments and the processing of Comprehensive Plan amendments as follows: “Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area-wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 6 of 14 b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)” 18. Per Chapter 14.22 Auburn City Code (“ACC”), privately-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall have at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission who then forward on a recommendation to the City Council. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs, but is not required, prior to the end of the year. 19. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review (Submittal ID: 2023-S-6408). No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. 20. Due to the scope and limited number of privately initiated policy/text changes, the optional process as provided in the city code for a public open house was not conducted. Zoning Code Related Findings 1. In June 2018 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6655 which allows the Planning Commission and City Council to consider associated map changes (for Comprehensive Plan map amendments and rezones), concurrently. This eliminates the need for the Hearing Examiner to subsequently consider and conduct a public hearing for a rezone application when it is related to a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. I 2. Chapter 18.68 ACC Amendments outlines the process for submittal of privately-initiated zoning amendments and the general processing. Per ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(b), when the Planning Commission is considering a rezone which requires a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, the public hearings shall be conducted concurrently and a recommendation on both shall be forwarded to the City Council. Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 7 of 14 3. The intent of the P-1, Public Use Zone (P-1 zone) is “…intended to provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community.” The “Public/Quasi-Public” Comprehensive Plan designation is the most closely related comprehensive plan land use designation to the P-1zone. Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments 1. The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policy guidance, as it relates to this application: Volume 1 – Land Use Element “Public and Institutional Land Use Designations” “Character Sketch” “Public and institutional uses will occur in both low and high-density environments. For passive uses, land and views will be protected; limited access to these areas will be typical. For more active uses, usability and accessibility will be key features and new development will be subject to standards reflecting programmed space and interconnectivity. These spaces will be varied in type, providing service to areas large and small, urban and more rural in character. Sustainable solutions and innovations that are responsive to the native ecology will be typical of public and institutional uses.” “General Policies” A general policy appropriate to this request is: “Policy LU-89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited.” “Public/Quasi-Public Designation” “Description” “This category includes those areas that are reserved for public or quasi-public uses. It is intended to include those of a significant extent, and not those smaller public uses that are consistent with and may be included in another designation. These public uses include public schools, developed parks, and uses of quasi-public character such as large churches and private schools. Public uses of an industrial character are included in the industrial designation, and small-scale religious institutions of a residential character are included in the residential designation. Streets, utilities, and other separate uses are not intended to be mapped separately as Public/Quasi-Public.” Designation Criteria 1. Previously developed institutional uses; or 2. Meets the development parameters of the Public/Quasi-Public designation. 3. Properties identified in the Airport Master Plan as Landing Field. Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 8 of 14 Public/Quasi-Public-related policy appropriate to this request are: “Policy LU-101 A responsible management entity and the purpose for the public/quasi- public designation should be identified for each property interest within this designation. Management policies and plans are appropriate for all lands in this designation.” “Policy LU-102 Appropriate uses for this designation include facilities that serve the needs of the larger community such as public schools, active parks, city operated municipal facilities, large churches, and fire stations.” “Policy LU-103 This designation permits a wide array of uses that tend to be located in the midst of other dissimilar uses. For this reason, the following must be considered of new requests for this designation: a. The impacts that the designation may have on the surrounding community. b. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to new requests for this designation that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community. c. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to development proposals that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community.” “Policy LU-104 Coordination with other public or institutional entities is essential in the implementation of this land use designation.” The Capital Facilities Element also contains objectives and policies relevant to the request, as follows: Volume 3 – Capital Facilities Element “Planning Approach” “The Capital Facilities planning approach is to manage growth in a manner that enhances rather than detracts from community quality and values by actively coordinating land use type and intensity with City facility and service development and provision.” “Objectives and Policies” “Objective 1.1. Ensure that new development does not outpace the City’s ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations that can support the public services they require.” “Policy CF-3. Development shall be allowed only when and where such development can be adequately served by public services (police and fire) without reducing the level of service elsewhere.” Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 9 of 14 “Objective 1.2. To ensure that new developments are supported by an adequate level of public services through an effective system of public facilities.” “Policy CF-10. Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility designed to serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this Comprehensive Plan.” “Objective 1.8. To site public and institutional buildings in accord with their service function and the needs of the members of the public served by the facility.” “Policy CF-63. Public and institutional facilities that attract a large number of visitors (City Hall, museums, libraries, educational facilities, permit and license offices, health and similar facilities, etc.) should be sited in areas that are accessible (within ¼ mile) by transit.” 2. The purpose of the City’s Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent as required by the following city code provision: “ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency. The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the comprehensive plan. “ 3. The City code provides certain criteria for decision-making for comprehensive plan amendments as follows: “ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments. A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 10 of 14 for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.” COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP RELATED – CONCLUSIONS The City Code provides certain criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map under ACC 14.22.110. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis. 1. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Staff analysis: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment is accompanied by a Site-Specific Rezone request. The proposed P-1, Public Use Zone is an implementing zoning designation of the “Public/Quasi Public” land use designation (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Page LU-14). As discussed above, the site subject to the proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment is adjacent to existing single-family, light commercial, and institutional properties. The subject sites designation is proposed to be changed to support the anticipated future sale and development of the site for city services use. The proposed change would increase the capacity for essential city and/or public services necessary to support the community and future development within the City. 2. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. Staff analysis: The requested Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone applications have been reviewed by Valley Regional Fire Agency and the City Utilities and Traffic divisions. Based on these reviews, the changes would not adversely affect the provision of services. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map change by itself, if approved will not affect the ability to provide adequate services. As typical with development in the city, the infrastructure improvements needed to support the development would be the responsibility of the future development. At the time of development, adequate services would be required to be provided concurrent with the development in order for the project to be authorized. Therefore, it is not anticipated that approval of the request negatively affects provision of services. Amending the Comprehensive Plan land use designation to Public/Quasi-Public increases the capacity for essential City services will have room to grow and increase. This land use designation’s permitted uses are focused on the provision of services, such as government facilities, public schools, parks, colleges, libraries, and museums to name a few. 3. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 11 of 14 Staff analysis: While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid, changing the land use designation of the properties to “Public/Quasi Public” and zoning classification to “P-1, Public Use” supports the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals by increasing the capacity for essential City services that support future growth in housing as well as jobs within the City of Auburn. The location of the MultiCare site is near single-family homes and commercial uses with a slight variation in intensity, the provision of essential City and/or public services would be beneficial for the surrounding land uses and the City of Auburn in its entirety. 4. The fourth decision criterion is that there has been a change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment. Staff analysis: Changing the land use designation of the properties supports the City’s Comprehensive Plan and regional growth targets set by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The City is currently in the process of updating the previous Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2015, which must be consistent with multicounty and countywide policies. VISION 2050 notes that the region is projected to grow by about 1.6 million people and 1.1 million jobs by 2050. Auburn’s share of growth is found in Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). King County’s CPP identifies 2019-2044 housing targets (12,000 net new residential units, 19,520 net new jobs). Increased density is accompanied by a need for increased public services. Rezoning this area to P-1, Public Use will create more space for uses that support the public, such as government facilities, municipal parks and playgrounds, universities, public schools, retail facilities, and more. The area adjacent to the subject site is occupied by the City of Auburn’s Les Gove Community Campus Area. This campus provides more than twenty acres of services which includes a library, museum, park and playground, senior activity center, gymnasium, recreation center, and event center. It is helpful for families and individuals to have these services in one accessible area easily reached by public transportation. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendment expands the available land for the City to provide public use and services. The surrounding area is currently developed with residential, commercial, and institutional uses. The land use designation change and rezone support the comprehensive plan’s intent to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent area where they are sited. 5. The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. Staff analysis: The change if approved would continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the King County Countywide Planning Policies and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. The proposal is consistent because it provides land suitable for public and institutional development, which will directly provide services to the immediate community within an urban area. Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 12 of 14 6. The sixth decision criterion, applies only to changes of the mapped land use designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Staff analysis: The proposed land use designation, Public/Quasi-Public, is compatible with surrounding land uses and the Light Commercial land use designation to the north. According to the Comprehensive Plan policy LU-89 “The primary purpose of Public/Quasi- Public land use designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited” (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Page LU-13). The Public/Quasi-Public land use designation takes advantage of synergies with the adjacent light commercial area by drawing people to public uses which will in-turn activate businesses in this area. The Light Commercial and Single-Family land use designations to the south of the subject site are compatible. The Single-Family land use designation will be supported by proximity to the public services accommodated in the “Public/Quasi-Public” land use designation, which is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policyLU-89. The Heavy Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public land use designations to the east are compatible with the subject site. The Heavy Commercial area covers a small parcel that is occupied by a gas station. A substantial area east of the subject site is designated Public/Quasi-Public, which is the proposed land use designation. This area is occupied by the City of Auburn’s Les Gove Community Campus Area. This campus provides more than twenty acres of services, such as a library, museum, park and playground, senior activity center, gymnasium, recreation center, and event center. The Single-Family land use designations to the west of the subject site are compatible. The Single-Family land use designation will be supported by proximity to the public services accommodated in the Public/Quasi-Public designation, which is consistent with. Comprehensive Plan policy LU-89 REZONE RELATED – CONCLUSIONS The City Code provides criteria for amending the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map under ACC 18.68.040. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis. While the City of Auburn does not have rezone criteria adopted, the following criteria are analyzed to ensure that the proposed rezone is consistent with Washington State case law. 1. (A) The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan. Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 13 of 14 Staff analysis: As provided in ACC 18.35.020, “Intent of Special Purpose Zones”, the intent of the P-1, Public Use Zone is: “The P-1 zone is intended to provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community.” The P-1 zone is in effect on parcels located to the east of the site, and the remaining nearby land uses would benefit from the proximity to public services provided for in the P-1 zone. Provided that the concurrent Comprehensive Plan map amendment is granted, the proposal will change the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Single Family and Light Commercial to a Public/Quasi-Public . The P-1 zone is an implementing zoning designation within this land use designation (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Page LU-14). 2. (B) The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning Staff analysis: Due to the regional growth that has occurred, communities have become increasingly denser. Increased density is accompanied by a need for increased public services. Rezoning this area to Public Use (P-1) will create more space for uses that support the public, such as government facilities, municipal parks and playgrounds, universities, public schools, retail facilities, and more. These are uses permitted in this zone per ACC Table 18.35.030. The proposed location for the rezone is a natural area for this amendment to occur. The area adjacent to the subject site is occupied by the City of Auburn’s Les Gove Community Campus Area. This campus is over twenty acres and includes services, such as a library, museum, park and playground, senior activity center, gymnasium, recreation center, and event center. It is helpful for families and individuals to have these services in one accessible area easily reached by public transportation. By expanding this area for public services to grow, the community of Auburn is better served. 3. (C) The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff analysis: The proposed rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare in that it will allow increase the capacity for public services to meet the current and future needs of the communities in Auburn. Future development of the site will require review and compliance with the City’s Unified Development Code which ensures the promotion of public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed amendment will not put undue burden on municipal services, emergency response capability, or similar existing requirements. In fact, the provision of more space for public use by the City will enhance public health, safety, and welfare. Furthermore, any future development will be reviewed as a site plan application which will allow for the appropriate City departments to consider municipal services and emergency response capability. Staff Member: Tatro Date: October 2, 2023 Page 14 of 14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of the MultiCare Site Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Rezone (CPA23-0001 & REZ23-0003) request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to change the map designation of five contiguous parcels, parcel No. 1921059160 from “Single-Family” to “Public/Quasi-Public” and Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, and 1921059140 from “Light Commercial” to “Public/Quasi-Public”. And rezone parcel No. 1921059160 from “R-7, Residential Seven Dwelling Units Per Acre” to “P-1, Public Use” and Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, and 1921059140 from “C-1, Light Commercial” to “P-1, Public Use”. EXHIBIT LIST (For exhibits, please see behind the “Comp. Plan Map Amendments” tab in the ‘working binder’.) Exhibit 1 Staff Report CPA23-0001 & REZ23-0003 Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Proposed Change Exhibit 3 Zoning Map Amendment – Proposed Change Exhibit 4 Completed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone Application forms and materials including Applicant’s Narrative Statement Exhibit 5 Completed SEPA Environmental Checklist Application SEP23-0019 Exhibit 6 Combined Notice of Application and Determination of Non-Significance SEP23-0019 Exhibit 7 Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 8 Affidavits of Publication, Mailing, and Posting AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Subject/Title: CPA23-0002 / REZ23-0004, Auburn Dairy Products Inc. Auburn Dairy Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Contract Rezone Date: October 2, 2023 Department: Community Development Budget Impact: Current Budget: $0 Proposed Revision: $0 Revised Budget: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and recommend to City Council approval of Auburn Dairy Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendment and Rezone. OWNERS: Jerry Williams, Vice President Auburn Dairy Products Inc. 702 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 AGENT: Jacob Miller, Project Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 REQUEST: City File Nos. CPA23-0002 and REZ23-0004: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designation of six contiguous parcels consisting of approximately 3.11 acres from the current designation of “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial”. Request to rezone parcel no. 3915000085 from “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” to “M-1, Light Industrial” and to rezone parcel nos. 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125 from “R-20, Residential 20 Dwelling Units per Acre” to “M-1, Light Industrial”. The map amendment is a non-project action. LOCATION: Project site is located south of the T-intersection of W Main Street and G Street SW within SE ¼ of Section 13 Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125. EXISTING ZONING: 3915000005 – “M-1, Light Industrial” 3915000050 – “M-1, Light Industrial” 3915000085 – “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” 3915000115 – “R-20, 20 Dwelling Units per Acre” 3915000120 – “R-20, 20 Dwelling Units per Acre” 3915000125 – “R-20, 20 Dwelling Units per Acre” Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 2 of 15 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The Comprehensive Plan designation of this site is Downtown Urban Center. SEPA STATUS: An application was received on June 1, 2023. A SEPA Environmental Checklist – Non Project Action, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Exhibit and Contract Rezone Exhibit were submitted and reviewed with the application. A DNS using the Optional process was issued on October 2, 2023, with the appeal period expiring on October 30, 2023. GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant, Jacob Miller of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, representing Auburn Dairy submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment (File No. CPA23-0002) and a related contract rezone (File No. REZ23-0004). More specifically, the applications request a change to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designation of six contiguous parcels consisting of approximately 3.11 acres from the current designation of “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial”. The contract rezone consists of a request to rezone parcel no. 3915000085 from “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” to “M-1, Light Industrial” and to rezone parcel nos. 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125 from “R-20, Residential 20 Dwelling Units per Acre” to “M-1, Light Industrial”. The Applicant identifies this is a non-project action. 2. The Site, comprised of six parcels, is located south of the T-intersection of W Main Street and G Street SW within SE ¼ of Section 13 Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125. 3. The existing Auburn Dairy operation consists of two parcels on the west side of G Street SW, and four parcels east of G Street SW. The four parcels are proposed for future expansion and improvements to the existing dairy operation. 4. The existing operation was established in 1923. Across G Street SW to the east, Auburn Dairy purchased two parcels (3915000120 and 3915000125) in 2013 and purchased two parcels (3915000085 and 3915000115) in 2020. The four recently purchased parcels are vacant. Demolition permits were issued in 2022 to demolish existing buildings on those parcels. 5. The site is bordered to the west by railroad tracks and the Interurban Trail, a recreational path that runs north/south through the City of Auburn. Development to the west is predominantly warehouses, large outdoor storage areas and industrial uses. To the east of the site the land is developed as an older single-family residential neighborhood. 6. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are as follows: Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 3 of 15 Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Existing Land Use On- Site Downtown Urban Center “M-1, Light Industrial”, “DUC, Downtown Urban Center”, and “R-20, 20 Dwelling Units per Acre” Auburn Dairy manufacturing plant, and vacant land North Downtown Urban Center “M-2, Heavy Industrial” and “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” Retail / Restaurants South Downtown Urban Center “M-1, Light Industrial” Warehouse and Industrial (General Purpose) East Downtown Urban Center “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” and “R-20, 20 Dwelling Units per Acre” Public School Employee offices and Single-family residences West Open Space “Open Space” Interurban Trail Vicinity Map with Site outlined in yellow 7. Project Location West Main Street Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 4 of 15 7. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for the application by Auburn Dairy for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone was applied for under City File No. SEP23-0020 on June 1, 2023. The staff review was completed and a DNS using the optional process was issued on October 2, 2023. The appeal period expired on October 30, 2023 8. The public hearing notice was published in the Seattle Times on October 2, 2023, which is at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for October 17, 2023. Public notice was also mailed to property owners of record within 300 feet, posting on- site and on the city’s webpage. 9. As indicated by the Applicant’s narrative statement submitted with the application, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map amendment and related contract rezone have been requested for the purpose of future expansion and improvements of the existing Auburn Dairy operation. 10. The following report identifies a Comprehensive Plan Land Use map amendment and contract rezone requested by Auburn Dairy scheduled for the Planning Commission’s October 17, 2023 public hearing with a staff recommendation. Comprehensive Plan Related Findings 11. The Applicant submitted a Comprehensive Plan Land Use map amendment application on June 1, 2023, before the year 2023 application submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments (June 1, 2023). 12. The City of Auburn first adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended in 1995. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually each year since generally for housekeeping items and for capital facilities plan coordination. 13. The City of Auburn adopted a substantially revised Comprehensive Plan (including map amendments) in response to periodic updates required by the GMA by Ordinance No. 6584 on December 14, 2015. 14. City Code Section 14.22, “Comprehensive Plan” provides the city’s laws for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by private citizens (privately-initiated). 15. RCW 36.70A.130 (GMA) provides for annual amendments to locally adopted comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances as provided for in State law, Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be considered by the city or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year. The annual limitation and exceptions are also restated in city code at ACC 14.22.060. Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 5 of 15 16. The City of Auburn established a June 1, 2023 submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments for the year 2023 (map or policy/text amendments). Notice to the public of the application filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, publication of a legal notice the Seattle Times Newspaper, and sent to a notification list of potentially interested parties. 17. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22, “Comprehensive Plan”, outlines the process for submittal of private initiated amendments and the processing of Comprehensive Plan amendments as follows: “Section 14.22.100 A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following: 1. For site-specific plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing; 2. For area-wide plan map amendments: a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing; b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record within the area subject to the proposed amendment; c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing. B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions noted above as deemed necessary. C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those findings to the city council. D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance. E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW 36.70A.106. F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)” 18. Per Chapter 14.22 Auburn City Code (“ACC”), privately-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall have at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission who then forward on a recommendation to the City Council. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs, but is not required, prior to the end of the year. Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 6 of 15 19. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce and other state agencies as required for the 60-day state review. No comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or other state agencies as of the writing of this report. 20. Due to the scope and limited number of privately initiated policy/text changes, the optional process as provided in the city code for a public open house was not conducted. Zoning Code Related Findings 21. In June 2018 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6655 which allows the Planning Commission and City Council to consider associated map changes (for Comprehensive Plan map amendments and rezones), concurrently. This eliminates the need for the Hearing Examiner to subsequently consider and conduct a public hearing for a rezone when it is related to a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. 22. Chapter 18.68 ACC Amendments outlines the process for submittal of privately-initiated zoning amendments and the general processing. Per ACC 18.68.030(B)(1)(b), when the Planning Commission is considering a re-zone (zoning map amendment) which requires a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment, the public hearings shall be conducted concurrently and a recommendation on both shall be forwarded to the City Council. 23. The intent of the “M-1, Light Industrial Zone” is “…is to accommodate a variety of industrial, commercial, and limited residential uses in an industrial park environment, to preserve land primarily for light industrial and commercial uses, to implement the economic goals of the comprehensive plan and to provide a greater flexibility within the zoning regulations for those uses which are non-nuisance in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare or odor.” The light industrial/commercial character of this zone is intended to address the way in which industrial and commercial uses are carried out rather than the actual types of products made. The Auburn Dairy manufacturing operation is conducted inside of buildings. Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments 24. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application seeks to change the designation of six parcels, King County Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125. 1) The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policy guidance, as it relates to this application: Volume 1 – Land Use Element “Industrial Land Use Designations” “Character Sketch” “Industrial uses will become a more integrated part of the physical and social life of the City. Since so many people work in these areas and these companies contribute so much to the Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 7 of 15 financial life of the city, it is important that they are connected though paths, roads and by public transportation. Locations that have access to rail and highways that also encourage intelligent growth patterns will be prioritized. Innovation will be a key requirement of new and infill projects as the City looks to mitigate impacts of production and limit damage to the environment.” “General Policies” A general policy appropriate to this request is: “Policy LU-72. A wide range of industrial uses may be permitted, subject to performance standards.” “Light Industrial Designation” “Description” “This category is intended to accommodate a wide range of industrial and commercial uses. This designation is intended to provide an attractive location for manufacturing, processing and assembling land use activities that contribute to quality surroundings. A wide variety of appropriate commercial uses in this designation benefit from the location, access, physical configuration, and building types of these properties. It is distinguished from heavier industrial uses by means of performance criteria. All significant activities shall take place inside buildings, and the processing or storage of hazardous materials shall be strictly controlled and permitted only as an incidental part of another use.” Designation Criteria 1) Previously developed light industrial areas; or 2) Located along high-visibility corridors; 3) Provides buffering for heavy industrial areas or is buffered from the single-family designation by landscaping, environmental features, or the Residential Transition designation and buffered from all other Residential designations; and 4) Meets the development parameters of the Light Industrial designation. Light Industrial-related policies appropriate to this request are: “Policy LU-76. A wide range of industrial uses may be permitted, subject to performance standards. Heavy commercial uses that serve the needs of workers in light industries are also appropriate. These uses include indoor manufacturing, processing, and assembling of materials from previously prepared or raw materials and ancillary and necessary warehousing and distribution of finished goods associated with manufacturing and industrial uses.” “Policy LU-77. Parking lots must be located and designed in a manner that softens their appearance from adjacent public roads. This is accomplished through landscaping, pedestrian spaces, and the location of buildings on the property. Where practicable, low- impact development techniques and landscaping should be used to promote on site stormwater infiltration and shading of hard surfaces. Minimum and maximum parking ratios must be established for each type of permitted use.” Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 8 of 15 “Policy LU-80. Where a light industrial use is located adjacent to a property with a less intense zoning designation, the light industrial use bears the burden of incorporating techniques that mitigate the visual, noise, dust, and odor impacts.” The Capital Facilities Element also contains objectives and policies relevant to the request, as follows: Volume 3 – Capital Facilities Element “Planning Approach” “The Capital Facilities planning approach is to manage growth in a manner that enhances rather than detracts from community quality and values by actively coordinating land use type and intensity with City facility and service development and provision.” “Objectives and Policies” “Objective 1.1. Ensure that new development does not outpace the City’s ability to provide and maintain adequate public facilities and services, by allowing new development to occur only when and where adequate facilities exist or will be provided, and by encouraging development types and locations that can support the public services they require.” “Policy CF-3. Development shall be allowed only when and where such development can be adequately served by public services (police and fire) without reducing the level of service elsewhere.” Volume 6 – Economic Development Element “Planning Approach” “To ensure the long-term economic health of the City and the region through a diversified economic base that supports a wide range of employment opportunities for Auburn’s residents and those of the region, and through the promotion of quality industrial and commercial development that matches the aspirations of the community.” “Objective 9.1. Promote a diversified economic base capable of withstanding changes in interest rates, inflation, tax structure and market conditions.” “Policy ED-3. The importance of downtown Auburn as unique retail environment and subregional center of commerce should be considered in the City’s economic plan.” 2) The purpose of the City’s Comprehensive Plan document is to provide a policy basis for the zoning changes to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance are consistent as required by the following city code provision: “ACC 14.22.050 Conformance and consistency. Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 9 of 15 The zoning, land division and other development codes contained or referenced within Auburn City Code shall be consistent with and implement the intent of the comprehensive plan. Capital budget decisions shall be made in conformity with the comprehensive plan. “ 3) The City code provides certain criteria for decision-making for comprehensive plan amendments as follows: “ACC 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments. A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region.” COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP RELATED – CONCLUSIONS The City Code provides certain criteria for decisions on amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map under ACC 14.22.110. These criteria are listed below in bold, followed by a Staff Analysis. 1. The first criterion is that the change must further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Staff analysis: The Auburn Dairy property is adjacent to industrial properties to the west and south and is adjacent to the railroad tracks to the west. Historically, the dairy manufacturing operation has not had an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, including the older residential area to the east. The four parcels across G Street SW were acquired for the need to develop an office for administrative staff, laboratory work, conference rooms, a surface parking lot for employees, and a dry good storage room. These uses are directly associated with the existing operation but are less intensive uses that will abut the older residential neighborhood. The area is served by public infrastructure. The proposal to change the mapped land use designation of the site from Downtown Urban Center to Light Industrial is supported by numerous Comprehensive Plan policies within both the Land Use Element and the Capital Facilities Element, as noted above. The Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 10 of 15 proposal to change the land use designation on the site to Light Industrial will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the City of Auburn Downton Urban Center since it allows for an expansion of a cornerstone institution which has existed in Auburn for 100 years that produces an exceptional product making it a unique center of commerce in the downtown. Additionally, the new development will be conditioned to prohibit more intensive land uses that would have an adverse impact on the sensitive nature of a residential neighborhood, and new development will be architecturally reviewed to meet pedestrian friendly and walkable design standards in harmony with Auburn’s downtown and Main Street. 2. The second decision criterion is that the comprehensive plan amendment must not diminish or increase the ability to provide adequate services. Staff analysis: The applications for a change in Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning classification have been reviewed by Valley Regional Fire Agency and the City Utilities and Traffic divisions. Based on these reviews, the changes would not adversely affect the provision of services. The proposed Comprehensive Plan land use map change by itself, if approved will not affect the ability to provide adequate services. As typical with development in the city, the infrastructure improvements needed to support the development would be the responsibility of the future development. At the time of development, adequate services would be required to be provided concurrent with the development in order for the project to be authorized. Therefore, it is not anticipated that approval of the request negatively affects provision of services. Existing services either exist or can be provided to support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the site’s map designation from Downtown Urban Center to Light Industrial. 3. The third decision criterion is that the assumptions on which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. Staff analysis: While the policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not invalid, the uses proposed for the expansion of the existing operation (office, parking, and dry good storage) are most consistent with the “M-1, Light Industrial” zoning designation, compared to “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” and “Residential 20/ 20 Dwelling Units per Acre”. The current land use designation of Downtown Urban Center does not implement the “M-1, Light Industrial” zoning district. The land use designation change to Light Industrial will conform with the existing dairy operation and its future expansion. 4. The fourth decision criterion is that there has been a change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment. Staff analysis: There has been a change in conditions that generates the need for the map change. There has been a recent increase in business for the dairy operation which prompted the acquisition of four parcels across G Street SW in 2013 and 2020 which will provide additional land for the dairy’s expansion. Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 11 of 15 5. The fifth decision criterion is that the change must be determined to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of the relevant county and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. Staff analysis: The change, if approved, would continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of King County and “Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. The proposal is consistent because it provides land suitable for the growth of an existing, 100- year-old establishment in downtown Auburn. Volume 1 of the Land Use Element of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan supports a “Robust Diversity of Land Use” where land uses that are mixed is a “strength because it exemplifies social, economic, and cultural diversity”. 6. The sixth decision criterion, applies only to changes of the mapped land use designation of a specific property, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Staff analysis: The proposal is consistent with findings (b) and (c). The most predominant land use designations surrounding the property are Downtown Urban Center and Light Industrial. South of SR 18 the parcels are Heavy Commercial land use designation. The subject parcels are on the western edge of the Downtown Urban Center. The present use and the proposed expansion of the dairy complies with the “M-1, Light Industrial” zoning district. The Downtown Urban Center and the Light Industrial designations allow many of the same land uses, however since the project is being reviewed in conjunction with a contract rezone, uses considered to have an adverse impact on the Downtown Urban Center and adjacent residential area will be prohibited by conditions of the contract rezone. The current Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2015, prior to the recent growth in business at Auburn Dairy. This increase in business and plan for future expansion has effectively been a change in conditions over the past several years. REZONE RELATED – CONCLUSIONS 1. (A) The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan. Staff analysis: As provided at ACC 18.23.020, “Intent of commercial and industrial zones”, the intent of the “M-1 – Light Industrial Zone” is to accommodate a variety of industrial, commercial and limited residential uses in an industrial park environment, to preserve land primarily for light industrial and commercial uses, to implement the economic goals of the comprehensive plan and to provide a greater flexibility within the zoning regulations for Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 12 of 15 those uses which are non-nuisance in terms of air and water pollution, noise, vibration, glare or odor. The light industrial/commercial character of this zone is intended to address the way in which industrial and commercial uses are carried out rather than the actual types of products made. The character of this zone will limit the type of primary activities which may be conducted outside of enclosed buildings to outdoor displays and sales. Uses which are not customarily conducted indoors or involve hazardous materials are considered heavy industrial uses under this title and are not appropriate for the M-1 zone. An essential aspect of this zone is the need to maintain a quality of development that attracts rather than discourages further investment in light industrial and commercial development. Consequently, site activities which could distract from the visual quality of development of those areas, such as outdoor storage, should be strictly regulated within this zone.” Provided that the concurrent Comprehensive Plan Land Use map amendment is granted, changing the site’s current Downtown Urban Center designation to Light Industrial, the proposed rezone from “DUC and R-20” to “M-1, Light Industrial” will be consistent with and implement the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use of the site as a light industrial manufacturing operation and supporting uses is consistent with the “M-1, Light Industrial” zoning intent statement. 2. (B) The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning Staff analysis: As previously noted in the Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment analysis #2, adequate services will be provided to the site, including water, sewer, roads, and fire and police protection. Historical aerial photography accessed from City of Auburn GIS from 1990 to the present, shows that the area west and south of the existing dairy has historically been industrial and commercial development. The residential neighborhood to the east is an older neighborhood with homes built near the turn of the 20th century. The City of Auburn established the Auburn Downtown Plan in 2001 which includes the location of the Auburn Dairy, which has been compatible in its present location with surrounding land uses. The substantial change that has taken place is that the Auburn Dairy needs to expand its facilities because of increased demand for their products. The Comprehensive Plan supports the continued value of “cornerstone” institutions as being a valuable part of the downtown economy and character, therefore supporting the continued operation of the dairy in a manner that includes uses conducive to its exiting operation. 3. (C) The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff analysis: The Auburn Dairy property is in the downtown area which has existing municipal facilities. The contract rezone will include conditions that prohibit uses causing adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, the expansion of the dairy will be required to comply with City of Auburn Downtown Urban Center design standards making the expansion pedestrian friendly. The expansion will be required to meet all local zoning, building, and other requirements established by the City. Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 13 of 15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of the Auburn Dairy Products, Inc. (CPA23-0002) request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to change the map designation of six parcels, King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125 from Downtown Urban Center to Light Industrial and to rezone (REZ23-0004) Parcel No. 3915000085 from “Downtown Urban Center” to “M-1, Light Industrial” and rezone Parcel Nos. 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125 from “R-20, Twenty Dwelling Units per Acre” to “M-1, Light Industrial” zoning district. In accordance with Auburn City Code 18.68.060 Contract Rezone. “In order to mitigate any impacts that may result from a rezone the city may enter into a contract with the property owner. The contract shall outline the conditions of approval and the obligations of the property owner. The contract shall be binding upon the owner and the owner’s heirs, assigns and successors, and the contract shall run with the land. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Land Use Related Conditions 1. The four parcels identified by King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, and 3915000125 are currently owed by Auburn Dairy Inc, and proposed to be developed to support the existing Auburn Dairy operation (food product manufacturing plant) across G Street SW to the west (Parcel No. 3915000005 and 3915000050). Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendment applications, the intended use of these four parcels is an office building at the corner of W Main Street and G Street SW, north of the alley (on Parcel No. 3915000085) with an accessory parking lot and narrow storage building on parcel Nos. 3915000115, 3915000120 and 3915000125 directly south of the alley. 2. Due to the proximity of residences, residential zoning, and Downtown Urban Center comprehensive plan designation certain uses allowed by Auburn City Code 18.23.030 in the “M-1, Light Industrial” zoning district shall be prohibited. The prohibited uses are as follows: INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING, WHOLESALING a. Building contractor, heavy b. Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – Medium intensity c. Marijuana processor d. Marijuana producer e. Marijuana researcher f. Marijuana retailer g. Marijuana transporter h. Outdoor storage Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 14 of 15 i. Warehousing and distribution requiring frequent deliveries (more than once a day) or deliveries by commercial vehicles or vehicles not licensed to operate on public streets RECREATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES j. Commercial recreation facility, outdoor k. Religious institutions, lot size more than one acre l. Sexually oriented businesses m. Sports and entertainment assembly facility RETAIL n. Building and landscape materials sales o. Construction and heavy equipment sales and rental p. Drive-through espresso stands q. Drive-through facility, including banks and restaurants r. Nursery s. Outdoor displays and sales associated with a permitted use (auto/vehicle sales not included in this category) t. Tavern SERVICES a. Outdoor equipment rental and leasing TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE b. Ambulance, taxi, and specialized transportation facility c. Heliport d. Towing storage yard VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICES e. Automobile washes (automatic, full or self service) f. Auto parts sales with installation services g. Auto/vehicle sales and rental h. Fueling station i. Mobile home, boat, or RV sales j. Vehicle services – Repair/body work OTHER k. Any commercial use abutting a residential zone which has hours of operation outside of the following: Sunday 9:00 a.am. to 10:00 p.m. or Monday – Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Architectural and Site Design Related Conditions 3. The subject property (King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125) shall comply with the City of Auburn Downtown Urban Center Architectural and site Design Standards, adopted 2/12/07 with revision effective 09/20/21 and ACC 18.31.200, ‘Architectural and Site Design Review Standards and regulations. Design Standards described in the Downtown Urban Center City of Auburn Design Standards that are not required are listed as follows: Site Design 1.A. 1. -- A parking structure 4. -- Public Plazas Staff Member: Reed Date: October 2, 2023 Page 15 of 15 Building Design 8.B. – Access easement to rooftops provided to City which allows the installation of devices for wireless coverage and maintenance of those devices… 8.C. -- Installation of outdoor speaker system and AM receiver. Pedestrian Streets 3.C. -- Along Main Street, doors and windows reflecting the historic Main Street rhythm of 25-foot wide storefronts. EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit 1 CPM #3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Exhibit 2 CPM #3 Land Use Map Exhibit 3 CPM #3 Zoning Map Exhibit 4 CPM #3 Written Statement Exhibit 5 CPM #3 Completed SEPA Environmental Checklist SEP23-0020 Exhibit 6 CPM #3 Notice of Hearing and ODNS Exhibit 7 CPM #3 Confirmation of Noticing Exhibit 8 CPM #3 Auburn Dairy Traffic Impact Analysis MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager, Comm. Development Dept. DATE: July 11, 2023 RE: Discussion Topic: Introductory discussion of Docket of 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments BACKGROUND: Annually the City amends its Comprehensive Plan (“Comp. Plan”). These are the “annual amendments” that the City considers routinely each year as distinguished from the periodic “major update” of the Comp Plan as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) that was adopted at the end of year 2015. Side note: While the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.130) originally required the next periodic update be completed by the year 2023, the state legislature passed ESHB 2342 in 2020 that extends the timeframe for updates until 2024. The Legislature more recently changed the requirements applicable to Auburn to provide for a 10-year update cycle after the current update in 2024. There are two types of amendments: A. Map; and B. Text. In addition, there are two sources for these annual amendments: 1. City-initiated amendments which are typically items that Staff, Planning Commission, or the City Council have identified as items or issues that should be addressed in the next Comp Plan Amendment cycle; and, 2. Private-initiated amendments, which are in response to applications that are submitted. For the 2023 Comp Plan Amendment cycle, three private amendment applications were submitted (two map amendments and one text amendment). Page 2 of 8 DISCUSSION At the July 18, 2023 Special Planning Commission meeting, staff would like to introduce and briefly discuss: 1. The docket of annual comprehensive plan amendments is proposed to consist of the following: City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA23-0004) (each capital facilities plan is incorporated by reference) • P/T #1 – Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #3 – Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #4 – Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #5 – City of Auburn (COA) Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #6 – CPA23-0003, In anticipation of the future annexation of the City of Kent island developed as “The Bridges”, revise the Land Use Element to establish Comprehensive Plan map designations of "Single Family Residential" and concurrent zoning of "R-1 and R-5 Residential" and establish "Moderate Density Residential" and establish concurrent zoning of R-10, Residential" for this future annexation area. See related map amendment, below. Page 3 of 8 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments City-Initiated Map Amendments (CPA23-0003): •CPM#1 – In anticipation of the future annexation of the City of Kent island developed as “The Bridges”, establish Comprehensive Plan map designations of "Single Family Residential" and concurrent zoning of "R-1, and R-5 Residential" and establish "Moderate Density Residential" and establish concurrent zoning of R-10, Residential" for this future annexation area. Proposal Location Page 4 of 8 Page 5 of 8 Private-Initiated Map Amendments: •CPM #2 – CPA23-0001 – Request by BCRA on behalf of MultiCare for property at 617 12th St SE to change five contiguous parcels totaling approximately 2.27 acres. from “Single Family Residential” and "Light Commercial" to “Public/ Quasi-Public” (for future city property purchase) and associated rezone to P-1, Public Use zoning district. Proposal Location Page 6 of 8 •CPM#3 – CPA23-0002 - Request by Barghausen on behalf of Auburn Dairy Products for property at 16, 22, and 28 G ST SW, 3 parcels totaling approximately 0.41 acres from “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial” and associated to M-1, Light Industrial zoning district. Page 7 of 8 Proposal Location Page 8 of 8 SUMMARY: Staff to is to provide an introductory overview of the subjects under consideration for amendments this year, including the 2 private applications received and that may be part of the “docket” of 2023 annual Comp Plan amendments. Additional information and more detailed analysis will be presented to the Planning Commission at future meetings. Memorandum To: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members From: Josh Steiner, Senior Long Range Planner, Comm. Dev. Dept. Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager, Comm. Dev. Dept. Date: September 8, 2023 Re: 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Working Binder As part of the 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, staff prepared a working binder for use by the Planning Commissioners during their consideration of the proposed annual comprehensive plan amendments. WORKING BINDER OVERVIEW Staff has prepared the 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Working Binder with the following information: • Introductory/Front Section: o Index to binder contents, o Proposed Updated Schedule, & o Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket • Tab 1: Staff Reports and presentations – the staff report that is provided will be used for the upcoming public hearing. Presentation materials for the July 18, 2023 Planning Commission meeting are also provided. • Tab 2: Environmental Review – the environmental checklists and SEPA determinations for the proposed amendments. • Tab 3: General Info. and Correspondence – correspondence related to the amendment process and public notices. • Tab 4: City-Initiated Comp Plan Policy/Text Amendments – includes the 4 school district Capital Facilities Plans • Tab 5: City-Initiated Comp Plan Map Amendments – includes city-initiated land use and zoning map amendments. • Tab 6: Private-Initiated Comp Plan Map Amendments – includes private-initiated land use and zoning map amendments. DISCUSSION At the October 3, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, staff would like to briefly review and discuss the following docket items consisting of: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPA23-0003) (each capital facilities plan is to be adopted and incorporated by reference) • P/T #1 – Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #3 – Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan • P/T #4 – Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan City-Initiated Map Amendments (CPA23-0004): • CPM #1 – Volume 1: Land Use Element. This proposes to revise the Land Use Element to establish Comprehensive Plan map designations of "Single Family Residential" and concurrent zoning of "R-1, and R-5 Residential" and establish "Moderate Density Residential" and establish concurrent zoning of R-10, Residential" for this future annexation area. Private-Initiated Map Amendments (CPA23-0001, CPA23-0002): • CPM #2 – Volume 1: Land Use Element. Request by BCRA on behalf of MultiCare for property at 617 12th St SE to change five contiguous parcels totaling approximately 2.27 acres. from “Single Family Residential” and "Light Commercial" to “Public/Quasi-Public” (for future city property purchase) and associated rezone to P-1, Public Use zoning district. CPM #3 – Volume 1: Land Use Element. Request by Barghausen on behalf of Auburn Dairy Products to rezone six parcels near W. Main Street & G Street SW from “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial” and associated to M-1, Light Industrial zoning district. Feel free to contact either Josh Steiner, Senior Long Range Planner at jsteiner@auburnwa.gov or 253-804-5058 or Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager, at jdixon@auburnwa.gov or 253- 804-5033, with any questions. MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Josh Steiner, Senior Planner, Comm. Development Dept. Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager, Comm. Development Dept. DATE: October 17, 2023 RE: Public Hearing: 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments At the October 3, 2023 meeting, City planning division staff reviewed and discussed the slate of annual comprehensive plan amendments and requested the public hearing be scheduled for October 17, 2023. In anticipation of the public hearing, planning staff notified in advance the four school districts that have Capital Facilities Plans (CFP) that are the subject of the proposed City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments. One of the districts indicated they would not be able to send district representatives to the planning commission public hearing due to a conflict with the scheduled school board meeting. This District, Federal Way Public Schools, instead requested to and provided letters to add information to the CFPs and highlight their recent capital construction projects and add information to the justification of their approach to the school impact fee. This letter is provided in your packets since the letter was received after the “working binders” were prepared. Additionally, staff reports for the two Private-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications are included in the packet, since these were completed after “working binders” were prepared. For the City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment staff reports, please see the corresponding “Staff Report/Presentations” tab in your “working binder”. Please bring your working binder to the meeting. AUBURN VALUES SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2023 ANNUAL AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2023 JOSH STEINER, AICP Department of Community Development Planning  Building  Development Engineering  Permit Center Sustainability  Community Services ● Code Enforcement SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATIONSERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS Annually the City amends its Comprehensive Plan. These routine amendments are distinguished from the “periodic update” completed on 8-year cycles. There are two sources: “city – initiated amendments” in response to items that are “docketed” (text or map). “private–initiated amendments” in response to applications that are submitted (text or map). Private-initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment applications (text or map) were publicly advertised in advance and accepted until Friday, June 2, 2023, this year. SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION The 2023 Comprehensive Plan amendment docket currently includes a total of 9 proposed amendments. Five updates are annually provided capital facilities plan updates for the city & school districts located within the City. Four updates to elements (chapters) of the comprehensive plan including issues relating to Land Use. One text amendment, three map amendments PROPOSED 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #1 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Auburn School District P/T #2 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Dieringer School District P/T #3 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Federal Way School District P/T #4 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Kent School District P/T #5 – City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update P/T #6 – Land Use Element Update (Bridges Annexation) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #1 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Auburn School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #2 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Dieringer School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #3 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Federal Way School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #4 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Kent School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #5 – City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan Update CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #6 –Comprehensive Plan Volume 1, Land Use Element, Update Revise the Land Use Element to establish Comprehensive Plan map designation of:  "Single Family Residential" and concurrent zoning of "R-1 and R-5 Residential" and "Moderate Density Residential" and establish concurrent zoning of R-10, Residential" for this future annexation area. Establish map and policy/text changes using City of Auburn framework for the existing development under City of Kent PUD in the event of annexation from Kent to the City of Auburn. CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #1 – Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for Bridges Development area Establish Single Family Residential and Moderate Density land use designation and related zoning designations for area SE area of Bridges has most development potential for a variety of housing types CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #2 – Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Request on behalf of MultiCare for property at 617 12th Street SE for demolition and future city use Change land use designation from “Single Family Residential” and “Light Commercial” to “Public/Quasi- Public” CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #3 – Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Request on behalf of Auburn Dairy for property at 16, 22, and 28 G Street SW Change land use designation from “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial” and revise zoning designations to M-1, Light Industrial CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION City staff is reviewing the docket of items for consistency with intent and goals stated within the city’s Comprehensive Plan and conducting the state required environmental review process (SEPA). Staff will provide additional information, including copies of the written materials, to the Planning Commission identifying the results of analysis and a staff report (staff recommendation) at future meetings. Generally, this is done by the “notebooks” prepared & distributed. Staff will schedule future briefings for the Planning Commission and public hearings so that the Commission may make recommendations on all proposed amendments to City Council. NEXT STEPS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATIONSERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS Any questions? AUBURN VALUES SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2023 ANNUAL AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2023 JOSH STEINER, AICP Department of Community Development Planning  Building  Development Engineering  Permit Center Sustainability  Community Services ● Code Enforcement SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATIONSERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS Annually the City amends its Comprehensive Plan. These routine amendments are distinguished from the “periodic update” completed on 8-year cycles. There are two sources: “city – initiated amendments” in response to items that are “docketed” (text or map). “private–initiated amendments” in response to applications that are submitted (text or map). Private-initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment applications (text or map) were publicly advertised in advance and accepted until Friday, June 2, 2023, this year. SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION The 2023 Comprehensive Plan amendment docket currently includes a total of 7 proposed amendments. Four updates are annually provided capital facilities plan updates for the school districts located within the City. Three updates to Elements (chapters) of the comprehensive plan including issues relating to Land Use. Three land use map amendments Related zoning map and zoning text amendments Per city Finance Department request, Auburn Capital Facility Plan will be moving to a bi-annual update schedule with next revision in 2024. PROPOSED 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #1 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Auburn School District P/T #2 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Dieringer School District P/T #3 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Federal Way School District P/T #4 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Kent School District CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS District 2022 Impact Fee 2023 Impact Fee Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Auburn $7,962.61 $9,912.82 $5,957.02 9,913.64 Dieringer $6,167.00 $2,060.00 $8,054.00 $3,400.00 Federal Way No Fee No Fee No Fee $6,998.00 Kent No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee P/T#1 P/T#2 P/T#3 P/T#4 SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #1 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Auburn School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #2 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Dieringer School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #3 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Federal Way Public Schools (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #4 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Kent School District (District boundary map) CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #1 – Amendments related to the “Bridges area”: Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Update Comprehensive Zoning Map New section for Chapter 18.21 “Overlays” of Auburn City Code CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION The Bridges area is an approximately 155-acre area island of incorporated city of Kent The area was developed as a planned unit development (PUD) Bridges PUD features of mix of conventional SR-1 and SR-3 standards, some adjustments, to those standards, and lot clustering Majority of the area is developed with single family homes SE area of Bridges is undeveloped and consists of “future development tracts” Four environmentally sensitive area tracts exist within the Bridges area, with the largest being located in the southern portion of the Bridges areas. SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION Update to Chapter 18.21 ACC of Zoning Code corresponds to map updates New Section 18.21.040 proposed Contains the zoning development standards under which the Bridges PUD was developed CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #2 – Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Request on behalf of MultiCare for property at 617 12th Street SE for demolition and future city use Change land use designation from “Single Family Residential” and “Light Commercial” to “Public/Quasi- Public” PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION The MultiCare site spans 5 contiguous parcels, totaling 2.27 acres or 98,675 sq ft The parcels are flat, sparsely vegetated, and mostly undeveloped Located off 12th St SE and Auburn Way S Parcel # 1921059111 contains a 12,760 square foot single-story medical office building and associated parking lot, the parcel to the north contains an additional parking lot A Demolition Permit was issued for the medical building on site (City file No. DEM22-0027) on 7-20-2023 PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #3 – Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Request on behalf of Auburn Dairy for property at 707 W Main Street, and 117,16, 22, and 28 G Street SW and southeast corner of W Main Street and G Street SW Change land use designation from “Downtown Urban Center” to Light Industrial and revise zoning designations to “M-1, Light Industrial” PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS City Hall SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION The Auburn Dairy property consists of six parcels totaling approximately 3.11 acres in the Downtown Urban Center Land Use designation. The operation has existed for 100 years. The existing operation is zoned “M-1, Light Industrial”, across G Street SW parcels are zoned “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” and “R-20, 20 Dwelling Units per Acre”. To the west and south land is developed predominantly with warehousing and industrial uses. To the east land is developed as residential. PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS Property West Main Street SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS CPA23 -0002 Land Use Designations Existing – Downtown Urban Center Proposed – Light Industrial SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS REZ23-0004 Zoning Districts Existing – M-1, DUC, R-20 Proposed – M-1 SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION Planning Commission Briefing Tonight (October 3rd) Planning Commission Public Hearing October 17th City Council Study Session November 13th City Council Regular Meeting December 4th NEXT STEPS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATIONSERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS Any questions? SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #3 – AUBURN DAIRY PROPOSED SITE PLA FOR 4 PARCELS EAST OF G STREET SW AUBURN VALUES SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2023 ANNUAL AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 17, 2023 JOSH STEINER, AICP Department of Community Development Planning  Building  Development Engineering  Permit Center Sustainability  Community Services ● Code Enforcement SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATIONSERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS Annually the City amends its Comprehensive Plan. These routine amendments are distinguished from the “periodic update” completed on 8-year cycles. There are two sources: “city – initiated amendments” in response to items that are “docketed” (text or map). “private–initiated amendments” in response to applications that are submitted (text or map). Private-initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment applications (text or map) were publicly advertised in advance and accepted until Friday, June 2, 2023, this year. SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION The 2023 Comprehensive Plan amendment docket currently includes a total of 7 proposed amendments. Four updates are annually provided capital facilities plan updates for the school districts located within the City. Three updates to Elements (chapters) of the comprehensive plan including issues relating to Land Use. Three land use map amendments Related zoning map and zoning text amendments Per city Finance Department request, Auburn Capital Facility Plan will be moving to a bi-annual update schedule with next revision in 2024. PROPOSED 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DOCKET SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION P/T #1 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Auburn School District P/T #2 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Dieringer School District P/T #3 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Federal Way School District P/T #4 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Kent School District CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS District 2022 Impact Fee 2023 Impact Fee Single Family Multi-Family Single Family Multi-Family Auburn $7,962.61 $9,912.82 $5,957.02 9,913.64 Dieringer $6,167.00 $2,060.00 $8,054.00 $3,400.00 Federal Way No Fee No Fee No Fee $6,998.00 Kent No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee P/T#1 P/T#2 P/T#3 P/T#4 SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATIONSERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission to recommend approval by City Council the following P/T numbers: CPA23-0004, P/T #1 – Auburn School District Capital Facility Plan CPA23-0004, P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facility Plan CPA23-0004, P/T #3 – Federal Way Public Schools Capital Facility Plan CPA23-0004, P/T #4 – Kent School District Capital Facility Plan SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION File No. CPA23-0004 (P/T = Policy/Text Amendment) P/T #1 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Auburn School District P/T #2 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Dieringer School District P/T #3 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Federal Way School District P/T #4 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Update for Kent School District PUBLIC HEARING SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #1 – Amendments related to the “Bridges area”: Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Update Comprehensive Zoning Map New section for Chapter 18.21 “Overlays” of Auburn City Code CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION The Bridges area is an approximately 155-acre area island of incorporated city of Kent The area was developed as a planned unit development (PUD) Bridges PUD features of mix of conventional SR-1 and SR-3 standards, some adjustments, to those standards, and lot clustering Majority of the area is developed with single family homes SE area of Bridges is undeveloped and consists of “future development tracts” Four environmentally sensitive area tracts exist within the Bridges area, with the largest being located in the southern portion of the Bridges areas. SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION Update to Chapter 18.21 ACC of Zoning Code corresponds to map updates New Section 18.21.040 proposed Contains the zoning development standards under which the Bridges PUD was developed CITY-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATIONSERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission to recommend approval by City Council the following case numbers: CPA23-0003 CPM#1 – Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: Land Use Element, map change and related zoning map changes SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION File No. CPA23-0003 (CPM = Comp. plan map amendment) CPM#1 – Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: Land Use Element, map change and related zoning map changes PUBLIC HEARING SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #2 – Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Request on behalf of MultiCare for property at 617 12th Street SE for demolition and future city use Change land use designation from “Single Family Residential” and “Light Commercial” to “Public/Quasi- Public” PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION The MultiCare site spans 5 contiguous parcels, totaling 2.27 acres or 98,675 sq ft The parcels are flat, sparsely vegetated, and mostly undeveloped Located off 12th St SE and Auburn Way S Parcel # 1921059111 contains a 12,760 square foot single-story medical office building and associated parking lot, the parcel to the north contains an additional parking lot A Demolition Permit was issued for the medical building on site (City file No. DEM22-0027) on 7-20-2023 PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #3 – Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Request on behalf of Auburn Dairy for property at 707 W Main Street, and 117,16, 22, and 28 G Street SW and southeast corner of W Main Street and G Street SW Change land use designation from “Downtown Urban Center” to Light Industrial and revise zoning designations to “M-1, Light Industrial” PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS City Hall SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATIONSERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission to recommend approval by City Council the following case numbers: CPA23-0001 CPM#2 – Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: Land Use Element, map change and related zoning map changes SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION File No. CPA23-0001 (CPM = Comp. plan map amendment) CPM#2 – Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: Land Use Element, map change and related zoning map changes PUBLIC HEARING SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION The Auburn Dairy property consists of six parcels totaling approximately 3.11 acres in the Downtown Urban Center Land Use designation. The operation has existed for 100 years. The existing operation is zoned “M-1, Light Industrial”, across G Street SW parcels are zoned “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” and “R-20, 20 Dwelling Units per Acre”. To the west and south land is developed predominantly with warehousing and industrial uses. To the east land is developed as residential. PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS Property West Main Street SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS CPA23 -0002 Land Use Designations Existing – Downtown Urban Center Proposed – Light Industrial SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS REZ23-0004 Zoning Districts Existing – M-1, DUC, R-20 Proposed – M-1 SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATIONSERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission to recommend approval by City Council the following case numbers: CPA23-0002 CPM#3 – Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: Land Use Element, map change and related zoning map changes SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION File No. CPA23-0002 (CPM = Comp. plan map amendment) CPM#3 – Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: Land Use Element, map change and related zoning map changes PUBLIC HEARING SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION 2023 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL AMENDMENTS – NEXT STEPS SERVICE  ENVIRONMENT  ECONOMY  CHARACTER  SUSTAINABILITY  WELLNESS  CELEBRATION CPM #3 – AUBURN DAIRY PROPOSED SITE PLA FOR 4 PARCELS EAST OF G STREET SW AUBURN VALUES S E R V I C E ENVIRONMENT E C O N O M Y C H A R A C T E R SUSTAINABILITY W E L L N E S S C E L E B R AT I O N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2023 ANNUAL AMENDMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 7, 2023 ALEXANDRIA TEAGUE, AICP Department of Community Development Planning ⚫ Building ⚫ Development Engineering ⚫ Permit Center Sustainability ⚫ Community Services ● Code Enforcement SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION File No. CPA 23-0004 (CPM = Comp. plan map amendment) ▪CPM#1 – Comprehensive Plan Volume 1: Land Use Element, map change and related zoning map changes PUBLIC HEARING SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION CPM #1 – Amendments related to the “Bridges area”: ▪Update Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map ▪Update Comprehensive Zoning Map ▪New section for Chapter 18.21 “Overlays” of Auburn City Code PUBLIC COMMENT & FINDINGS ▪Methods of noticing ▪Public comments received CITY -INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION ▪The Bridges area is an approximately 155-acre area island of incorporated city of Kent ▪The area was developed as a planned unit development (PUD) ▪Bridges PUD features of mix of conventional SR -1 and SR -3 standards, some adjustments, to those standards, and lot clustering ▪Majority of the area is developed with single family homes ▪SE area of Bridges is undeveloped and consists of “future development tracts” ▪Four environmentally sensitive area tracts exist within the Bridges area, with the largest being located in the southern portion of the Bridges areas. SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION CITY -INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION CITY -INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION Update to Chapter 18.21 ACC of Zoning Code corresponds to map updates New Section 18.21.040 proposed Contains the zoning development standards under which the Bridges PUD was developed CITY -INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATIONSERVICE ⚫ ENVIRONMENT ⚫ ECONOMY ⚫ CHARACTER ⚫ SUSTAINABILITY ⚫ WELLNESS ⚫ CELEBRATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission to recommend approval by City Council the following case numbers: ▪CPA 23-0004 (P/T) & (CPM) ▪CPM#1 – Comprehensive Plan Vo lume 1: Land Use Element, map change and related zoning map and te xt changes FULL TEXT: Establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the site where there were previously none. Changes will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges zoning Overlay , which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NOTICE OF APPLICATION (NOA) and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan Text & Map Amendments and related zoning map amendments SEP23-0029 / CPA23-0003, CPA22-0004 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the following described proposal. The applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Community Development & Public Works Department at One E Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001. Proposal and Location: Adopt amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan consisting of the following Text (P/T) and Map (CPM) Amendments and amendments to zoning map (rezone) for City-initiated applications to implement: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments None. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments CPM #1 – Volume 1: Land Use Element: Comprehensive Land Use Map to be updated to reflect annexation of the area from the city of Kent for a 155-acre area commonly known as The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave SE, SE 304th ST, and 118th Ave SE. Staff is proposing to establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the site where there were previously none. Changes will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges zoning Overlay , which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. Zoning map and text amendments are proposed to be processed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments. Notice of Application: September 7, 2023 Application Complete: September 3, 2023 Permit Application: August 9, 2023 File Nos. SEP23-0029 CPA22-0003, CPA22-0004 Applicant: Josh Steiner, Senior Planner Community Dev. & Public Works City of Auburn 25 W Main ST Auburn, WA 98001 Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: • None Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: • None Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. NOTICE OF APPLICATION and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SEP23-0029 / CPA23-0003, CPA23-0004 (Continued) Page 2 of 2 Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Comment Period: This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impact of the proposal. All persons may comment on this application. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date issued below. Comments must be in writing and submitted by 5:00 pm on September 22, 2023 to the mailing address of 25 W Main ST, Auburn, WA, 98001 or emailed to the contact below. Any person wishing to become a party of record, shall include in their comments that they wish to receive notice of and participate in any hearings, if relevant, and request a copy of decisions once made. Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk at 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001-4998 within 14 days of the close of the comment period, or by 5:00 p.m. on October 6, 2023. For questions regarding this project, please contact Josh Steiner, Senior Planner, at jsteiner@auburnwa.gov or 253-804-5064. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required and is scheduled for October 17th, 2023 at 7 PM. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Dixon POSITION/TITLE: Planning Services Manager ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations. September 7, 2023 Planning and Development Department Page 1 of 20 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION Note: This environmental checklist does not address all proposed year 2023 comprehensive plan amendments. Other year 2023 amendments (private-initiated applications) are undergoing, have undergone, or will undergo separate environmental review. The timing of these other amendments may be dependent on processing timing. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Auburn’s 2023 Comprehensive Plan Map and Policy/Text Amendments 2. Name of Applicant: City of Auburn, Washington 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Department of Community Development City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Josh Steiner, Senior Planner jsteiner@auburnwa.gov 253-804-5064 4. Date checklist prepared: August 23, 2023 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Auburn 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): A Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed amendments covered by this checklist is tentatively scheduled for (but no earlier than) October 17, 2023. City Council consideration of the proposed amendments is planned for December. City Council action on plan amendments typically occurs prior to the end of the calendar year, but is not required to occur. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no additions anticipated as part of this 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan process. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 2 of 20 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Auburn School District. Determination of Non-Significance – 2023-2029 Capital Facilities Plan. May 23, 2023. Dieringer School District Determination of Non-Significance - Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023. June 2, 2023. Federal Way School District. Determination of Non-Significance – 2024 Capital Facilities Plan. June 7, 2023. Kent School District. Determination of Non-Significance – 2022-2023 through 2028- 2029 Capital Facilities Plan. May 12, 2023. In addition to environmental information related to this year’s annual comprehensive plan amendments (2023), other environmental information includes information related to historical decisions related to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. These decisions include: City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2022 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP22-0018) Issued September 27, 2022. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2021 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP21-0023) Issued September 23, 2021. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP20-0018) Issued September 25, 2020. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2019 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP19-0028) Issued September 23, 2019. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP18-0010) Issued September 19, 2018. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2017 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP17-0014) Issued September 19, 2017. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2016 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP16-0010) Issued September 28, 2016. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – Major update in compliance with the periodic update required under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and in response to community visioning programs and community changes. 2015 Comprehensive Plan, (SEP15-0031) Issued November 2, 2015. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2014 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP14-0011) Issued September 16, 2014. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2013 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP13-0028) Issued September 17, 2013. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 3 of 20 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2012 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP12-0023) Issued September 10, 2012. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2011 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP11-0021) Issued October 18, 2011. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, Group 1, (SEP10-0019) 2010 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, City-initiated, Group 2, (SEP10-0028) 2010 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, Privately-initiated, Group 2, (SEP10-0013) 2010 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2009 Amendments to the Auburn Zoning Code and Land Division Ordinance. 2009 Puget Sound Regional Council - Final Environmental Impact Statement - Vision 2040: Growth Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region. March 2008. 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. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendments. September 2004. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments. October 2003. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendments. October 2002. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendments. October 2001. City of Auburn - Auburn Downtown Plan/Final EIS. April 2001. City of Auburn - Addendum to the Final Determination of Non-Significance - 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. November 1996. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 4 of 20 City of Auburn - Addendum to the Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Comply with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Decision. October 1996. City of Auburn - Addendum to the Final Determination of Non-Significance - 1995 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. November 1995. City of Auburn - Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act. October 1994. City of Auburn - Final Environmental Impact Statement - City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: Staff Draft and Recommendations. May 1986. City of Auburn. - Final Determination of Non-Significance - Downtown Design Study. April 1990. City of Auburn - Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments on City Expansion and Urban Growth. July 1991. City of Auburn - Final Environmental Impact Statement: Auburn North CBD Analysis. November 1991. City of Auburn -Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments on Sensitive and Critical Lands. January 1992. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department - Final Environmental Impact Statement: Soos Creek Community Plan Update. December 1991. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Countywide Planning Policies Proposed Amendments. May 1994. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: King County Comprehensive Plan. July 1994. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services - Proposed Lakeland Hills South Mining and Reclamation Plan and Planned Community Development: Final Environmental Impact Statement. July 21, 1992. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services - Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County, Washington: Final EIS. September 20, 1993. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services - Final Supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County, Washington. June 1994. 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. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 5 of 20 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 2023 comprehensive plan map and policy/text amendments addressed in this environmental checklist and others 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 the proposed action is not an approval or permit, the proposed amendments are also subject to the 60-day State Agency review process pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106. 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 of Auburn annually amends its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with state law. In summary, the 2023 City of Auburn Annual Comprehensive Plan and Map amendments addressed by this environmental checklist include policy/text amendments (denoted by P/T) and plan map amendments (denoted by CPM). These amendments are described as follows: Comprehensive Plan Amendments (policy/text) A. Policy/Text Amendments (File No. CPA23-0003) (Four changes) P/T #1 – Auburn School District 2023-2029 Capital Facilities Plan. (Separate Environmental Review) P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023. (Separate Environmental Review) P/T #3 – Federal Way School District 2024 Capital Facilities Plan. (Separate Environmental Review) P/T #4 – Kent School District 2022-2023 through 2028-2028 Capital Facilities Plan (Separate Environmental Review) Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Map changes) B. City-Initiated Map Amendments (File No. CPA23-0004) (One Change) CPM #1 – Volume 1: Land Use Element: Comprehensive Land Use Map to be updated to reflect annexation of the area from the city of Kent for a 155-acre area commonly known as The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave SE, SE 304th ST, and 118th Ave SE. Staff is proposing to establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the site where there were previously none. Changes will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges zoning Overlay , which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. Zoning map and text amendments are proposed to be processed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 6 of 20 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 City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan covers the area within the municipal boundaries of the City of Auburn, but also identifies properties in the City’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Both the Growth Management Act and the King and Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies, emphasize the need for consistent planning between cities and the County within each city’s urban growth area. The City’s municipal boundaries and its remaining potential annexation areas are shown within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. For the specific map locations of individual changes, see the locations specified under Item 11.B, above. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: A. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The City of Auburn and its Potential Annexation Area (PAA) are characterized by a relatively flat central valley floor bordered by steep hillsides and upland plateaus to the west, east and southeast. B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The slopes vary in areas of the city and the PAA, but in some location, slopes associated with the valley walls reach nearly 100%. 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 generally 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 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 7 of 20 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. 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, seismic, and landslide hazard areas are provided as maps that are part of the critical areas ordinance inventory E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments are non-project actions, 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. 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)? 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; no site specific erosion control measures are 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/soil resources 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. These potential impacts would be avoided by implementing best management practices and complying with 2014 WA State Dept. of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington with City of Auburn Supplement. 2. Air: A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if know. Not applicable. This 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. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 8 of 20 Not applicable. This is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. This 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 (Stuck) River, Bowman Creek, Cobble Creek, Mill Creek, Lea Hill Creek, Olson Creek and White Lake. The City has conducted an inventory of wetlands and streams within the city limits. These are shown on City’s critical area inventory maps. Shorelines of the State are reflected in Auburn’s Shorelines Master Program adopted in May 2020 under Ordinance No. 6733 and the shoreline environment designations are shown within the Shoreline Management Program. 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. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Several areas within Auburn lie within the 100-year floodplain of the Green or White Rivers and Mill Creek and Mullen Slough. Floodplain as well as flood hazard areas as defined by the City are shown on the city critical area maps and floodplain maps. The Riparian Habitat Zone, as a FEMA special flood hazard area is shown on the city’s inventory and addressed in the city’s regulations. 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. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 9 of 20 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. 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: 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. X B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 10 of 20 Not applicable. This is a 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 known at this time. D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. 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: 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 cats, dogs, rabbits, raccoons, rodents, squirrels, opossums, 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 great blue herons and green backed herons within Auburn as shown on critical area inventory maps. Wildlife The Environmental Impact Statement for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special area plan and addendum indicate the bald eagle was delisted as ‘threatened’ in 2008 and is now a federal ‘species of concern’. There are several species that potentially occur within King County including: gray wolf (federally and state endangered), grizzly bear (federally threatened and state endangered), Canada lynx (federally and state threatened), marbled murrelet (federally and state threatened), and northern spotted owl (federally threatened and state endangered) (USFWS 2007). Due to their limited range and specific habitat requirements, the gray wolf, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, marbled murrelet, and northern spotted owl would not be expected to occur within the urban areas of King County. The 2004 EIS also identified several federal species of concern that may occur in King County. The list was updated in 2007 to include: tailed frog, Larch Mountain salamander, and northern sea otter (USFWS, 2007). The project area does not contain suitable habitat to support these species at this time. The 2004 EIS did not include the Oregon spotted frog or yellow-billed cuckoo, which are federal candidate species. Though given the current range and distribution of the species and the degraded conditions of on-site wetlands and stream, the likelihood of Oregon spotted frog occurring within the city is very low. Yellow-billed cuckoos breed in large blocks of riparian habitats (particularly woodlands containing cottonwoods and willows) (Erhlich et al., 1988). This species may now be extirpated from Washington (66 Federal Register 210). There have been documented sightings of yellow- billed cuckoo in King County and the Green River riparian corridor may provide some limited foraging and breeding habitat; however, areas of Auburn are devoid of mature dense cottonwood stands of significant size to support the species and their presence is not anticipated. Fish Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 11 of 20 The 2004 EIS identified the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon as a candidate species; however, their current federal status has been down-graded to a species of concern. Other listing changes that have occurred since that time includes the 2007 listing of the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) steelhead as threatened under the ESA (72 Federal Register 91), and the 2005 listing of designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Chinook salmon and Coastal-Puget Sound DPS bull trout in the Green River (70 Federal Register 170; 70 Federal Register 185). Since the 2004 EIS, a Biological Opinion was issued by NMFS that determined the effects of certain elements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) throughout Puget Sound is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the following species listed under the ESA: Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and Southern Resident killer whales. The Biological Opinion also determined that NFIP is likely to adversely modify the following ESA designated critical habitats: Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon, and Southern Resident killer whale critical habitats. The biological opinion provides a reasonable and prudent alternative which can be implemented to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification of critical habitat. In response to the Biological Opinion, FEMA developed a model ordinance for NFIP participating communities, which includes the City of Auburn. The City of Auburn incorporated substantive terms of the model ordinance into their interim floodplain regulations (Ordinance No. 6295). By letter dated September 21, 2011 FEMA acknowledged that the city’s ordinance complies with their model ordinance and as a result, the interim ordinance becomes permanent. The Biological Opinion originally established a 2010 timeline for compliance for all NFIP participating communities within the Puget Sound Basin (NMFS, 2008). C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. This is a 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: Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 12 of 20 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. 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 Potential Annexation Area (PAA) contain 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: Much of Green and White River Valleys 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 formally designated as Agricultural Land, though some parcels continue in agricultural use. C. Describe any structures on the site: Structures within the city and PAA range from small single family detached homes to large industrial manufacturing and warehousing facilities. Properties subject to the plan map amendments range in use, Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 13 of 20 as examples, from vacant land, schools, residential, commercial to those that appear as primarily wetlands. 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: RC (Residential Conservancy); R-1 (1 du/acre) R-5 (5 du/acre); R-7 (7 du/acre); R-10 (10 du/acre); R-16 (16 du/acre); R-20 (20 du/acre); R-MHC (Manufactured/Mobile Home Community); CN (Neighborhood Shopping) C1; (Light Commercial); C2 (Central Business District); DUC (Downtown Urban Center Zone); C3 (Heavy Commercial); C4, Mixed Use Commercial, M1 (Light Industrial); M2 (Heavy Industrial); LF (Airport Landing Field); UNC (Unclassified Use); I (Institutional Use); P-1, Public Use; Lakeland Hills South PUD; TV (Terrace View Zoning District); OS (Open Space); RO (Residential Office); and RO-H (Residential Office-Hospital). 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 various different plan designations similar to, and implemented by the zoning categories. G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? 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 contained in the shoreline management program. Shorelines of the State are reflected in Auburn’s Shorelines Management Program adopted in May 2020. 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 contain environmentally sensitive or critical areas and the regulation and protection of environmentally sensitive areas are addressed through the city’s critical areas ordinance (ACC 16.10). 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. This proposal is a non-project action. K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None, specifically. This 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: Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 14 of 20 This proposal is to amend the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan as described in response to the environmental checklist application question A.11 above. The evaluation by staff and the public hearing and review process that occurs as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process will be used to help evaluate whether a particular proposal is consistent with existing plans. Also, the proposed amendments are circulated to State agencies for a State Agency review process in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106, 9. Housing: A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. 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. None. This proposal is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None specifically, as this 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? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. This 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. This 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. This proposal is a non-project action. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 15 of 20 Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. This 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. The City’s 2015 Parks, Art, Recreation and Open Space Plan shows the location of these facilities. B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. 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: Not applicable. This 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: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. However, as a matter of information, in Auburn, the Blomeen House located at 324 B Street NE is listed 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 (formerly the Seattle-King County Health Department) at 20 Auburn Avenue NE are listed 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. The Pioneer Cemetery at Auburn Way North & 9th ST NE was designated as a City of Auburn Landmark in 2016. B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Several historic 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: Not applicable. This 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. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 16 of 20 The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (The transportation element of the 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? Map 4-2 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Transportation element) shows the location of public transit routes within the City. 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. 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): 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: 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 railroad lines within Auburn. Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the Sounder commuter rail line between Tacoma, Seattle and Everett. Service began September 18, 2000. Amtrak trains pass through Auburn but do not stop in the city. The Auburn Airport is a general purpose airport located north of 15th and D Streets 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. This proposal is a non-project action. G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. This proposal is a 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. This is a 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. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 17 of 20 Also, several Policy/Text amendments as part of this checklist include the capital facilities plan’s for the four school districts within Auburn city limits and PAA. Those school districts are Auburn, and Dieringer, Federal Way, and Kent. 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. The City provides water, sewer and storm facilities. There are also private water and sewer utility districts and private utility providers with service area boundaries within the city. 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 private and a public 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, Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan were adopted by the City in 2015. A new six-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) was adopted in 2017 (2018-2023) and plan amendments occur on a bi-annual schedule with the next update in 2024. The City seeks to update the CFP a minimum of every two years. 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: ______________ Josh Steiner, Senior Planner DATE PREPARED: August 23, 2023 Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 18 of 20 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? Taken as a whole, there should be a minimal change in discharges to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances or the production of noise. The proposed amendments themselves will not create a change in intensity of discharge to water, emissions to air, production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances or the production of noise from those levels expected under the existing plan. 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 Plan also provide guidance in the review of development proposals to encourage use and retention 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 can retain and treat runoff and may require less pesticide use. The proposed amendments set the framework where properties and uses would in the future be in compliance with expansion, site redevelopment or new development. City policy and code regulates such impacts through the storm drainage requirements and critical area regulations as applicable. 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 subsequent site-specific proposals will be based on the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, development regulations 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, Stormwater Management Manual, Floodplain permit regulations, and the Public Works Design and Construction Manual, also provide additional protection for these types of impacts. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? This proposal will amend the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. The plan recognizes the Shoreline Master Program that was adopted in May 2020 which governs development within the Shoreline Management Area, reducing the impacts from new development on plants, animals. The changes will not change any policy which would have a direct effect on flora, fauna, or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 19 of 20 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 on the policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and appropriate mitigation will take place on a case-by-case basis. Policies within the Plan 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. The proposed map amendments are bringing the land use designations more in line with actual property uses. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Future development will use natural gas, petroleum 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. In fact, it is possible that use of energy or natural resources could decrease depending on the land use. The city’s amendment for alternative powered vehicles and for preparation of a greenhouse gas inventory establishes a baseline for future energy conservation measures. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None specifically, as this is a non-project action. However, Comprehensive Plan policies encourage energy conservation in public buildings, street lighting, and recycling, it 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? This proposal will amend the Comprehensive Plan. Taken as a whole, the increase in impacts from the proposed comprehensive plan amendments on environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for government protection should be minor, if at all. 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. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Page 20 of 20 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 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 proposal will not result in an increase in demands on transportation and public services. Rather, the six-year CFP responds to growth by identifying the public facilities and improvement needed to address future growth. The growth projections mentioned above would occur with or without these amendments. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: As stated above, no measurable increase in demands to these subject areas will result from the proposed map amendments. The city actively engages in planning for public facilities. The Comprehensive Water Plan, Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan were adopted by the city in 2015. An update to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan was adopted in 2015. These specific plans help ensure that infrastructure impacts are adequately monitored and evaluated on a project level and city-wide basis. Updates to these specific subject element plans is anticipated as part of the City’s periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2024. 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. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (NOH) 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments and related zoning map and text amendments SEP23-0029 / CPA23-0003, CPA22-0004 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) for the following described project. The permit applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at One E Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001. Proposal and Location: Adopt amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan consisting of the following Map (CPM) Amendments and amendments to zoning text and map (rezone) for City-initiated applications to implement: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments None. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments CPM #1 – Volume 1: Land Use Element: Comprehensive Land Use Map to be updated to reflect annexation of the area from the city of Kent for a 155-acre area commonly known as The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave SE, SE 304th ST, and 118th Ave SE. Staff is proposing to establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the site where there were previously none. Changes will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges zoning Overlay , which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. Zoning map and text amendments are proposed to be processed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments. Notice of Application: September 7, 2023 Application Complete: September 3, 2023 Permit Application: August 9, 2023 File Nos. SEP23-0029 CPA22-0003, CPA22-0004 Applicant: Josh Steiner, Senior Planner Community Dev. & Public Works City of Auburn 25 W Main ST Auburn, WA 98001 Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: • None Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: • None Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SEP22-0018 / CPA22-0001, CPA22-0002 (Continued) Page 2 of 2 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required for this proposal. The public hearing has been scheduled for October 17, 2023 at 7:00 PM. The public hearing will be held in-person in the City Council Chambers, 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001 and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the meeting at the phone number listed below. Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85310195862 Meeting ID: 853 1019 5862 Phone: 253-215-8782 - US (Tacoma) Any interested person is invited to appear and express comments or opinions on the proposed project. Written comments may be emailed to the contact person below, mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W Main St., Auburn WA, 98001, or submitted at the public hearing. 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. For questions regarding this project, please contact Josh Steiner, Senior Planner, at jsteiner@auburnwa.gov or 253-804-5064. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Dixon POSITION/TITLE: Planning Services Manager ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: ON FILE Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations. OCTOBER 3, 2023 GENERAL INFORMATION & CORRESPONDENCE THANK YOU We have received your amendment submission. Please allow 1-3 business days for review. Please keep the Submittal ID as your receipt and for any future questions. We will also send an email receipt to all contacts listed in the submittal. Submittal ID: 2023-S-6408 Submittal Date Time: 09/01/2023 Submittal Information Jurisdiction City of Auburn Submittal Type 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment Amendment Type Comprehensive Plan Amendment Amendment Information Brief Description Proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the annual comprehensive plan update. o Yes, this is a part of the 10-year periodic update schedule, required under RCW 36.70A.130. Anticipated/Proposed Date of Adoption 12/04/2023 Categories Submittal Category Comprehensive Plan Attachments Attachment Type File Name Upload Date Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 14 - FINAL_ASD 2023 ASD CFP_06.12.2023.pdf 09/01/2023 11:09 AM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 19 - FINAL_DSD 23-29 Capital Facilities Plan.pdf 09/01/2023 11:10 AM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 23 - FINAL_FWPS 2024 Capital Facilities Plan - Auburn.pdf 09/01/2023 11:10 AM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 26 - FINAL_KSD Capital Facilities Plan 05122023.pdf 09/01/2023 11:10 AM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 30 - FINAL_CPM1 Exhibit A - Bridges Annexation Proposed Land Use Map Amendment.pdf 09/01/2023 11:11 AM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 34 - FINAL_CPM2 Exhibit A - MultiCare Proposed Land Use Map Amendments.pdf 09/01/2023 11:12 AM Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Draft 39 - FINAL_CPM3 Exhibit A - Auburn Dairy Proposed Land Use Map Amendments.pdf 09/01/2023 11:18 AM Contact Information Prefix Mr. First Name Josh Last Name Steiner Title Senior Planner Work (253) 804-5064 Cell Email jsteiner@auburnwa.gov o Yes, I would like to be contacted for Technical Assistance. Certification n I certify that I am authorized to submit this Amendment for the Jurisdiction identified in this Submittal and all information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Full Name Joshua Steiner Email jsteiner@auburnwa.gov 09/05/2023 Mr. Josh Steiner Senior Planner City of Auburn 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Sent Via Electronic Mail Re: City of Auburn--2023-S-6408--60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment Dear Mr. Steiner: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment as required under RCW 36.70A.106.  We received your  submittal with the following description. Proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the annual comprehensive plan update. We received your submittal on 09/01/2023 and processed it with the Submittal ID 2023-S-6408. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. Your 60-day notice period ends on 10/31/2023. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies for comment. 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 Carol Holman, (360) 725-2706.   Sincerely, Review Team Growth Management Services STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE Ÿ PO Box 42525 Ÿ Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 Ÿ (360) 725-4000 www.commerce.wa.gov Page: 1 of 1 CITY-INITIATED COMP. PLAN POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENTS POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT (P/T) #1 INCORPORATE AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT #408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2023 - 2029 James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 June 21, 2023 Mr. Jeff Dixon City of Auburn 25 W. Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Re: Multi-Family Residence Impact Fee Increase Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2023 to 2029 Dear Mr. Dixon, The Auburn School District Board of Directors has approved the 2023-2029 Capital Facilities Plan which includes documentation and calculation of Impact Fees. This year’s Impact Fees are calculated using the following formula and amounts: Single Family Multi-Family Site Costs $0.00 $0.00 Permanent Facility Const. Costs $22,654.41 $25,550.09 Temporary Facility Costs $293.14 $388.21 State Match Credit ($2,289.66) ($2,582.34) Tax Credit ($8,743.84) ($4,128.67) Fee without Discount $11,914.04 $19,227.29 50% Discount ($5,957.02) ($9,913.64) Fee with Discount $5,957.02 $9,913.64 Auburn School District respectfully requests that the Multi-Family Residence Impact Fee be increased from $9,912.82 to $9,913.64. Our Single Family Impact Fees for the past few years have been: 2024 (proposed) $5,957.02 2023 $7,962.61 2022 $3,652.19 2021 $6,456.31 Multi-Family Residence Impact Fee Increase Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2023 to 2029 Page 2 James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 Our Multi-Family Impact Fees for the past few years have been: 2024 (proposed) $9,913.64 2023 $9,912.82 2022 $8,938.23 2021 $6,325.80 to $16,325.80 Your consideration and approval of our request will be appreciated. Sincerely, Bob Kenworthy Asst. Director, Capital Projects Cc: C. Blansfield Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2023 through 2029 Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors June 12, 2023. 915 Fourth Street SE Auburn,Washington 98002 (253)931-4900 Serving Students in: City of Auburn City of Algona City of Kent City of Pacific City of Black Diamond Unincorporated King County Board of Directors Tracy Arnold Valerie Gonzales Arlista Holman Sheilia McLaughlin Laura Theimer Dr.Alan Spicciati,Superintendent Capital Facilities Plan \ TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I Executive Summary Page 3 SECTION II Enrollment Projections and Student Generation Factors Page 8 SECTION III Standard of Service Page 17 SECTION IV Inventory of Facilities Page 24 SECTION V Student Capacity Page 28 SECTION VI Capital Construction Plan Page 31 SECTION VII Impact Fees Page 33 Auburn School District No. 408 2 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This six-year Capital Facilities Plan (the “Plan”) has been prepared by the Auburn School District (the “District”) as the District’s principal planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington’s Growth Management Act and the adopted ordinances of the counties and cities served by the District. This Plan was prepared using data available in the spring of 2023. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District. However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the District’s needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic long-range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period; other factors and trends in the use of facilities; and other needs of the District as may be required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this six-year Capital Facilities Plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and within the Cities of Auburn, Black Diamond and Kent; the King County Council, the City of Auburn, the City of Black Diamond, and the City of Kent will adopt this Plan by reference as part of each jurisdiction’s respective comprehensive plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona and Pacific, these municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the local ordinances, this Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly. The Plan establishes the District’s “Standard of Service” in order to ascertain the District’s current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District’s specific needs. Auburn School District No. 408 3 In general, the District’s current standard provides that class size for grades K-3 should not exceed 17 students and class size for grades 4-5 should not exceed 27 students. When averaged over the six elementary school grades, this computes to 20.33 students per classroom. Class size for grade 6 should not exceed 27 students and class size for grades 7 and 8 should not exceed 28.53 students. When averaged over the three middle school grades, this computes to 28.02 students per classroom. Class size for 9-12 should not exceed 28.74 students, with some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers. Decisions by current legislative actions may create the need for additional classrooms. (See Section III Standard of Service for more specific information.) The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this Standard of Service and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District’s 2022-23 permanent capacity was 18,796. The actual number of individual students was 17,059 as of October 1, 2022. (See Section V for more specific information.) In the spring of 2016, the Board determined to move forward with the replacement of six schools and the construction of two new elementary schools. The project was placed before the voters in November 2016 and the bond passed at 62.83%. The first of the projects, the replacement of Olympic Middle School, started construction in May 2018 and opened in Fall 2019. The district’s new elementary, Bowman Creek Elementary, started construction in May 2019 and opened in August 2020. Construction for replacement of Dick Scobee Elementary School started in June 2019 and the school opened in August 2020. Construction of Willow Crest Elementary School and construction of the replacement Pioneer Elementary School started May 2020 and both opened in August 2021. For the 2021-22 school year, Willow Crest Elementary served as the temporary home for Lea Hill Elementary School which started the replacement construction process in May 2021 and opened as its own school in August 2022. Construction for replacement of Chinook Elementary School started in May 2021 and the new school opened in August 2022 as well. Construction for replacement of Terminal Park Elementary School began in May 2022 and is scheduled to open in August 2023. Auburn School District No. 408 4 Capital Facilities Plan Capital Facilities Plan \ The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn, City of Black Diamond and City of Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal impacts incurred by a district experiencing growth and development. Section VII sets forth the proposed school impact fees for single family and multi-family dwelling units. The student generation factors have been developed using the students who actually attend school in the Auburn School District from single family and multi-family developments constructed in the last five years. The method of collecting the data is with the use of GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS, data from Davis Demographics and integration of the mapping with student data from the District’s student data system. This method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for identified developments. Auburn School District No. 408 5 \ Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2022 Capital Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2023 Plan. The changes are noted by Section for ease of reference. SECTION I Executive Summary A.Updated to reflect new information within the Plan. B. Summary level list of changes from previous year. SECTION II Enrollment Projections and Student Generation Factors A. Updated projections. SECTION III Standard of Service A. Updated to reflect the current number of classrooms allocated to non-standard classroom uses. SECTION IV Inventory of Facilities A. Move 2 portables from Arthur Jacobsen Elementary and 2 portables from Ilalko Elementary to Auburn High School. B. Move 1 portable from Arthur Jacobsen Elementary and 3 portables from Ilalko Elementary to Auburn Mountainview High School. C. Move 1 portable from Arthur Jacobsen Elementary to Auburn Riverside High School. D. Move 1 portable from Gildo Rey Elementary and 2 portables from Lake View Elementary to Cascade Middle School. E. Add 1 portable to Cascade Middle School. Section V Student Capacity A.The 12 portables to be relocated and one new portable to be added in July 2024 are needed to accommodate enrollment increases at our middle and high schools. Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 6 Capital Facilities Plan \ CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2022 TO 2023 DATA ELEMENTS CFP 2022 CFP 2023 EXPLANATION Student Generation Factors Single Family Elementary Middle School High School Multi-Family Elementary Middle School High School 0.3010 0.1460 0.1550 0.3920 0.1350 0.1530 0.303 0.133 0.151 0.440 0.150 0.172 Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621, Student Generation Factors are calculated by the school district based on district records of average actual student generation rates for new developments constructed over the last five years. School Construction Costs Middle School $134,320,000 $143,000,000 From new school construction cost estimates in April 2023. Site Acquisition Costs Cost per Acre $489,248 $513,509 Updated estimate based on 10% annual inflation. Area Cost Allowance Boeckh Index $246.83 $246.83 Updated to current OSPI schedule. (May 2023) Match % - State 63.83%64.58%Updated to current OSPI schedule (May 2023) Match % - District 36.17%35.42%Computed District Average Assessed Valuation Single Family Multi-Family $458,409 $223,737 $573,704 $270,892 Updated from March 2023 King County Dept. of Assessments data. Updated from March 2023 King County Dept. of Assessments data using average assessed valuation for apartments and condominiums. Debt Serv Tax Rate $2.13 $1.84 Current Fiscal Year General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 2.45%3.58%Current Rate - February 2023 (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-14) Auburn School District No. 408 7 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION II – ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Student Enrollment Projections Projection techniques give consideration to historical and current data as a basis for forecasting the future. In addition, certain assumptions must be made about the variables in the data being used. Forecasting can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future or from the known to the unknown. The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological, psychological, economic, and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection. An example of this is with the COVID-19 pandemic. The logic embraces the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the past are present today and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular factors by averaging data over time. The basis of enrollment projections in the Auburn School District has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group of students in a grade level as it progresses through time. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. If all students in one grade level progress to the next, the cohort number would be 1.00. If fewer students from the group progress the number will be less than 1. The district has used this method with varying years of history (3 years, 6 years, 10 years and 13 years) as well as weighted factors to study several projections. Additionally, the District contracted with Davis Demographics to develop and analyze demographic data relevant to the District’s facility planning efforts. The report created by Davis Demographics identifies and informs the District of the trends occurring in the community, how these trends may affect future student populations, and assists in illustrating facility adjustments that may be necessary to accommodate the potential student population shifts. Davis’ Ten-Year Forecast Methodology uses factors including the calculation of Auburn School District No. 408 8 Capital Facilities Plan \ incoming kindergarten classes, additional students from new housing, the effects of student mobility and a detailed review of planned residential development within the District. The data from the report is a snapshot of the current and potential student populations based on the data gathered in fall 2022. Population demographics change, development plans change, funding opportunities can change, and District priorities can change. The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and creditably of the projections derived by these techniques. Auburn School District No. 408 9 Overview of 2022-23 Enrollment Projections Table 1 shows historical enrollment for the October 1 count in the Auburn School District over the past 20 years. The data shows overall average growth over the recent 10 years is 1.69%. It is important to note this average includes a 4.22% decrease in October 2020 enrollment due to the COVID pandemic. TABLE 1 Historical Enrollment1: October 1 Actuals, K-12 (No RS, OD, GA) Source: OSPI 1251H GRADE 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21*21-22*22-23 KDG 921 892 955 940 995 998 1,032 1,010 1,029 1,098 1,170 1,232 1,198 1,237 1,261 1,271 1,291 1,038 1,227 1,341 1 982 960 963 1,012 995 1,014 1,033 1,066 1,068 1,089 1,188 1,219 1,279 1,210 1,276 1,290 1,314 1,236 1,185 1,304 2 909 992 963 1,001 1,019 1,024 998 1,016 1,097 1,083 1,124 1,196 1,289 1,300 1,251 1,311 1,295 1,243 1,249 1,241 3 996 918 1,002 1,031 997 1,048 993 1,013 996 1,111 1,125 1,136 1,232 1,317 1,328 1,275 1,320 1,243 1,264 1,324 4 947 1,016 939 1,049 1,057 1,045 1,073 1,024 1,022 1,038 1,123 1,156 1,170 1,237 1,328 1,378 1,316 1,257 1,255 1,322 5 1,018 956 1,065 998 1,077 1,070 1,030 1,079 1,017 1,070 1,075 1,122 1,172 1,199 1,269 1,345 1,361 1,294 1,251 1,296 6 1,111 1,020 1,004 1,061 1,008 1,096 1,040 1,041 1,063 1,041 1,076 1,059 1,116 1,152 1,207 1,275 1,337 1,306 1,233 1,227 7 1,131 1,124 1,028 1,014 1,057 1,034 1,125 1,060 1,032 1,086 1,072 1,091 1,099 1,132 1,194 1,232 1,295 1,319 1,304 1,267 8 1,052 1,130 1,137 1,069 1,033 1,076 1,031 1,112 1,046 1,018 1,116 1,088 1,136 1,108 1,183 1,213 1,236 1,264 1,312 1,315 9 1,464 1,459 1,379 1,372 1,337 1,257 1,245 1,221 1,273 1,200 1,159 1,275 1,229 1,261 1,257 1,372 1,399 1,351 1,386 1,455 10 1,246 1,260 1,383 1,400 1,367 1,341 1,277 1,238 1,168 1,278 1,229 1,169 1,316 1,248 1,300 1,313 1,410 1,376 1,388 1,416 11 991 1,019 1,153 1,294 1,305 1,304 1,269 1,212 1,177 1,116 1,187 1,169 1,111 1,248 1,188 1,198 1,218 1,174 1,299 1,300 12 841 833 989 1,068 1,176 1,259 1,319 1,251 1,220 1,231 1,186 1,218 1,175 1,104 1,266 1,126 1,113 1,089 1,248 1,251 TOTALS 13,609 13,579 13,960 14,309 14,423 14,566 14,465 14,343 14,208 14,459 14,830 15,130 15,522 15,753 16,308 16,599 16,905 16,190 16,601 17,059 Student Gain/Loss 351 349 114 143 -101 -122 -135 251 371 300 392 231 555 291 306 -715 411 458 Percent Gain/Loss 2.58%2.50%0.80%0.99%-0.69%-0.84%-0.94%1.77%2.57%2.02%2.59%1.49%3.52%1.78%1.84%-4.23%2.54%2.76% Average Student Gain/Loss for Recent 10 years 260 *COVID Pandemic Average Percent Gain/Loss for Recent 10 years 1.69% Auburn School District No. 408 10 Capital Facilities Plan Capital Facilities Plan \ Some of the assumptions made in calculating projections for the 2023-24 school year are: 1. Local birth data is collected and incorporated into forecasting future kindergarten students. Births trended upward from 2019 to 2021. It is estimated that the pattern shown in recent area births will be reflected in future kindergarten classes between 2023-24 to 2026-27. 2. Student retention as they progress through the grades is the most impactful factor when calculating future student populations. Over 50% of the total grade transitions are above 1.0 meaning students continue their education from grade to grade and there is an increased number of students as well. 3. Approximately 69 new single-family detached units are planned to be built within the District in the next ten years. It is estimated that the planned units may generate 37 K-12 students. 4. The number of out-of-District students (students who do not reside within the district boundaries) has been incorporated into the forecasts by calculating their current overall percentage of student enrollment, then applying the ratio to future years, and adding it to the resident forecasts. The data calculated from the factors above indicate an overall increase over the next ten years. Assuming the out-of-district student proportion of the overall enrollment stays at its current level, total K-12 enrollment is forecasted to increase by approximately 9% to about 18,637 students by the 2032-33 school year. Table 2 below shows the District Forecast Summary for the next 5 years. Auburn School District No. 408 11 Capital Facilities Plan \ Table 2: Student Enrollment Projections 2023-2027 GRADE 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 In-District Students KDG 1,388 1,251 1,289 1,339 1,315 1,315 1 1,366 1,453 1,309 1,348 1,402 1,376 2 1,257 1,364 1,450 1,306 1,345 1,398 3 1,220 1,278 1,387 1,475 1,329 1,368 4 1,290 1,228 1,285 1,397 1,485 1,337 5 1,288 1,299 1,238 1,292 1,403 1,491 6 1,236 1,266 1,276 1,218 1,272 1,381 7 1,211 1,245 1,275 1,287 1,225 1,283 8 1,232 1,210 1,242 1,272 1,281 1,220 9 1,320 1,268 1,245 1,277 1,308 1,321 10 1,355 1,335 1,282 1,260 1,293 1,325 11 1,188 1,246 1,229 1,179 1,156 1,190 12 1,135 1,149 1,207 1,189 1,140 1,118 SUBTOTAL 16,486 16,592 16,714 16,839 16,954 17,124 Out-of-District Students K-5 271 274 276 283 288 288 6-8 89 90 92 91 92 94 9-12 498 498 495 489 488 494 SUBTOTAL 858 862 863 863 868 876 TOTAL STUDENTS K-5 8,080 8,147 8,234 8,440 8,567 8,573 6-8 3,768 3,811 3,885 3,868 3,870 3,978 9-12 5,496 5,496 5,458 5,394 5,385 5,448 GRAND TOTAL K-12 17,344 17,454 17,577 17,702 17,822 17,999 Auburn School District No. 408 12 Capital Facilities Plan \ Student Generation Factors Planned residential development data is collected to determine the number of new residential units that may be built in the future. The projected number of units will have the appropriate Student Generation Factor applied to estimate the number of new students that planned residential development might yield. Planned residential development data was obtained through discussions with city agencies, counties, and major developers within the district boundaries. The student population by residence includes all approved and tentative tract maps in addition to any planned or proposed development that possibly will occur within the project timeframe. The planned residential development information and phasing estimates are a snapshot of the District as of this time. The information may change and is updated annually. Closely related to the planned residential development units are Student Generation Factors. When applied to planned residential development units, the Student Generation Factors determine how many additional students may be generated from new construction within the District. Two sets of data are used to calculate Student Generation Factors: current student enrollment and current housing data. This information associates each student with a housing unit. Two general housing categories are analyzed: Single Family and Multi-Family. Data showing the number of students generated from previous single- and multi-family developments generates the Student Generation Factor to be applied to future developments. The tables on the next two pages show the information for both single-and multi-family developments. The components include: ●“Development Name” is a list of developments in various stages of occupancy. ●“Year of Full Occupancy” is important because fully-occupied developments stay on the list for five years contributing to the Student Generation Factor. Once the five years is up, the development is removed from the list. Auburn School District No. 408 13 Capital Facilities Plan \ ●Also included for each development listed is the number of units, the amount of current units occupancy and the remaining units to be occupied. ●“Feeder Pattern” shows the elementary school associated with each development. ●“Actual Students” is the data of actual students generated from the units already occupied. ●“Student Generation Factors” is the calculation of actual students divided by the number of occupied units. ●“Single Family--2023 and beyond” lists the developments that are in process, but have not yet started to occupy units. This definition also applies to future Multi-family units. ●The units for these developments are multiplied by the Student Generation Factor for each to determine the “Estimated Students Based on Student Generation Factors” Below are the Student Generation Factors for 2023. 2023 Single-Family Multi-Family Elementary 0.303 0.440 Middle 0.133 0.150 High 0.151 0.172 Total 0.587 0.762 SINGLE DEVELOPMENT MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Auburn School District No. 408 14 Auburn School District Development Growth Including the Previous 5 Years March 2023 (Based on Current Year Enrollment) SINGLE FAMILY Development Name Year of Full Occupancy Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Feeder Elementary Actual Students Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Anthem 2018 13 13 0 Ilalko 9 2 2 13 0.692 0.154 0.154 1.000 Bridges 2021 380 380 0 Aurthur Jacobsen 106 40 47 193 0.279 0.105 0.124 0.508 Canyon Creek 2018 151 151 0 Evergreen Hts. 32 16 15 63 0.212 0.106 0.099 0.417 Dulcinea 2018 6 6 0 Lea Hill 6 1 2 9 1.000 0.167 0.333 1.500 Forest Glen at Lakland 2021 30 30 0 Gildo Rey 8 4 1 13 0.267 0.133 0.033 0.433 Greenvale 17 12 5 Hazelwood 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greenview Estates (Knudson)17 6 11 Arthur Jacobsen 1 1 0 2 0.167 0.167 0.000 0.333 Hastings 2020 10 10 0 Evergreen Hts. 4 1 2 7 0.400 0.100 0.200 0.700 Hazel View 2018 22 22 0 Lea Hill 9 4 4 17 0.409 0.182 0.182 0.773 Lakeland: Pinnacle Estates 2018 99 99 0 Bowman Creek 41 28 24 93 0.414 0.283 0.242 0.939 Lozier Ranch 18 7 11 Chinook 1 0 0 1 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.143 Mountain View 2018 55 55 0 Evergreen Hts. 14 4 8 26 0.255 0.073 0.145 0.473 Palisades (Omni Homes)16 14 2 Alpac 3 2 5 10 0.214 0.143 0.357 0.714 River Rock 14 6 8 Aurthur Jacobsen 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Seremounte 2019 30 30 0 Aurthur Jacobsen 23 11 17 51 0.767 0.367 0.567 1.700 Vasiliy 2021 8 8 0 Terminal Park 2 0 0 2 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 Willow Place 2021 11 11 0 Lea Hill 2 0 3 5 0.182 0.000 0.273 0.455 Totals 897 860 37 261 114 130 505 0.303 0.133 0.151 0.587 SINGLE FAMILY--2023 and Beyond Development Name Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total Allens Acres 20-Lot Prelim Plat 20 0 20 6 3 3 12 Ashton Park 20-Lot Prelim Plat 20 0 20 6 3 3 12 Canyon Ridge Estates 26 0 26 8 3 4 15 Carbon Trails 44 0 44 13 6 7 26 River Glen 12-Lot Plat 12 0 12 4 2 2 7 Robbins Prelim Plat 31-Lot SFR Lots 31 0 31 9 4 5 18 Summit at Kendall Ridge Plat 17 0 17 5 2 3 10 The Alicias 56-Lot Plat 56 0 56 17 7 8 33 "To Be Occcupied" above 37 0 37 11 5 6 22 243 243 Totals 66 29 33 127 Auburn School District No. 408 1414 15 Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District Development Growth Including the Previous 5 Years March 2023 (Based on Current Year Enrollment) MULTI FAMILY Development Name Year of Full Occupancy Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Feeder Elementary Actual Students Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Promenade Apts 2018 294 294 0 Lea Hill 205 100 104 409 0.697 0.340 0.354 1.391 The Villas at Auburn 2018 295 295 0 Washington 59 14 27 100 0.200 0.047 0.092 0.339 Copper Gate Apartments 2021 500 500 0 Evergreen Hts. 308 81 94 483 0.616 0.162 0.188 0.966 The Verge Auburn 2022 226 226 0 Terminal Park 7 2 1 10 0.031 0.009 0.004 0.044 Totals 1315 1315 0 579 197 226 1002 0.440)0.150)0.172)0.762) MULTI FAMILY -- 2023 and beyond Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Estimated Students Based on Student Generation Factors Lexi 1 190 0 190 84 28 33 145 "To be Occupied" above 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 190 84 28 33 145 Auburn School District No. 408 16 Capital Facilities Plan Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION III - STANDARD OF SERVICE The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn, City of Black Diamond and the City of Kent indicate that each school district must establish a “Standard of Service” in order to ascertain the overall capacity to house its projected student population. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage “capacity” guidelines for computing state funding support. The fundamental purpose of the OSPI guidelines is to provide a vehicle to equitably distribute state matching funds for school construction projects. By default these guidelines have been used to benchmark the district’s capacity to house its student population. The OSPI guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations, emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student’s educational program. The Auburn School District Standard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in excess of the OSPI guidelines. The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation pattern. Conditions that may result in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without accompanying computations. OVERVIEW As reflected in enrollment numbers for the 2022-23 school year, the Auburn School District operates 16 elementary schools housing 8,280 students in grades K through 5 including Early Childhood Education program. The four middle schools house 3,731 students in grades 6 through 8. The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one alternate high school, housing 5,285 students in grades 9 through 12. (Source: October 1, 2022 Enrollment) Auburn School District No. 408 17 Capital Facilities Plan CLASS SIZE The number of students per classroom determines the number of classrooms required to house the student population. Specialists create additional space Auburn School District No. 408 18 needs. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining agreements. Changes to class size agreements can have significant impact on available space. The current student/teacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 20.33 students per teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 20.33 students per room at grades K - 5. At grades 6 - 8 the limit is set at 28.02 students per room. At grades 9 - 12 the limit is set at 28.74 students per room. The OSPI space allocation for each grade articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Auburn School District Standard of Service, determines the District’s capacity to house projected student populations. These reductions are shown in the following documents by grade articulation level. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STANDARD OF SERVICE MIDDLE SCHOOL STANDARD OF SERVICE HIGH SCHOOL STANDARD OF SERVICE STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARNING FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a structured learning program for students with moderate to severe disabilities at the elementary school level which currently uses 19 classrooms to provide for 151 students. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. No loss of capacity is expected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to total elementary population. PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates an adaptive behavior program for students with behavior disabilities at the elementary school level. The program uses two classrooms to provide for 10 students. The housing requirements for this program exceed the OSPI space allocations. (Two classrooms @ 20.33 - 8 = 12.33) Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 12.33 each =(25) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 12.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(25) SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disabilities. Twenty-one standard classrooms are required to house this program. Continued loss of capacity is expected as growth in program is larger than the total elementary population. Loss of Permanent Capacity 17 (20-3) rooms @ 20.33 each =(346) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(346) STUDENT TEACHER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM (STEP) The Auburn School District operates an elementary program for highly capable and high achieving students at Grade 4 and Grade 5. This program is housed in two classrooms at Terminal Park Elementary School and two classrooms at Willow Crest Elementary School. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 20.33 each =(81) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @20.33 each =0 Total Capacity Loss =(81) EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children below age five with disabilities. This program is housed at fifteen different elementary schools and currently uses 15 standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 20.33 each =(305) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(305) READING LABS The Auburn School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in each elementary school. Five elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms available, thus they are housed in a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 20.33 each =(102) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(102) Auburn School District No. 408 19 MUSIC ROOMS The Auburn School District elementary music programs require one acoustically-modified classroom at each school for music instruction. The housing requirements are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 20.33 each =(305) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(305) MULTI-LINGUAL LEARNER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates pullout programs at the elementary school level for multi-lingual learner students. This program requires 33 standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 33 rooms @ 20.33 each =(671) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(671) SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for eight highly-impacted elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade level and do not receive other services. This program requires eight standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 20.33 each =(163) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(163) ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for first and second graders. This program model was originally created from the I-728 funds and currently has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into designated classrooms. The district is utilizing classrooms at all fifteen elementary schools. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 20.33 each =(305) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(305) EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (ECEAP) The Auburn School District operates an ECEAP program for 246 pre-school aged children in twelve sections of half-day length and one full-day program. The program is housed at seven elementary schools and utilizes ten standard elementary classrooms and one additional classroom space and seven auxiliary office spaces. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 20.33 each =(203) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(203) Auburn School District No. 408 20 MIDDLE SCHOOLS SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the middle school level. This is to accommodate special education students needing remedial instruction to address their specific disabilities. Eleven classrooms are required at the middle school level to provide for approximately 330 students. The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior disabilities. The program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses two classrooms. One of the two classrooms for this program are provided for in the OSPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 rooms @ 28.02 each =(28) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (28) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates seven structured learning classrooms at the middle school level for students with moderate to severe disabilities. Two of the seven classrooms for this program are provided for in the OSPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 28.02 each =(140) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (140) MULTI-LINGUAL LEARNER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for multi-lingual learner students. This program requires 12 standard classrooms that are not provide for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 rooms @ 28.02 each =(336) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (336) ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive middle school program that includes elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 28.02 each =(224) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (224) Auburn School District No. 408 21 HIGH SCHOOLS NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the high school level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 28.74 each =(29) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (29) MULTI-LINGUAL LEARNER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at three comprehensive high schools for multi- lingual learner students. This program requires 15 standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 28.74 each =(431) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (431) PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior diabilities. The program is housed at one of the high schools and uses two classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 28.74 each =(57) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (57) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates twelve structured learning center classrooms for students with moderate to severe disabilities. This program is housed at three high schools requiring standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 rooms @ 28.74 each =(345) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (345) SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific learning disabilities. The current high school program requires 15 classrooms to provide program to meet educational needs of the students. The OSPI space guidelines provide for one of the 15 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 28.74 each =(402) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (402) PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center. The OSPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was not intended for, nor is it usable for, classroom instruction. It was constructed to provide a community center for the performing arts. Using OSPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet computes to 208 unhoused students or 7.25 classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7.25 rooms @ 28.74 each =(208) ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. There are 185 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 10 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 28.74 each =(287) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (287) Auburn School District No. 408 22 STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY Loss of Permanent Capacity (2,505) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (2,505) MIDDLE SCHOOL Loss of Permanent Capacity (729) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (729) SENIOR HIGH Loss of Permanent Capacity (1,760) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (1,760) TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity (4,994) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (4,994) Auburn School District No. 408 23 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION IV - INVENTORY OF FACILITIES Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their OSPI-rated capacities. Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each portable by school. The district uses portable facilities to: 1. provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting, 2. make space available for changing program requirements and offerings determined by unique students needs, and 3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. Portable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing physical plants. Core facilities (i.e. gymnasiums, restrooms, kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding portable classrooms. TABLE IV.1 PERMANENT FACILITIES INVENTORY TABLE IV.2 PORTABLE FACILITIES INVENTORY DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES MAP Auburn School District No. 408 24 TABLE IV.1 PERMANENT FACILITY INVENTORY BUILDING CAPACITY ACRES ADDRESS Elementary Schools Alpac Elementary 503 10.68 310 Milwaukee bopulevard North, Pacific, WA 98047 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 618 10.02 29205 132nd Street SE, Auburn, WA 98092 Bowman Creek Elementary 812 22.03 5701 Kersey Way SE, Auburn, WA 98092 Chinook Elementary 806 12.37 3502 Auburn Way South, Auburn, WA 98092 Dick Scobee Elementary 804 8.90 1031 104th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002 Evergreen Heights Elementary 451 10.10 5602 South 316th, Auburn, WA 98001 Gildo Rey Elementary 516 10.05 1005 37th Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Hazelwood Elementary 580 13.08 11815 Southeast 304th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 Ilalko Elementary 578 14.23 301 Oravetz Place Sourtheast, Auburn, WA 98092 Lake View Elementary 566 16.48 16401 Southeast 318th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 Lakeland Hills Elementary 580 12.00 1020 Evergreen Way SE, Auburn, WA, 98092 Lea Hill Elementary 798 20.24 30908 124th Avenue SE, Auburn, WA 98092 Pioneer Elementary 816 11.50 2301 M Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 *Terminal Park Elementary on K Street 393 17.40 1825 K Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Washington Elementary 501 5.33 20 E Street Northeast, Auburn, WA 98002 Willow Crest Elementary 812 10.60 13002 SE 304th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 ELEMENTARY CAPACITY 10,134 *Terminal Park Elementary is being rebuilt students being housed at interim site for the 2022-23 school year. Reopens in September 2023. Middle Schools Cascade Middle School 823 16.94 1015 24th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002 Mt. Baker Middle School 829 30 620 37th Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Olympic Middle School 989 17.45 839 21st Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Rainier Middle School 830 25.54 30620 116th Ave SE, Auburn, WA 98092 MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITY 3,471 High Schools Auburn High School 2,137 23.74 711 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 Auburn Riverside High School 1,384 35.32 501 Oravetz Road, Auburn, WA 98092 Auburn Mountainview High School 1,437 39.42 28900 124th Ave SE, Auburn, WA 98092 West Auburn High School 233 5.26 401 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY 5,191 TOTAL CAPACITY 18,796 Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 25 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES TABLE IV. 2 PORTABLE FACILITES INVENTORY Elementary Schools 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Middle Schools Alpac 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Arthur Jacobsen 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bowman Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dick Scobee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Evergreen Heights 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Gildo Rey 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Hazelwood 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ilalko 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lake View 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lakeland Hills 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lea Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pioneer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terminal Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Willow Crest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cascade 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 Mt. Baker 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Olympic 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Rainier 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Auburn High School 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 Auburn High School - *TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Auburn Mountainview 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 Auburn Riverside 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 West Auburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL UNITS 43 31 31 31 31 31 31 TOTAL CAPACITY 874 630 630 630 630 630 630 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 TOTAL UNITS 35 39 39 39 39 39 39 TOTAL CAPACITY 981 1,093 1,093 1,093 1,093 1,093 1,093 High Schools 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 TOTAL UNITS 30 39 39 39 39 39 39 TOTAL CAPACITY 862 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 COMBINED TOTAL UNITS 108 109 109 109 109 109 109 COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 2,717 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 *TAP - Transition Assistance Program for 18-21 year old students with special needs. Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 26 nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmknmAdministration BuildingAlpac ESArthur Jacobsen ESAuburn HSAuburn Mountainview HSAuburn Riverside HSBowman Creek ESChinook ESDick Scobee ESWillow Crest ESEvergreen Heights ESGildo Rey ESCascade MSIlalko ESLake View ESLakeland Hills ESLea Hill ESMt Baker MSOlympic MSPioneer ESRainier MSTerminal Park ESWashington ESWest Auburn HSS T AT E R O U T E 1 6 7AUBURN WAY NAUBURN WAY SA U B U R N -E N U M C LA W R D S E SR 167SR 167SR 18SR 18Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User CommunityAUrban Growth BoundarySSEnmnmnmnmHazelwood ES Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION V - STUDENT CAPACITY While the Auburn School District uses the OSPI inventory of permanent facilities as the data from which to determine space needs, the District’s educational program requires more space than that provided for under the formula. This additional square footage is converted to numbers of students in Section III, Standard of Service. The District’s capacity is adjusted to reflect the need for additional space to house its programs. Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new funded facilities. The combined effect of these adjustments is shown on Line B in Tables V.1 and V.2. Table V.1 shows the District’s capacity with portable units included and Table V.2 without these units. Table V.1 Capacity with Portables Table V.2 Capacity without Portables Auburn School District No. 408 28 Table V.1 Student Capacity with Portables 2022.23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 A. OSPI Capacity 18,796 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 A.1 OSPI Capacity - New Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.2 OSPI Capacity - Replacements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.3 OSPI Capacity - New Middle School 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 B. Capacity Adjustments B1. Portables 2,717 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 B2. Exclude Standard of Service (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) C. Net Capacity 16,519 17,074 17,074 17,074 17,874 17,074 17,074 D. ASD Enrollment 17,059 17,344 17,454 17,577 17,702 17,822 18,000 E. ASD Surplus/Deficit -540 -270 -380 -503 172 -748 -926 Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 29 Table V.2 Student Capacity without Portables 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 A. OSPI Capacity 18,796 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 A.1 OSPI Capacity - New Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.2 OSPI Capacity - Replacements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.3 OSPI Capacity - New Middle School 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 B. Capacity Adjustments B1. Exclude Standard of Service (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) C. Net Capacity 13,802 14,230 14,230 14,230 15,030 14,230 14,230 D. ASD Enrollment 17,059 17,344 17,454 17,577 17,702 17,822 18,000 E. ASD Surplus/Deficit -3,257 -3,114 -3,224 -3,347 -2,672 -3,592 -3,770 Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 30 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION VI - CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN The formal process used by the Auburn School Board to address current and future facility needs began almost 50 years ago in 1974. The process includes a formation of a community-wide citizen’s committee and throughout the years, these Ad Hoc Committees have conducted work and made recommendations for improvements to the District’s programs and facilities. In October of 2008, after two years of review and study, a Steering Committee made recommendations to the Board regarding the capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities as recommended by the 2004-05 Citizen’s Ad Hoc Committee. These recommendations, based on specific criteria, led to the Board placing a school improvement bond and capital improvements levy on the ballot in March 2009. Voters did not approve either measure that would have updated 24 facilities and replaced three aging schools. The Board decided to place only a six-year Capital Levy on the ballot in November of 2009, which passed at 55.17%. The levy funded $46.4 million of needed improvement projects at 24 sites over the following seven school years. Planning for the replacement of aging schools was started with educational specifications and schematic design process for the replacement of Auburn High School. The District acquired a site for a future high school in 2008 and a second site for a future middle school in 2009. The District also continued efforts to acquire property around Auburn High School. The Special Education Transitional Assistance Program (TAP) opened in February of 2010. This facility is designed for students with disabilities that are 18 to 21 years old. In the November 2012 election, the community supported the $110 million bond issue for the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project at 62%. Construction began in February 2013. The entire new building was occupied by Auburn High School students and staff in the fall of 2015, with site improvements being completed during the 2015-16 school year. In January 2015, a citizen’s ad hoc committee was convened by direction of the Board to address growth and facilities. The major recommendations were to construct two new elementary schools in the next four years and to acquire 3 new elementary school sites as soon as possible. Auburn School District No. 408 31 Capital Facilities Plan \ In the November 2016 election, the community supported the $456 million bond issue for the replacement of six schools and the construction of two new elementary schools at 62.83%. Construction for the replacement of Olympic Middle School began in May 2018 and was completed in Fall 2019. Construction for Bowman Creek Elementary School began in May 2019 and was completed in Fall 2020. Construction for the replacement of Dick Scobee Elementary School began in June 2019 and was completed in Fall 2020. Construction for Willow Crest Elementary School and replacement of Pioneer Elementary School began in May 2020 and was completed in Fall 2021. Construction for replacement of Chinook and Lea HIll Elementary Schools began in June 2021 and was completed in Fall of 2022. Construction for replacement of Terminal Park Elementary School began in June 2022 and will be completed in Fall of 2023. The District anticipates running a Capital Bond Measure in 2024. Funds will be used to construct a new middle school on property currently owned by the District, and may include funds to replace one or more existing schools. The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population. 2023-29 Capital Construction Plan (May 2023) Project Funded Projected Cost Fund Source 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 Portable Relocation1 Yes $2,400,000 Impact Fees ✔ Middle School #5 1 Yes $112,000,000 Bond ✔ plan ✔ plan ✔ const ✔ const ✔ open 1 Funds may be secured through a combination of a bond issue, impact fees, and/or state matching funds Auburn School District No. 408 32 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION VII - IMPACT FEES IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (SPRING 2023) TABLES VII.1-VII.4 TABLES VII.5 & VII.6 IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Auburn School District No. 408 33 IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2023) Table VII.1 SITE COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre)/Facility Capacity)) x Student Factor Site Cost per Facility Student Generation Factor Cost per Cost per Acreage Acre Capacity Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elementary (K - 5)15 650 0.3030 0.4400 Middle (6 - 8)25 $0)800 0.1330 0.1500 $0)$0) High (9 - 12)40 $0)1500 0.1510 0.1720 $0)$0) $0) $0) Table VII.2 PERMANENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Student Capacity) x Student Factor)) x (Permanent-to-Total Square Footage Percentage) Facility Student % Perm Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost per Cost per Cost Capacity Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elementary (K - 5)$0)650 0.9529 0.3030 0.4400 $0 $0 Middle (6 - 8)$143,000,000)800 0.9529 0.1330 0.1500 $22,654 $25,550 High (9 - 12)$0)1500 0.9529 0.1510 0.1720 $0 $0 $22,654 $25,550 Table VII.3 PORTABLES CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Student Capacity) x Student Factor)) x (Portable-to-Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Student % Port Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost per Cost per Cost Capacity Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elementary (K - 5)$250,000)20.33 0.0471 0.3030 0.4400 $175)$255) Middle (6 - 8)$250,000)28.02 0.0471 0.1330 0.1500 $56)$63) High (9 - 12)$250,000)28.74 0.0471 0.1510 0.1720 $62)$70) $293)$388) Table VII.4 STATE MATCH CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: (Boeckh Index x SPI Footage x District Match x Student Factor) Boeckh OSPI State Student Generation Factor Cost per Cost per Index Footage Match Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elementary (K - 5)90 64.58% 0.3030 0.4400 $0)$0) Middle (6 - 8)$246.83)108 64.58% 0.1330 0.1500 $2,290)$2,582) High (9 - 12)130 64.58% 0.1510 0.1720 $0)$0) $2,290)$2,582) V. TAX CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: Expressed as the present value of an annuity Tax Credit = Present Value (interest rate, discount period, average assessed value x tax rate) Average Residential Assessed Value Current Debt Service Tax Rate Bond Buyer Index Annual Interest Rate Number of Years Tax Credit Single Family $573,704)$1.84)3.58%10 $8,744) Multi Family $270,892 $1.84)3.58%10 $4,129) VI. DEVELOPER PROVIDED FACILITY CREDIT Formula: (Value of Site or Facility/Number of dwelling units) Value No. of Units Facility Credit Single Family $0.00)1 $0.00) Multi Family $0.00)1 $0.00) Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 34 $0)$0)$0) Site Cost Projections Recent Property Acquisitions Acreage Purchase Year Purchase Price Purchase Cost per Acre Adjusted Present Day Projected Annual Inflation Factor Elementary #16 Parcel 1 1.26 2019 $480,000 $380,952 $508,200 2019 2020 2021 2022 $2,023 Elementary #16 Parcel 2 8.19 2019 $2,959,561 $361,363 $482,066 10%5%10%10%5% Elementary #16 Parcel 3 0.80 2018 $460,000 $575,000 $843,771 Totals 10.25 Average Cost per Acre $513,509 IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2023) FEE RECAP SUMMARY Single Multiple Family Family Site Costs $0.00)$0.00) Permanent Facility Construction Costs $22,654.41)$25,550.09) Portable Facility Costs $293.14)$388.21) State Match Credit ($2,289.66) ($2,582.34) Tax Credit ($8,743.84)($4,128.67) FEE (No Discount)$11,914.04)$19,227.29) FEE (50% Discount)$5,957.02)$9,613.64) Less ASD Discount $0.00)$0.00) Facility Credit $0.00)$0.00) Net Fee Obligation $5,957.02)$9,913.64) Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 35 SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 0.303 0.133 0.151 0.440 0.150 0.172 650 800 1500 650 800 1500 $143,000,000)$143,000,000) 20.33 28.02 28.74 20.33 28.02 28.74 $250,000)$250,000)$250,000)$250,000)$250,000)$250,000) 15 25 40 15 25 40 $2,023 $2,023 $2,023 $2,023 $2,023 $2,023 958,340 378,631 677,976 958,340 378,631 677,976 38,292 30,912 28,561 38,292 30,912 28,561 996,632 409,543 706,537 996,632 409,543 706,537 96.16%92.45%95.96%96.16%92.45%96.16% 3.84%7.55%4.04%3.84%7.55%4.04% 90 108 130 90 108 130 $246.83)$246.83)$246.83)$246.83)$246.83)$246.83) 64.58% 64.58% 64.58% 64.58% 64.58% 64.58% 35.42% 35.42% 35.42% 35.42% 35.42% 35.42% $573,704)$573,704)$573,704)$222,095)$222,095)$222,095) 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 Student Generation Factor New Facility Capacity New Facility Cost - Middle School Cost Estimate May 2023 Classroom Capacity - Grades K - 5 @ 20.33, 6 - 8 @ 28.02, & 9 - 12 @ 28.74 Portable Costs - including site work, set up, and furnishing Site Acreage - ASD Standard or SPI Minimum Site Cost per Acre - table above Permanent Square Footage - 16 Elementary, 4 Middle, and 4 High Schools Portable Facility Square Footage - 24 x 864 SF + 83 x 896 SF + TAP 2661 Total Square Footage - Permanent + Portable Percent of Total - Permanent Facilities Percent of Total - PortableFacilities OSPI Square Footage Per Student - WAC 392-343-035 Boeckh Index - July 2022 (2023 Amount Pending Legislature Budget Adoption) OSPI State Match Percent - 2022 District Match Percent - May 2023 (computed) District Average Assessed Value - King County May 2023 Debt Service Tax Rate - Current Fiscal Year General Obligation Bonds Interest Rate - Bond Buyer 20 Index Current Fiscal Year 3.58%3.58% 3.58% 3.58% 3.58% 3.58% Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 36 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 1 of 25 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for lead agencies Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in “Part B: Environmental Elements” that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 2 of 25 A. Background Find help answering background questions 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of the Auburn School District's (the “District”) 2023 Capital Facilities Plan ("CFP") for the purposes of planning for the District's educational facilities needs. Adoption of the CFP is a nonproject proposal. The District prepares annual updates to the CFP in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act, and the codes of King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The CFP is a nonproject planning document, covers a six-year planning period, and includes: · Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary, middle and high school). · An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the locations and capacities of those facilities · A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and the proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. · A six-year plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding capacities which identifies sources of public money for such purposes. · A calculation of school impact fees to be assessed pursuant to RCW 82.02 The District prepares the CFP primarily as a basis for seeking, where eligible, school impact fees to help address school capacity impacts related to residential growth. The District’s Board of Directors will review and consider approval and adoption of the 2023 CFP. If approved and adopted, the District will send the CFP to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into their respective Comprehensive Plans. A copy of the District's draft Capital Facilities Plan is available for review in the District's office. 2. Name of applicant: Auburn School District No. 408 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 915 4th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 Bob Kenworthy, Assistant Director, Capital Projects (253) 931-4826 4. Date checklist prepared: May 19, 2023 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 3 of 25 5. Agency requesting checklist: Auburn School District No. 408, acting as the lead agency for environmental review and SEPA compliance for this nonproject proposal. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The District’s 2023 CFP is scheduled to be considered for adoption by the District School Board on or about June 12, 2023. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2023 CFP, it will be sent to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into the Capital Facilities Element of their respective Comprehensive Plans. The potential projects referenced in the CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a nonproject planning action and addresses educational planning for the entirety of the Auburn School District. The 2023 CFP includes required six-year enrollment projections and related school capacities to determine whether additional school capacity may be needed to accommodate enrollment growth from new development. During the six-year planning period, the District plans to construct a new middle school to address student capacity needs. Portables may also be added at existing school sites within the next six years. The District will complete construction of a replacement Terminal Park Elementary School by the fall of 2023. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. All potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed and require threshold determinations will undergo environmental review at the time of formal proposal and process when full details of the projects are known and able to be analyzed. The following environmental information relates to recently completed projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan for which environmental review is complete: A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for Terminal Elementary School Replacement Project on November 24, 2021, with the Environmental Checklist for that proposal referencing additional environmental information therein. Information included in this environmental checklist is from the Capital Facilities Plan 2023, which is incorporated into this review. 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. This is a nonproject action and addresses educational planning for the entirety of the Auburn School District. There are no known applications covering the entire District or any of the sites for which a specific development project is identified. The District is planning to acquire SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 4 of 25 additional property for a future Elementary School project but is unaware at the present time of the specific location. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. As a non-project planning document, the 2023 CFP itself does not require permitting. The District anticipates that, following any Board approval and adoption of the CFP, its jurisdictions will consider incorporation of the 2023 CFP by reference in the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan to inform student enrollment capacity planning related to existing and planned residential development. Any specific projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed for action, will be subject to project-level permitting and 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 do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non-project planning document, addresses educational planning for the entirety of the Auburn School District, and involves the adoption of a six-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) by the Auburn School District to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070) and the codes of King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The purpose of the CFP is to provide these jurisdictions with a description of enrollment projections and school capacities over the required six-year planning period 2023-2028 to determine whether future school capacity/facilities may be needed to accommodate student enrollment growth as a result of new residential development. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2023 CFP, it will be sent to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into the Capital Facilities Element of their respective Comprehensive Plan. Potential projects referenced in the CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review at the time of formal proposal and process when full details of the projects are known and able to be analyzed. The District updates the Capital Facilities Plan on an annual basis and carefully monitors enrollment projections against capacity needs. If legally supportable, the District requests its local jurisdictions to collect impact fees on behalf of the District to provide for growth-related student capacity needs, with the CFP providing a basis for such collection. The impact fees requested in this year’s Capital Facilities Plan are based on the growth related middle school construction project. A copy of the 2023 CFP is available for review upon request to the District. 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 5 of 25 The 2023 CFP applies to educational planning within the Auburn School District boundaries. The District boundaries include an area of approximately 62 square miles. Portions of unincorporated King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific fall within the District’s boundaries. The District’s CFP contains a map of the District’s boundaries. A detailed map of the District’s boundaries can be viewed at the District’s offices. B. Environmental Elements Applicant/Agency Added Note: The Proposal is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. WAC 197-11- 960 provides, in part, that “For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). The lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.” In order to provide as much information as possible about the proposal, the District has completed Part B even though it is not required. See Part D, Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1. Earth Find help answering earth questions a. General description of the site: Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: This is a non-project action. The geographic area comprising the Auburn School District includes a variety of topographic land forms and gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP are located will be identified during project-level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? There are a variety of slopes with differing level of steepness on properties located throughout the geographic area of the District. Any projects referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action would include an evaluation of project/site-specific slopes during project review. 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. There are a variety of soil types on properties located throughout the geographic area of the District. Any projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed for action, would include an evaluation of project/site- specific soils during project review. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the geographic area comprising the District. Specific soil limitations on SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 6 of 25 individual sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may include filing, excavation, and grading. Details of any such actions will be assessed and identified during project-level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The proposal as a nonproject planning action does not include filling, excavation, or grading components. nor approve of any project for that purpose Individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will assess this component during project-level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The proposal as a nonproject planning action does not include clearing, construction, or specific use in itself (nor does it approve any such use). It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction of projects referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action. The erosion impacts of the individual projects will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposal as a nonproject planning action doesn’t include plans for impervious surface nor approve of any project for that purpose. Individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, will be on sites with impervious surface coverage anticipated, the details of which will be assessed during project- level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. This is a non-project action. The erosion potential of any project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action, as well as any appropriate control measures, will be addressed during project- specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. Individual projects will be subject to all local approval processes. Without limitation, relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. 2. Air Find help answering air questions a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The proposal as a nonproject planning action doesn’t in itself include the potential for emissions nor approve of any project for that purpose. Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for action. The air-quality impacts of each potential project will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review at the SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 7 of 25 appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non-Project Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action. Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. This is a non-project action. The individual potential projects in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed and will be subject to local approval processes. Proposed measures will be identified at that time. The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. 3. Water Find help answering water questions a. Surface Water: Find help answering surface water questions 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal includes the entire geographic area of the Auburn School District, and there is a network of surface water bodies in the geographic area comprising District. The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects. 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. This is a non-project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may require work near the surface waters located within the District and analysis of such will be included during project- specific environmental review during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Applicable local and/or state approval requirements will be satisfied. 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in fill or dredging activities nor approve of any project for that purpose. Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a component of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be provided during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 8 of 25 formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a non-project action. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal includes the entire geographic area of the Auburn School District, and the geographic area comprising the District includes 100-year floodplain areas. Review of potential projects within a 100-year floodplain referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in discharge of waste materials to surface waters nor approve of any project for that purpose. Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be provided during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Ground Water: Find help answering ground water questions 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a non-project action. Individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, may impact groundwater resources. Those impacts will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local and/or state regulations. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in discharge of waste materials into the ground nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. The discharge of waste material that may take place in connection with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 9 of 25 c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): a) 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in runoff nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. Individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may have stormwater runoff consequences. Specific information regarding the stormwater impacts of each project will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local and/or state stormwater regulations. b) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each potential project on ground and surface waters will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. c) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. This is a non-project action and will not in itself alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. The specific impacts of any project referenced in the CFP on drainage patterns will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any. Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to regulations related to altering or diverting drainage patterns. 4. Plants Find help answering plants questions a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ☐ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ☐ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ☐ shrubs ☐ grass ☐ pasture ☐ crop or grain ☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 10 of 25 ☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ☐ other types of vegetation This is a non-project planning document and includes educational planning for the Auburn School District. A variety of vegetative zones are located within the District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be developed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This is a non-project action and will not in itself alter or remove vegetation nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. Some of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects referenced in the CFP will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include threatened and endangered species. An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be developed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Investigation will include use of the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Specifies on the Web database. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. This is a non-project action. Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. This is a non-project action and does not involve a specific site (or a specific project). Noxious weeds and invasive species observed on or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 5. Animals Find help answering animal questions a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 11 of 25 Examples include: · Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: · Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: · Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: This is a non-project planning document and includes educational planning for the Auburn School District. An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be developed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include threatened and endangered species. Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be developed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Investigation will include use of the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Specifies on the Web database. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include migration routes. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP on migration routes will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. This is a non-project action. Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife will be determined during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District and is not specific to a project on any particular site. The geographic area comprising the District may include invasive animal species. Invasive animal species observed on or near the sites of potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions 1. 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 12 of 25 This is a non-project action and will not in itself use energy nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. The State’s Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction requires the completion of a life-cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed. The energy needs of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning at the appropriate time when project details are known. 2. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action and will not in itself affect use of solar energy on adjacent properties nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP on the solar potential of adjacent properties will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. 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. This is a non-project action. Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be considered during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 7. Environmental Health Find help with answering environmental health questions a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. This is a non-project planning document and includes educational planning for the Auburn School District. Individual projects identified in the CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local and/or state approval at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. At that time, environmental health hazards, if any, would be identified and addressed. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include areas of known or possible contamination from present or past uses. Individual projects identified in the CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local and/or state approval at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. At that time, known or possible contamination, if any, would be identified and addressed. . 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 13 of 25 This is a non-project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will comply with all current codes, standards, rules and regulations. Individual projects will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local and/or state approval at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in storage, use, or production of toxic or hazardous chemicals nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. Toxic and hazardous chemicals that may be stored or produced by the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Such projects will comply with all current codes, standards, rules and regulations related to hazardous materials. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. This is a non-project action. The need for special emergency services for the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Educational facilities in themselves may require special emergency services and any such services would be identified at project-level environmental review of individual projects identified in the CFP when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. While this nonproject planning action does not itself identify environmental health hazards, individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review impacts for related environmental health hazards at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District contains a variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial and industrial uses. The specific noise sources that may affect the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 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)? This is a non-project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may create typical construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis. The projects could increase construction-related SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 14 of 25 traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Because the projects will increase the capacity of the District’s school facilities, the projects may increase traffic-related or operations-related noise on a longer-term basis once the new facilities are constructed and opened. Specifics of noise level changes will be evaluated during project-specific review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. The projected noise impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be evaluated and mitigated during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local and/or state regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District includes a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts from potential projects referenced within the CFP to nearby or adjacent properties will be evaluated as part of the project- specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? This is a non-project action and not specific to a particular site. Identification of the use of sites intended for any potential projects referenced in the CFP as working farmlands or working forest land will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Potential projects referenced within the 2023 CFP do not involve sites used for working farmlands or working forest lands. 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? This is a non-project action and will not itself affect or be affected by working farms/forestland, nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. Any possible affects to surrounding farms or forest lands will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review for any project referenced in the CFP, if proposed, at the appropriate during when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. Describe any structures on the site. This is a non-project action and not specific to a site. Any structures located on the proposed sites of the SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 15 of 25 potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? This is a non-project action. Any structures that will be demolished as a result of any project referenced in the CFP, if proposed, has been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site, and the CFP proposed here will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use . There are a variety of zoning classifications throughout the District. Projects referenced in the 2023 Capital Facilities Plan are zoned under applicable zoning codes and identification of the potential projects or sites does not in itself direct land uses or serve as a basis for project-specific approvals. Rather, site-specific zoning information and requirements for projects that may be proposed for project activity in the 2023 CFP will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. To the extent any of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP are proposed for sites not currently zoned for the intended educational purpose or to the extent a site within the District’s inventory is proposed in the future for a project not currently permitted within the zoning district, the local jurisdiction with zoning authority would need to evaluate and process any necessary zoning changes and conduct all required public notice and environmental review. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site, and the CFP proposed here will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. District boundaries span multiple jurisdictions and the District owns facilities or properties in the unincorporated areas of King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The sites for the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for project activity are located among these jurisdictions and subject to the respective codes and comprehensive plans. To the extent any of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP are proposed for sites not currently designated in the relevant comprehensive plan for the intended educational purpose or to the extent a site within the District’s inventory is proposed in the future for a project not currently permitted by the underlying comprehensive plan designation, the local jurisdiction with land use authority would need to evaluate and process any necessary comprehensive plan amendments and conduct all required public notice and environmental review. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? This is a non-project action. Shoreline master program designations of the sites for the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 16 of 25 This is a non-project action and does not involve a particular site for the educational planning purpose of the proposal. Any environmentally sensitive areas located on the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project-specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? As a nonproject educational planning action, the proposal is not specific to a particular project. The current Auburn School District student enrollment for the 2022-23 school year is 17,059. Enrollment is expected to increase to approximately 17,999 by the 2028-2029 school year. The District employs approximately 1,700 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? This is a non-project action and will not itself result in displacement of people. It is not anticipated that any of the referenced projects in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed will displace any people as a result of any project moving forward/. Final determination of any displacement caused by any potential project will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time when project details are known and able to be analyzed. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. It is not anticipated that any of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed will displace any people from the sites. Individual projects referenced in this CFP, if proposed for action, will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures will be determined at that time, if necessary. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. This is a non-project educational planning document. The purpose of a school district Capital Facilities Plan is to provide local jurisdictions with a six-year projection of enrollment and identification of school capacity to determine the need for new school facilities to accommodate growth from new residential development that the local jurisdiction may permit, and to provide a basis for the assessment of school impact fees, if appropriate. The 2023 CFP has been developed consistent with RCW 36.70A and RCW 82.02.020. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2023 CFP it will be sent to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into the Capital Facilities Element of their respective Comprehensive Plan. Individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for action will be evaluated for compatibility with existing land uses and plans during project-specific environmental and permit review. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any. This is a non-project action. Any referenced projects in the Capital Facilities Plan that may be proposed for development will be evaluated for compatibility with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long- SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 17 of 25 term commercial significance has been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 9. Housing Find help answering housing questions a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. The nonproject educational planning action does not propose any new housing units, and the potential school facility projects referenced in the 2023 CFP would not involve the provision of new housing units. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. This nonproject educational planning action would not in itself eliminate any units nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project that would do so. It is not anticipated that the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, will eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, on existing housing will be evaluated during project- specific environmental review at the appropriate time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time. The CFP itself serves as a basis for a local jurisdiction to determine housing impacts to needed school capacity and serve as a basis for assessing school impact fees. 10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site. Structural heights associated with any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review, when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site. Views associated with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review, when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be determined on a project-specific basis, when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 18 of 25 11. Light and Glare Find help answering light and glare questions a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site or building/structure. The light or glare impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. In general, school facilities operate during the day with some post-school hour operations for extracurricular activities and include site safety lighting depending on the particular site location and design. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? This is a non-project action. The light or glare impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? This is a non-project action. Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. Proposed measures to mitigate the light or glare impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This is a non-project action and addresses educational planning throughout the geographic boundaries of the Auburn School District. There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the District boundaries. These include both District-owned facilities and other public and private recreational facilities. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. This is a non-project action and will not itself displace existing recreational uses nor will it serve as a basis for any future project to do so. Any proposed new school facilities and modernizations to existing school facilities may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. Specific recreational impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 19 of 25 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. This is a non-project action. Adverse recreational impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be subject to mitigation during project-specific environmental review. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of playfields and gymnasiums that may be used outside of school hours. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. This is a non-project action and addresses educational planning throughout the geographic boundaries of the Auburn School District. There may be sites eligible for register listing located throughout the geographic area. The District will evaluate, when a school site is located for potential development, whether there are known places or objects listed on, or proposed for, such registers which may be proposed for development. The existence of historic and cultural resources on or next to the sites will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. This is a non-project action. The geographic area comprising the District may include landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation. An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be developed during project-specific environmental review. At a minimum, research will be conducted on the web using the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) resource. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. This is a non-project action. Any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation, or material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance, on or near sites intended for any projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Appropriate methods will be proposed on a project-specific basis. At a minimum, research will be conducted on the web using the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) resource. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 20 of 25 d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. This is a non-project action. The impact on cultural or historic resources of the individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known. 14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District contains a variety of roads, streets, and highways. The impact on public streets and highways of the individual, potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? This is a non-project action. The relationship between public transit and individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. District schools are regularly served by District transportation service (yellow bus). c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). This is a non-project action and the educational planning purpose of the CFP will not in itself require any transportation improvements. The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads associated with individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action and does not in itself involve a proposed use nor does it serve as a basis for such use. Use of water, rail or air transportation associated with individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 21 of 25 This is a non-project action and will not in itself generate vehicular trips nor serve as a basis for approval of a project that would. The traffic impacts of individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Approved data models will be used to evaluate trips generated by individual projects. f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action and will neither itself nor serve as a basis for approval of any project that would be affected by movement of agricultural or forest projects on roads/streets.. The traffic impacts of individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 15. Public Services Find help answering public service questions a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the CFP that may be proposed for development or the CFP itself will significantly increase the need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. This is a non-project action. Any potential new school facilities that are referenced in the CFP and may be proposed for development will be code compliant and constructed with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems consistent with local and/or state requirements. 16. Utilities Find help answering utilities questions a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: This is a non-project action and does not involve a particular site or project, nor does it serve as the basis for approval of any particular project referenced in the CFP. Storm, power, and water are currently available to the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP. Other utilities are either available or the District will apply for approval of alternative sewage disposal systems/procedures. The SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 23 of 25 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Find help for the nonproject actions worksheet IT IS NOT REQUIRED to use this section 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. APPLICANT/AGENCY ADDED NOTE: The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed, some of these environmental impacts may be more likely. However, neither approval of the CFP itself nor its inclusion as a part of any jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element serves as the basis for approval of any potential project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action, nor does it direct a land use approval of any site referenced in the CFP. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any of particular use. To the extent the CFP makes it likely that school facilities may be considered for action, there may be increased discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, access roads, and sidewalks could increase stormwater runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, with the possible exception of noise production due to short-term construction activities or the presences of additional students/school operations on a site. Construction impacts related to noise and air would be short term and are not anticipated to be significant. · Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed for any potential project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Stormwater detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. Noise impacts will evaluated under local and state standards once when project details are known and able to be analyzed, and impacts will be mitigated appropriately. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 24 of 25 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP are not likely to generate severe impacts on fish or marine life. As needed, specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any of particular use. Should the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP be proposed and constructed, they will require the consumption of energy. · Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The potential projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed, will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards and requirements, and proposed measures needed to protect or conserve energy and natural resources have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 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 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any of particular use and, as such, will not have an impact on these elements itself. Environmentally sensitive areas will be identified during project-specific environmental review of any project referenced in the CFP and proposed for action and will be consistently addressed with local and/or state requirements. · Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Updates of the CFP will be coordinated with King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific, with at least one of the above jurisdictions being the lead permitting agency for any project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action. Appropriate measures as identified in collaboration with regulatory agencies will be proposed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time of formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 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? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use and, as such, does not in itself dictate certain shoreline and land uses. Any projects referenced within the CFP and subsequently proposed for project-specific review and permitting will be reviewed for compliance with existing plans and would be subject to the relevant jurisdiction’s land use process and approval requirements. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 25 of 25 · Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: This 2023 CFP is a non-project planning document and does not in itself dictate certain shoreline and land uses. Any projects referenced within the CFP and subsequently proposed for project-specific review and permitting will be reviewed and conditioned appropriately to avoid or reduce land use impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use and, as such, does not itself create substantial new demands for transportation. The potential projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed, may create an increase in traffic near District facilities during the school year and during school start/end times. Impacts on transportation, public services, and utilities related to the potential projects referenced in the CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. · Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: This 2023 CFP is a non-project planning document and, as such, does not itself create substantial new demands for transportation, public services, or utilities. Therefore, no measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. Any proposed measures to reduce demands on transportation, public services or utilities have been or would be done at the project-specific level of any project referenced in the CFP if proposed for action. Requirements of the permitting jurisdiction, as well as any additional measures identified during project-level environmental review, would be complied with as a part of the project. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use and does not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Specific projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan, if proposed, have been or will be reviewed under project-level environmental review requirements. The Washington Growth Management Act (the GMA) outlines 13 broad goals, including adequate provision of necessary public facilities and services. Schools are among these necessary facilities and services. The Capital Facilities Plan satisfies the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070, identifies additional school facilities necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations anticipated in the District, and informs local jurisdictions regarding the impacts of new residential development on public school capacity. DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Issued with a 14-day comment period Description of Proposal: This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single course of action: 1. The adoption of the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 by the Auburn School District No. 408 for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District; 2. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of King County and the cities of Auburn, Black Diamond, and Kent to include the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan; and 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the cities of Algona and Pacific to include the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Auburn School District No. 408 Location of the Proposal: The Auburn School District includes an area of approximately 62 square miles. Portions of unincorporated King County and County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific fall within the District's boundaries. Lead Agency: Auburn School District No. 408 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on June 9, 2023. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Dr. Alan Spicciati Superintendent Auburn School District No. 408 Address: Auburn School District 915 4th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Issued with a 14-day comment period Questions may be directed and comments may be submitted by 4:30 p.m., June 9, 2023, to: Bob Kenworthy, Assistant Director, Capital Projects, Auburn School District No. 408, 915 4th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002. Date of Issue: May 23, 2023 Date Published: May 26, 2023 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT (P/T) #2 INCORPORATE DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT #343 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2023-2029 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 DRAFT Board Approval scheduled on June 20, 2023 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 1320-178th A venue East Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 (253)862-2537 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Megan Bearor Mike Skagen Greg Johnson Scott Reisnouer Chelsea Steiner Michael Farmer, Superintendent DieringerEducating every child forConfidence today andContribution tomorrow Dieringer School District No. 343 d An Overview Established in 1890, Dieringer School District consolidated with Lake Tapps School District in 1936. The District's three schools, Lake Tapps Elementary School, Dieringer Heights Elementary School and North Tapps Middle School, provide K through 8th grade education, and serve as hubs for community activities as well. Dieringer School District #343 is located in unincorporated Pierce County, bounded on the east by the White River, on the west by the Stuck River, on the north by the city of Auburn, and on the south by the cities of Bonney Lake and Sumner. The District surrounds the northern two-thirds of Lake Tapps and covers approximately 5.5 square miles. The current student enrollment is approximately 1,418 students in grades kindergarten through eight. Students in grades first through third are housed at Lake Tapps Elementary, constructed in 2005 as a replacement project. Construction was complete on an addition in the September 2017. Dieringer Heights Elementary opened in the fall of 2000 and is home to students in kindergarten, fourth and fifth grade. Dieringer Heights Elementary also houses two inclusion preschool classrooms. Originally constructed in 1992 and added on to in 1998 and 2009, North Tapps Middle School houses students in grades sixth-eighth. The district supports an additional 560 high school students who may select to attend any public high school. The majority chose to attend Auburn Riverside, Sumner and Bonney Lake High Schools. The district has a long standing history of providing high quality education for all our students. Our goal is for our students to gain the skills that will allow them to become successful, confident, contributing members of society. Dieringer is composed of students who come to school well prepared and eager to learn. Parents are concerned with student success and provide outstanding support for their children and the Dieringer School District. The PTA and many volunteers contribute countless hours and resources to our schools and students. The community supports the schools through the passage of funding issues to support bus acquisition, student access to current technology and the construction of school facilities. Impact fees, including interest, are held in reserve until used to meet District identified needs for site acquisition, additional facilities and improvements an/or technology capital expenditures. DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2023 Current Facilities Inventory of Public Schools NAME CAPACITY LOCATION Lake Tapps Elementary 357 1320-178th Ave E., Lake Tapps Dieringer Heights Elementary 508 21727 -34 th St. E., Lake Tapps North Tapps Middle School 536 20029-12th St., E., Lake Tapps High School 0 TOTAL 1,401 r.1ZH luz:ff11'q?=rW?ll?an?'Wilzaz1-lZRI)11.J:"l.,l:ll $1!l?11lr-?01%(r'if!1aa!Ifflii il?i ll101lIiIi l=k991iil zelili li t'-j.'6/'? ' .'il."J4,Ill-Al'fml mci:Ia0W##'7'?ntoB@ Dieringer School District Proposed Housing Potential Enrollment Increase June 2020 Proposed Housing Units: *Single Family-224 x .381 generation factor = 85.3 students K-8 Enrollment Impact: 85 .3 students K-8 Estimated 17.1 students a year over the period 2021-2026 Potential enrollment increase = 5.6% (based on 1,523 enrollment 4/20) Increase per grade level = 9.5 students (based on 9 grade bands) Approximately students per school: 28.4 **District enrollment based on 4/19 and potential growth =1,608.3 / 1654.3 District program capacity = 1,401 students *Generation factor based on an average of2019 Sumner .429 and Auburn .333 **Numbers are without and with preschool students, respectively Enrollment ProjectionsThe Dieringer School District is located in an area that continues to experience gromh.This growth can be noted by reviewing the following indicators: enrollment trend data,proposed housing development, and the mitigation impact fees received for newconstruction.The District continues to experience steady growth in student enrollment. This hasslightly exceeded the Pierce County and Puget Sound Educational Service District(PSESD) enrollment growth over the same period. A review of proposed constructionwithin the borders of the Dieringer School District indicates that the growth trend can beexpected to continue over the next four years and beyond. The growth this year has beenhigher than anticipated. There are 224 single family residents slated for constructionwithin the next five years. These projects, together with individual lots and general in-migration, are anticipated to generate an additional 85.3 students in kindergarten througheighth grade.To partially address this growth, the District passed a 2006 bond issue to construct anadditional five classrooms at Dieringer Heights Elementary. Those classrooms werecompleted and occupied in 2009. The bond issue also provided for the addition of anauxiliary gym, health and fitness classroom, and four science rooms at North TappsMiddle School. Those projects were completed in 2009 and the new instructional spacesare in use. At Lake Tapps Elementary School the constmction of 3 new classrooms wascompleted in September 2017. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT/POTENTIAL ENROLLMENT INCREASE#1 Fairweather Cove Estates (18)28 lots total8 lots sold (Lived in) (1 on 2 lots combined)18 active lot listings2 active construction2011 permit for PSE replacing 3 power poles1600-2000 block of 16th st. @ the 17500-17800 block of Sumner-Tapps Hwy.#2 Rainier Plateau (10)10 lots totalPermit approvedBehind DHESNo active buildingEnd of 34'h St.#3 Tapps Meadows (6)lOLots4 completedAcross from Snag Island#4 Country Creek Estates (1)9 out 10 lots builtRemaining lot filed for Plat Alteration 2007Off 15th near Edwards Road#5 Forest Canyon Estates (124)l year extension approved (Applied 3/2018)Owner Kenneth Atkinson124 lots; Behind Al Lago/off Forest Canyon Rd.#6 The Ridge at Lake Tapps (45)No active permits45 Single Family Lots -32XX Sumner Tapps Hwy. E./next to al Lago#7 Maryanski Plat (4)Short Plat (4 or less. Usually 6-month completion time)- 4 Single Family Lots; 40"l St. E and 230"l Ave E- No active buildingToward Wildview Ridge#8 Franklin Northlake (16)-Active site; pre-build-16 Single Family Lots-off Lake Tapps PkwySingle Family Units to be built: 224 Standard of ServiceThe Dieringer School District houses children in elementary schools serving studentspreschool through fifth grade and a middle school that houses grades six through eighth.High school students, grades nine through twelve, attend adjacent high schools, primarilyin the Auburn and Sumner School Districts.Dieringer School District follows a traditional school calendar beginning in earlySeptember and completing in mid June. The daily school schedules begin between 7:49and 8:45 a.m. and end between 2:17 and 3:15 p.m.The Dieringer School District standard of service is based on class size and programdecisions adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors. Based on thelegislative funding regarding class size, the targeted number of students per classroomkindergarten through third grade 17, fourth through fifth and sixth grade 27 and seventhrough eighth grade 28. These class sizes have an impact on facilities and the permanentcapacity of each school reflects these class sizes.In the District, rooms designated and assigned for special use are not counted as capacityclassrooms. At the elementary level students are provided music instruction and physicaleducation in non-capacity classrooms. Special education and intervention programs areprovided as pullout programs and do not provide capacity. At the middle school level,instruction is organized around a six period day; classrooms are calculated as providing5/6 capacity to accommodate teacher planning time in the instuctional space. DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2023 Dieringer School District Service Standards Public School Facilities (Square Feet Per Student) Elementary School 139 Middle School 148 Junior High NA High School NA Dieringer School District Individual Capacity Projects (2022-2027) Elementary School #3 Middle School Classroom Addition 400 112 Name Lake Tapps Elementary Dieringer Heights Elem. Elementary #3 North Tapps MS TOTALS DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Current Capacity 357 508 536 1401 PERMANENT CAPACITY PROJECTS MASTER SCHEDULE June,2022 6 -Year Total Capacity Capacity 2022 2023 357 508 400 400 536 433 1834 2024 400 2025 2026 2027 112 112 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, June 2023 CFP Projects and Financing Plan Sources and Uses of Funds Sources of Funds Existing Revenue: Reserve New Revenue: (x $1,000) Bonds, Levies, Fees, State Matching Funds, Dedications, Mitigation Payments TOTAL SOURCES Uses of Funds Elementary #3 Non-Capacity Projects: School Site, Tech nology Upgrades, And Board Approved Projects TOTAL USES BALANCE $7,481,000 $37,057,761 $44,538,761 (8,237,365) ($44,538,761) NTMS Classroom Addition 0 ($32,978,807) ($3,322,589) Permanent Capacity Projects School Site Elem. No. 3 Total Capacity Projects Non-Capacity Projects School Site Elem. No. 3 Technology Improvements Total Non-Capacity Projects TOT AL PROJECTS Estimated Cost 29,945,896 29,945,896 6,355,500 8,237,365 14,592,865 44,538,761 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 FINANCE PLAN 2023-2029 June 2023 Unsecured Source of Funds Estimated Amt Levy, Bond 29,632,896 29,632,896 5,604,079 3,528,892 8,040,827 38,765,867 Estimated Unrestricted 4,000 4,000 0 10,000 10,000 14,000 Secured Source of Funds Impact Levy, Bond & Unrestr Fees Amount Amount 9,000 0 0 9,000 0 0 0 0 751,421 0 4,708,473 0 0 4,708,473 751,421 9,000 4,708,473 751,421 Impact Fees 300,000 300,000 0 0 0 300,000 Time Period 2020 Actual 2021-2026 Growth Elementary Schools $57,639 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2023 Capital Facilities Requirements to 2029 Student Population 1523.0 85.3 Student Capacity 1401 433 Net Reserve Or (Deficiency) (122) 347.7 Dieringer School District Cost Per Student Middle Schools $64,467 (2020 Dollars) Junior High Schools NA High Schools NA School Impact Fee Calculation 6/22 DISTRICT Dieringer School District School Site Acquisition Cost: (AcresxCost per Acre /Facility Capacity)x Student Generation Factor Student Student Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary #3 12 $529,625 400 0.322 0.172 $5,116 $2,733 Middle 0.13 0.07 TOTAL $5,116 $2,733 School Construction Cost: ( Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor)x(permanent/Total Sq Ft) Facility Cost  Facility Capacity Student Student Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary #3 $2,6623,307 400 0.322 0.172 $21,432 $11,448 0.13 0.07 NTMS Classroom Addition $3,322,589 112 0.322 0.172 0.13 0.07 $3,857 $2,077 TOTAL $25,288 $13,525 Temporary Facility Cost: ( Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor)x(Temporary/Total Square Feet) Student Student Cost/Cost/ %Temp/ Facility Facility Factor Factor SFR MFR Total Sq.F Cost Size SFR MFR Elementary 0 0.322 0.172 Middle 0 0.13 0.07 TOTAL $0 $0 State Matching Credit: Boeckh Index X SPI Square Footage X District Match % X Student Factor Student Student Boeckh SPI District Factor Factor Cost/cost/ Index Footage Match % SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary Middle TOTAL $0 $0 Tax Payment Credit:SFR MFR Average Assessed Value 2021 $937,043 $619,841 Capital Bond Interest Rate (est 5/20 0.40%0.40% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $9,164,187 $6,061,983 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate 2023 $1.56 $1.56 Present Value of Revenue Stream $14,296 $9,457 Fee Sumary:Single Multiple Family Family Site Acquistion Costs $5,116.18 $2,732.87 Permanent Facility $25,288 $13,525 Temporary Facility Cost $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit $0.00 $0.00 Tax Payment Credit ($14,296.13 ($9,457) FEE $16,108 $6,801 FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50%$8,054 FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50%$3400 ENVIRONMENTAL CHFCKI ISTWAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist.Purpose of Checklist:The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires allgovernmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before makingdecisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals withprobable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklistis to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and toreduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whetheran EIS is required.Instructions for Applicants:This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about yourproposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impactsof your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, withthe most precise information known, or give the best description you can.You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. Inmost cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project planswithout the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not applyto your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions nowmay avoid unnecessary delays later.Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, andlandmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmentalagencies can assist you.The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over aperiod of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describeyour proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may askyou to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining ifthere may be significant adverse impact.Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered"does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for nonproject actions (part D).For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and"property or site" should be read as "proposal," "prepares," and "affected geographic area,"respectively. A.BACKGROUND 1.Name of proposed project, if applicable The adoption of a ten-year Capital Facilities Plan by the Dieringer School District. The Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner have been and/or will be amended to include the Dieringer School District 2022 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the District's Plan is available for review in the District Office. 2.Name of applicant: Dieringer School District No. 343 3.Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Dieringer School District No. 343 1320 178th Ave E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Contact Person: Michael Farmer, Superintendent Telephone: (253) 862-2537 4.Date checklist prepared: June 2, 2023. 5.Agency requesting checklist: Dieringer School District No. 343 6.Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2023 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan was adopted on June 20, 2023 and forwarded to Pierce County, Cities of Auburn and Sumner for possible inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated annually. Site-specific projects have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 7.Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan reviews the purchase of additional property and the construction of a new elementary school and additional classroom space at the middle school. 8.List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The above-referenced projects will undergo environmental review at the time of formal proposal. 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. 10.List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner will review and approve the Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of impact fee ordinances and will need to adopt the Plan as an amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner. 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 do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non-project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Dieringer School District 2023 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the facilities needs of the District and for inclusion in the Capital Facilities Plan element and possible amendment of the Comprehensive Plans for Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the Dieringer School District Office. 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 2023 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Dieringer School District. The District includes an area of approximately 5.5 square miles. Portions of the City of Auburn and the City of Sumner, and parts of unincorporated Pierce County, fall within the District's boundaries. B.ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1.Earth a.General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, and more than 2/3 of Lake Tapps. The Dieringer School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients, including all of those listed. Specific topographic characteristics will identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. b.What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. 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.· Specific soil types will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. d.Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific soil limi tations on individual project sites will be identified at the time of environmental review. e.Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of fill materials will be identified as appropriate to each project. f.Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. Individual projects and their erosion impacts will be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Individual projects will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) Percentage of impervious cover with vary with each capital facilities project and will be addressed during project-specific environmental review.h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, ifany:Erosion potential on individual project sites will be addressed during project-specificenvironmental review. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will bemet.2.Aira. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (ie., dust,automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the projectis completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from individual projects.Air-quality impacts will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?If so, generally describe.Off-site sources and necessary mitigation will be addressed during project-specificenvironmental review.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:Plans for individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or willbe subject to environmental review and relevant local approval processes, includingobtaining of any necessary air quality permits, at the time individual projects areformally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.3.Watera. Surface:1) Isthereanysurfacewaterbodyonorintheimmediatevicinityofthesite (including year-round and seasonal streams, Iakes, ponds, wetlands)? Ifyes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream orriver it flows into.There is a network of surface water bodies within the Dieringer SchoolDistrict. The surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will beresearched and incorporated in the design of each individual project2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach availableplans.Some projects may require work near these described waters. Individualprojects in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental reviewand Iocal approval requirements at the time the project is formally proposed. 3) Estimatetheamountoffillanddredgematerialthatbeplacedinorremoved from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site thatwould be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.Information with respect to placement or removal of fill or dredge materialwill be addressed at the time of project-specific environmental review.Applicable Iocal regulations have been or will be satisfied.4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.Any surface water withdrawals or diversions have been or will be addressedduring project-specific environmental review.5) Doestheproposalliewithinal00-yearfloodplain?lfso,notelocationon the site plan.Each capital facilities project, if located in a floodplain area, will be required tomeet applicable local regulations for flood areas.6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials tosurface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume ofdischarge.Specific information regarding discharges of waste materials, if any, will beaddressed during project-specific environmental review. Please see theSupplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.b.Ground:1) Willgroundwaterbewithdrawn,orwillwaterbedischargedtogroundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities ifknown.Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater resources. Each project will be evaluated during project-specificenvironmental review. Applicable Iocal regulations have been or will besatisfied. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground fromseptic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage?industrial, containing the following chemicals. .; agricultural; etc.). Describethe general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number ofhouses to served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans thesystem(s) are expected to serve.Impacts of discharged waste material, if any, have been or will be addressedduring site-specific, project-level environmental review. C.Water Runoff (including storm water):1) Describethesourceofrunoff(includingstormlvater)andmethodofcollection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will thiswater flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have varyingstorm water runoff consequences. Each project will be subject toenvironmental review and applicable Iocal regulations.2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally describe.Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will have varyingenvironmental impacts and will be subject to appropriate review and localregulations prior to construction. Information regarding waste materials willbe presented at the time of such review. Please see the Supplemental Sheetfor Nonproject Actions.d. Proposedmeasurestoreduceorcontrolsurface,ground,andrunoffwaterimpacts, if any:Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts have been or will be developedon a project-specific basis in cooperation with the appropriate jurisdiction.4.Plants:a.Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other.? evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, othershrubs? grasspasturecrop or grainwet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage. Otherother water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, otherother types of vegetationThere are various vegetative zones within the Dieringer School District. An inventoryof species has been or will be produced as part of project-specific environmentalrevievv.b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?Impacts on vegetation will be determined at the time of project-specific environmentalreview at the time the project is formally proposed. Please see the SupplementalSheet for Nonproject Actions.C.List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Specific impacts to these species from individual projects has been or be determinedat the time of project proposal and will be addressed during site-specific, project-levelenvironmental review.d. Proposed Iandscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve orenhance vegetation on the site, if any:Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject toenvironmental review and local approval at the time of project proposal.s.Animals:a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site orare known to be on or near the site:birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:fish: bass, salmon, trout, perch, crappies, tiger muskies other:An inventory of species observed on or near sites has been or will be developedduring project-specific environmental review.b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Specific impacts to these species from individual projects will be determined at thetime of project proposal and will be reviewed in cooperation with the affectedjurisdictions.C.Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.Impacts on migration routes, if any, will addressed during site-specific, project-levelenvironmental review.d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will bedetermined at the time of site-specific, project-level environmental review.6.Energy and Natural Resources:a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will bemeet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used forheating, manufacturing, etc.The State Board of Education requires a Iife-cycle cost analysis of all heating, Iighting, and insulating systems prior to allowing specific projects to proceed. Energyneeds will be decided at the time of specific engineering and site design planning.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacentproperties? If so, generally describe:Individual projects of this Capital Facilities Plan will be evaluated as to their impacton the solar potential of adjacent projects during environmental review.C.What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of thisproposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:Energy conservation measures will be considered at the project-specific designphase and environmental review.7.Environmental Healtha.Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxicchemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as aresult of this proposal? If so, describe.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.1) Describespecialemergencyservicesthatmightrequired.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental healthhazards, if any:Proposed projects will comply with all current codes, standards, and rulesand regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject toenvironmental review and local approval at the time of formal submittal.Noise:1) Whattypesofnoiseexistintheareawhichmayaffectyourproject(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?A variety of noises exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific noisesources have been or will be identified during project-specific environmentalreview.2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associatedwith the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come fromthe site.Normal construction noises would exist on a short-term basis during schoolconstruction. There could be an increase in traffic or operations-related noiseb. which would be addressed during project specific environmental review.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:Project noise impacts have been or will be evaluated and mitigated duringthe project-specific environmental review. Each project is or will be subject toapplicable Iocal regulations.8.Land and Shoreline Use:a. Whatisthecurrentuseofthesiteandadjacentproperties?There are a variety of Iand uses within the Dieringer School District, includingresidential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, agricultural, forestry, openspace, recreational, etc.b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.This question will be addressed during site-specific, project-Ievel environmentalreview.c. Describe any structures on the site.Structures Iocated on proposed sites have been or will be identified and describedduring project-specific environmental review when appropriate.d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?Structures to be demolished, if any, will be identified as part of the project-specificenvironmental review process.e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?There are a variety of zoning classifications within the Dieringer School District. Sitespecific zoning information has been or will be identified during project-specificenvironmental review.f.What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?An inventory of comprehensive plan designations has been or will be completedduring project-specific environmental reviewg. lfapplicable,whatisthecurrentshorelinemasterprogramdesignationofthesite?Any shoreline master program designations have been or will be identified duringproject-specific environmental review.h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.Environmentally sensitive areas, if any, will be identified during project-specificenvironmental revievv.I.Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completedproject?This information has been or will be provided at the time of project-specificenvironmental review.j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?It is not anticipated that proposed projects will displace any people. Displacement ofpeople, if any, will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review.k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to projectspecific environmental review and Iocal approval at the time the project is formallyproposed.1.Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing andprojected land uses and plans, if any:Compatibility of the proposal and specific projects with existing uses and plans havebeen or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and duringproject-specific environmental review.9.Housinga. Approximately how many units would be provided if any? Indicate whetherhigh, middle, or Iow-income housing.No housing units would be provided.b. Approximatelyhowmanyunits,ifany,wouldbeeliminated?lndicatewhetherhigh, middle, or Iow-income housing.Any impact of project proposals on existing housing have been or would beevaluated during project-specific environmental review procedures.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts have been or will be addressedduring site-specific, project-Ievel environmental review. 10. Aesthetics:a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not includingantennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific,project-Ievel environmental review.b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific,project-Ievel environmental review.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:Appropriate measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts have been or will bedetermined at the time of project-specific environmental review.11 . Light and Glare:a. What type of Iight or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day wouldit mainly occur?Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project-specificenvironmental review.b. Could Iight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interferewith views?Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of the project-specific environmental review.c. What existing off-site sources of Iight or glare may affect your proposal?Off-site sources of Iight or glare have been or will be evaluated at the time of projectspecific environmental review.d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:Mitigation of Iight and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during projectspecific environmental review.12.Recreation:a.What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediatevicinity?There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the DieringerSchool District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,describe.Recreational impacts have been or will be addressed during project specificenvironmental review. Projects in the Capital Facilities Plan may enhancerecreational opportunities and uses.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, includingrecreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:Any adverse effects on recreation stemming from individual project proposals havebeen or will be subject to mitigation during the environmental review procedure. Aschool site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form ofadditional play fields and gymnasiums.13. HistoricandCulturalPreservation:a. Are there any places or objects Iisted on, or proposed for, national, state, orlocal preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generallydescribe.The existence of historic and cultural resources will be determined at the time ofproject-specific environmental review.b. Generally describe any Iandmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.An inventory of historical sites has been or will be conducted as part of projectspecific environmental review.C.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project-specific basis.14.Transportation:a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposedaccess to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.Impact on public streets and highways has been or will be assessed during projectspecific environmental review.b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximatedistance to the nearest transit stop?The relationship between specific projects and public transit has been or will beassessed during project-specific environmental review. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How manywould the project eliminate?An inventory of parking spaces and the impacts of specific projects on parkingspaces has been or will be conducted during project-specific environmental review.d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements toexisting roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicatewhether public or private).The development of new schools may require new access roads or streets. Thisissue will be fully addressed during project-specific environmental review.e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or airtransportation? If so, generally describe.Use of water, rail or air transportation has been or will be addressed during sitespecific, project-Ievel environmental review.f.How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completedproject? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.Each project proposal has been or will be separately evaluated as to traffic impacts.g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:Mitigation of impacts on transportation has been or will be addressed during projectspecific environmental review.15.Public Services:a.Would the project result in an increased need for public services (forexample: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so,generally describe.The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital FacilitiesPlan will substantially increase the need for other public services. Impacts have beenor will be evaluated on a project-specific basis.b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, ifany.Schools are built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heatsensors and sprinkler systems.16.Utilities a.Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Utilities available at project sites have been or will be identified during project specific environmental review. 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. Utility revisions and construction needs will be identified during project-specific environmental review. 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 , ;;� Michael Farmer Date Submitted: June 2, 2023 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 withthe Iist of the elements of the environment.When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types ofactivities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at afaster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.1.How would the proposal be Iikely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production ofnoise?To the extent this Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed,and/or renovated or remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be moreIikely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking Iots, sidewalks,access roads and playgrounds will increase storm water runoff, which could entersurface or ground water. Emissions to air could result from heating systems,emergency generators and other equipment, and from additional car and bus trips toand from the school for students and faculty. Any emissions resulting from this Planshould not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardoussubstances, with the possible exception of storage of diesel fuel or gasoline foremergency generating equipment. Noise may result from additional traffic and fromconcentrating several hundred children at a new facility, especially before and afferschool and during recesses.To the extent this proposal allows additional residential development to occur, theseimpacts would also increase somewhat, but it is not possible to quantify thoseimpacts at this time. The impacts would depend on the type, Iocation and distributionof housing, for example, whether single or multiple family and the location of theschool.Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:Facilities implementing the Plan have been or will be evaluated at the project specificlevel and impacts will be mitigated accordingly. Storm water detention and runoff willmeet applicable County and/or City requirements and, depending on the date ofactual construction, may be subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will be minimal, andwill meet any applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution ControlAuthority. Fuel oil will be stored according to local and state requirements.2.How would the proposal be Iikely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?The Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. Dependingon the particular site, construction of facilities may require clearing sites of plants andloss of animal habitat. To the extent residential development is allowed, additionalarea may be cleared and eliminated as habitat for animals. There are not likely to beany impacts on fish or marine life, although some water quality degradation instreams and rivers could occur due to increased residential development. Theseimpacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specificenvironmental review when appropriate.Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:Individual projects will be evaluated and mitigated appropriately on a project-specificbasis, but specific mitigation proposals cannot be identified at this time.3.How would the proposal be Iikely to deplete energy or natural resources?Any actual projects resulting from this Plan would consume heating fuel andelectrical energy. Increased traffic resulting from the construction of additionalfacilities would consume petroleum based fuels. Reduced traffic resulting fromconstruction of another neighborhood school may also reduce amounts of fuelconsumed, but it is not possible to quantify such reduction in consumption at thistime. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate.Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:Facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiencystandards.4.How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas orareas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such asparks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?The Plan and facilities constructed pursuant to the Plan should have no impact onthese resources. It is not possible to predict whether other development madepossible by this Plan would affect sensitive areas.Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures havebeen or will be proposed during project-specific review. Annual updates of this Plan will be coordinated with Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner as part ofthe Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protectenvironmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the School District's facilities planningprocess is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resourcesare more Iikely to be protected.s. How would the proposal be Iikely to affect land and shoreline use, including whetherit would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?The Plan will not have any impact on Iand or shoreline use that is incompatibleexisting comprehensive plans, Iand use codes, or shoreline management plans.Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:None are proposed at this time. Actual facilities constructed to implement the Planwill be sited and constructed to avoid or reduce land use impacts.6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or publicservices and utilities?This proposal should not create substantial new demands for transportation. Theprojects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create an increase in traffic nearnew District facilities but also reduce traffic by creating the opportunity for morestudents to walk to a closer school. The construction of the facilities included in theCapital Facilities Plan may result in minor increases in the demand for publicservices and utilities, such as fire and police protection, and water, sewer, andelectric utilities. None of these impacts are Iikely to be significant. The impacts ontransportation and public services and utilities of the projects included in the CapitalFacilities Plan will be addressed during project-Ievel review when appropriate.Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time.7.Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federallaws or requirements for the protection of the environment.The Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws orrequirements for the protection of the environment. DRAFT - DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE for Dieringer School District No. 343 2023 Capital Facilities Plan Issued with a 14-day comment and appeal period Description of Proposal: This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1.The adoption of the Dieringer School District Amended 2023 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Dieringer School District for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2.The amendment of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan to include the Dieringer School District Amended 2023 Capital Facilities Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. 3.The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Auburn to include the Dieringer School District's Amended 2023 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Auburn. 4.The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sumner to include the Dieringer School District's Amended 2023 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Sumner. Proponent: Dieringer School District No. 343 Location of the Proposal: The Dieringer School District includes an area of approximately 5.5 square miles. Portions of the cities of Auburn and Sumner fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated Pierce County. Lead Agency: Dieringer School District No. 343 is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not pose a probable significant adverse impact to the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:00 p.m., June 20, 2023. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Michael Farmer Superintendent Dieringer School District No. 343 Telephone: (253) 862-2537 Address: 1320 178th Ave E. Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 Appeals of this determination are governed by Board Policy No. 6890 which can be obtained from Mr. Michael Farmer, Superintendent, Dieringer School District No. 343, 1320 178th Ave E., Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 and pursuant to WAC 680 and RCW 43.21 C.075. Date of Issue: Date Published June 2, 2023 June 5, 2023 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT (P/T) #3 INCORPORATE FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS #210, 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Department of Capital Projects F ederal Way Public Schools | Each Scholar: A voice. A dream. A BRIGHT Future. 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 | p.253.945.5992 | f.253.945.5959| www.fwps.org October 3rd , 2023 Dear Auburn Planning Commission Thank you for providing this opportunity to share our Capital Facilities Plan (attached) information. Some highlights of our plan are: Our current 2017 Capital Bond Projects are nearing completion. Currently, we have 7 new schools that are fully occupied and provide additional capacity for Federal Way Public Schools. Our Elementary Projects (Mirror Lake, Lake Grove and Wildwood) are in their 3rd year being occupied as is our High School Project (Thomas Jefferson HS). Department of Capital Projects F ederal Way Public Schools | Each Scholar: A voice. A dream. A BRIGHT Future. 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 | p.253.945.5992 | f.253.945.5959| www.fwps.org Our combined Middle School and elementary project (Evergreen MS & Star Lake Elem) is fully occupied with both schools for the second year. Department of Capital Projects F ederal Way Public Schools | Each Scholar: A voice. A dream. A BRIGHT Future. 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 | p.253.945.5992 | f.253.945.5959| www.fwps.org Additionally, this year we opened the brand new Olympic View K-8 facility.Finally, we broke ground on the new Illahee MS project which is scheduled to be completed for occupancy in Winter of 2024/2025. All of these schools were built or are being built for added permanent capacity with a goal of eliminating students housed in portables. There are two primary considerations when developing the Plan. First, what is anticipated enrollment over the six-year planning period? Second, what is the existing seating capacity’s ability to accommodate the desired instructional program and anticipated enrollment? Projected Enrollment: Enrollment projections are a key assumption in the development of the Capital Facilities Plan and the basis for calculating impact fees. Our District, like most nationwide, experienced anomalous enrollment impacts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The unusual nature of the enrollment declines nationwide due to COVID must be recognized as a data outlier and that projections for future enrollment are being influenced by the highly unusual event. Department of Capital Projects F ederal Way Public Schools | Each Scholar: A voice. A dream. A BRIGHT Future. 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 | p.253.945.5992 | f.253.945.5959| www.fwps.org Current Enrollment While the last few years have produced significant COVID-related declines in enrollment, the District is beginning to see a bounce back of enrollment. As provided below, our preliminary count for October is 21,168 a .97% increase over the 2022-23 school year. This places the District roughly 168 students above projections for the start of the year. Capacity The voter-approved 2017 Bond issue provided authorization to rebuild and increase capacity. As a result, the number of students served in portables has reduced to 2.41%. As our enrollment has continued to rebound after COVID, we are projecting an increase at our high schools resulting in a need for additional capacity. The District continues to believe that school impact fees play an important part in supporting commitments to taxpayers and for providing adequate classroom space to support our scholars. On behalf of Superintendent Dr. Dani Pfeiffer and the Federal Way School Board of Directors, Federal Way Public Schools submits this updated 2024 CFP. The current planning data shows a need at the high school level, we are asking for an impact fee of $6998 on multi-family residential construction within our school system which will result in even more scholar enrollment. Sincerely, Michael Swartz Executive Director of Capital Projects Mobile-253-391-9243 Rob Bryant Chief Finance and Operations Officer 253-397-0931 Federal Way District No. 210 Federal Way, Washington Adopted: June 27, 2023 Resolution No: 2023-16 The Federal Way School District No. 210 hereby provides this Capital Facilities Plan documenting present and future school facility requirements of the District. The plan contains all elements required by the Growth Management Act and King County Council Ordinance 21-A. Page 1 of 35 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Olympic View K-8 Illahee M iddle School Memorial Field Renovation Lake Grove Elementary Mirror Lake Elementary Wildwood Elementary Thomas Jefferson High School Star Lake Elementary & Evergreen Middle School FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN May 12, 2023 BOARD OF EDUCATION Trudy Davis, President Dr. Jennifer Jones, Vice President Luckisha Phillips, Legislative Representative Quentin Morris, WIAA Representative Hiroshi Eto SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Dani Pfeiffer Prepared by: Ty Bergstrom, Chief Finance & Operations Officer, Interim Sally McLean, Facilitator Michael Swartz, Executive Director of Capital Projects Jennifer Thomas, Student & Demographic Forecaster FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2-3 SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction 4 Inventory of Educational Facilities 5 Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities 6 Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 7 Needs Forecast - New Facilities 8 Six Year Finance Plan 9-10 SECTION 2 MAPS Introduction 11 Map – City and County Jurisdictions 12 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 13 Building Capacities 14-16 Portable Locations 17-18 Student Forecast 19-22 SECTION 4 KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Introduction 23 Capacity Summaries 24-28 Impact Fee Calculations 29-31 Student Generation Rates 32 Impact Fee Changes from 2023 to 2024 33 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2 INTRODUCTION In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (SHB) 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No.4278 effective June 2018, revised December 2021, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way Public Schools has updated its Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2023. This plan will be submitted for consideration to each of the jurisdictions located with the Federal Way Public Schools’ service area: King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal Way and the City of Auburn and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is requested to be included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The City of Des Moines collects school impact fees as part of the SEPA process. Discussions with the City of Milton to adopt an ordinance for school impact fees for parcels located within the Federal Way School District’s service area is in process. The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council for Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region’s need for housing, jobs, services, culture, and recreation. This Plan’s estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies or management need. Currently Federal Way Public Schools is nearing the end of Phase 2 Bond projects supporting school expansion and replacement as authorized by the voters in 2017. Prior to the passage of the Phase 2 Bond the District formed a 100 member Facilities Planning Committee consisting of parents, community members and staff. This Committee was tasked with developing a recommendation to the Superintendent regarding Phase 2 of the District’s plan for school construction, remodeling, and/or modernization for voter consideration in November 2017. The voters passed this $450M bond authorization with a 62% YES vote reflecting a commitment to invest in the modernization of our infrastructure. As of today, the District has completed Thomas Jefferson High School, Evergreen Middle School, Lake Grove Elementary, Mirror Lake Elementary, Star Lake Elementary, and Wildwood Elementary. Additionally, Olympic View K-8 is scheduled to open in Fall of 2023. Illahee Middle school is at the end of the Design Phase and set for Construction beginning June 2023. Finally, Memorial Field is under construction with completion target of Fall 2023. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 3 INTRODUCTION, continued The rebuilding of the schools has and will continue create additional capacity for students at the elementary and high school levels. The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and capacity at our schools, including new single-family and multi-family residential developments and any impacts due to the COVID-19. In accordance with the McCleary decision, the State has provided funding to reduce K-3 class size to 17 and 4-12 class size to 25. Beginning in 2019-20 the legislature expected compliance with this funding adding pressure to the need for elementary capacity. In response to this need the district has acquired a commercial building to renovate into classrooms to provide permanent additional capacity. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected brick and mortar enrollment in recent years, as well as increased enrollment in the Internet Academy. However, the district’s 2022-23 enrollment was higher than projected and has continued to grow throughout the current school year. As we move farther away from the effects of COVID-19, we expect to see continued enrollment growth, especially considering the City of Federal Way’s plans to increase housing in the downtown core in conjunction with Sound Transit’s Link Light Rail development. The District has increased capacity at the elementary level over the past several years and shows no unhoused scholars based on the six-year enrollment projections (even with projected growth at that level). The 2024 Capital Facilities Plan does reflect growth at the high school level over the six-year planning period and, with the recent addition at Thomas Jefferson High School and the addition of portable facilities, the District is able to house new scholars at the high school level. As a result, school impact fees are appropriate to assist in offsetting costs of adding increased instructional spaces. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 4 SECTION 1 - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community. This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan that shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed follows this. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 5 INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) Adelaide 1635 SW 304th St Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336th St Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298th St Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308th St Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35827 32nd Ave S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Rd Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 300th St Auburn 98001 Mirror Lake 625 S 314th St Federal Way 98003 Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289th St Federal Way 98003 Olympic View (K-8) 2626 SW 327th St Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368th St Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325th Pl Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 26812 40th Ave S, Bldg.B Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42nd Ave S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 27847 42nd Ave S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300th St Federal Way 98003 Woodmont (K-8) 26454 16th Ave S Des Moines 98198 MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8) Federal Way Public Academy (6-10) 34620 9th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314th St Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003 Sequoyah 3450 S 360th ST Auburn 98001 Evergreen 26812 40th Ave S, Bldg.A Kent 98032 TAF @ Saghalie (6-12) 33914 19th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12) Decatur 2800 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288th St Auburn 98001 Todd Beamer 35999 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Career Academy at Truman 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS Internet Academy (K-12) 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Employment Transition Program (12+) 33250 21st Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Federal Way Open Doors 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 ES24 (Former DeVry Property) (K-8) 3600 S 344th Way, Federal Way 98001 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 6 CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES Developed Property Central Kitchen 1214 S 332nd St Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308th St Federal Way 98003 Educational Services Center 33330 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Support Services Center 1211 S 332nd St Federal Way 98003 Leased Property Early Learning Center at Uptown Square 1066 S 320th St Federal Way 98003 Undeveloped Property Site # Location 75 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW – 9.2 Acres 65 S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S – 8.8 Acres 60 E of 10th Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335th Streets - 10.04 Acres 73 N of SW 320th and east of 45th PL SW – 23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S - 17.47 Acres 82 1st Way S and S 342nd St – Minimal acreage 96 S 308th St and 14th Ave S – .36 Acres Notes: Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students in the District. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 7 NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES PHASE EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS As needed Purchase and Relocate Portables Interim Capacity Anticipated source of funds is Impact Fees. II Thomas Jefferson High School Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Illahee Middle School Replace Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Evergreen Middle School Replaced Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Lake Grove Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Mirror Lake Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Olympic View K-8 School Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Star Lake Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Wildwood Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Memorial Stadium Replace Existing Facility Voter Approved Capital bond II ES24 (DeVry Property) Temp Swing School Increase Capacity SCAP and K-3 Class size reduction funding III Mark Twain Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD, pending SCAP funding III Decatur High School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Kilo Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Sacajawea Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Adelaide Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Brigadoon Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Camelot Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Lake Dolloff Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Nautilus K-8 School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Twin Lakes Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Woodmont K-8 School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 8 NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEW FACILITY LOCATION ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS FWPS has leased a portion of the Truman Campus property to Region X and Puget Sound Education Service District. Region X and PSESD built a Head Start building on this property which has served Federal Way 3- and 4-year-olds for the last twenty years. In the recent re- competition, the federal funding for a Head Start program at this location was lost. Subsequently the District has been using this facility for a state-funded Early Childhood Education (ECEAP) program and is currently in negotiations to secure title to the building. The building will only be available for preschool activities. FWPS is also concluding negotiations with King County Metro to secure the Redondo Park & Ride site for the relocation of Mark Twain Elementary school, which has been impacted by the construction of Sound Transit’s Federal Way Link Extension. Construction of a replacement school is slated to be part of the next school construction bond, or Phase 3. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 9 Six Year Finance Plan Secured Funding Sources Impact Fees (1)$142,000 Land Sale Funds (2)($3,820,000) Bond or Levy Funds (3)$80,798,000 K3-Class Size Reduction (4)$11,692,000 School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) (5)$73,877,000 TOTAL $162,689,000 Projected Revenue Sources School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) (6)$22,300,000 K-3 Class Size Reduction (7)$486,000 Bond Funds (8)$0 Land Fund Sales (9)$0 Impact Fees (10)$3,500,000 TOTAL $26,286,000 Actual and Planned Expenditures Total Secured Funding and Projected Revenue $188,975,000 NEW SCHOOLS Estimated and Budget 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total Total Cost Prior Years 2023-24 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2029-2030 2023-2030 MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION Lake Grove Elementary (11)$39,500,000 $0 $39,500,000 Mirror Lake Elementary (11)$41,800,000 $0 $41,800,000 Star Lake Elementary (11)$38,838,000 $0 $38,838,000 Wildwood Elementary (11)$40,900,000 $0 $40,900,000 Olympic View K-8 School (11)$47,450,000 $0 $47,450,000 Thomas Jefferson High School (11)$124,787,000 $0 $124,787,000 Evergreen Middle School (11)$66,129,000 $0 $66,129,000 Illahee Middle School (11)$27,848,000 $50,843,000 $9,309,000 $60,152,000 $88,000,000 Memorial Stadium (11)$28,821,000 $2,979,000 $2,979,000 $31,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 SITE ACQUISITION Former DeVry/ES 24 (12)$27,470,000 $1,421,000 $1,423,000 $1,422,000 $1,424,000 $1,422,000 $1,423,000 $8,535,000 $36,005,000 TEMPORARY FACILITIES Portables (13)$3,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,500,000 $7,000,000 TOTAL $487,043,000 $55,743,000 $11,232,000 $1,922,000 $1,924,000 $1,922,000 $1,923,000 $500,000 $75,166,000 $562,209,000 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 10 SIX YEAR FINANCE PLAN, CON’T NOTES: ` 1. These fees are currently being held in a King County, City of Federal Way, City of Auburn, and City of Kent impact fee account, and will be available for use by the District for system improvements. This is yearend balance on 12/31/22. 2. This is yearend balance on 12/31/22. 3. This is the 12/31/22 balance of bond funds and capital levy funds. This figure includes interest earnings. 4. This represents the K3-CSR revenue received but not spent as of 12/31/2022. 5. This represents the balance of SCAP funding but no spent as of 12/31/2022. 6. This is anticipated SCAP for the future projects authorized by the voters in 2017. 7. This is the remaining K-3 Class size reduction grant revenue. 8. In November 2017, the District passed a $450M bond measure. The amount included in the finance plan is for projects that will create additional capacity. Only the costs associated with increasing capacity are included in school impact fee calculations. 9. There are no projected sale of surplus properties. 10. In this current plan, there are no projected impact fees. 11. Project budgets are updated as of December 2022. The budget for Illahee Middle School is still being updated. 12. A former private university campus located in Federal Way was purchased in 2019 to provide up to 43 additional permanent elementary classrooms. Prior to creating new permanent capacity this location will be used as a temporary housing. These costs are excluded from impact fee calculations. 13. These fees represent the cost of purchasing and installing new portables. The portable expenditure in future years may replace existing portables that are not functional. These may not increase capacity and are not included in the capacity summary. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 11 SECTION 2 - MAPS As of September 2023, Federal Way Public Schools has twenty elementary schools (grades K- 5), three schools with a K-8 grade configuration, six middle school schools (grades 6-8), four high schools (grades 9-12) and four small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public Academy serves students in grades 6-10. The programs at Open Doors and Career Academy at Truman High School serves students in grades 9-12. In addition to these programs, TAF@Saghalie serves students in grades 6-12 who reside within the service area and the Employment and Transition Program (ETP) at the Norman Center serves 18–21-year-old scholars. The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public facilities, new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to that development. School districts are different. If the district does not have permanent facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. It is important to realize that a single housing development does not require the construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the district, not just around a single development. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the district and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. The final map included represents the city and county boundaries which overlap with the district’s service areas. • City of Algona • City of Auburn • City of Des Moines • City of Federal Way • City of Kent • City of Milton • Unincorporated King County FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 12 MAP – CITY AND COUNTY JURISDICTIONS FWPS boundaries is 100% Urban Growth Area FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 13 SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast – 2023 through 2029 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 14 BUILDING CAPACITIES This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District’s “standard of service” in order to ascertain the District’s current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education program needs. In general, the District’s current target class size provides that the average class size for a standard classroom for grades K through 3 should be 17 students to comply with current legislation. In grades 4-5 the target is 25 students. For grades 6 to 12 the target class size is 26 students. Classrooms for students with Individualized Education Program (Special Education) needs are calculated at 12 seats per classroom. Historically, the District has used the OSPI square footage calculation as a baseline for capacity calculation and made adjustments for specific program needs. The District will continue to use this calculation for determining capacity at our middle and high schools. However, for elementary school capacity will be calculated based on the number of classroom spaces and the number of students assigned to each classroom. Class Size Guidelines FWPS Historical “Standard of Service” HB2661/SHB2776 Enacted Law Square Footage Guideline Kindergarten 18.9 17 25-28 Grades 1-2 18.9 17 25-28 Grade 3 18.9 17 28 Grades 4-5 25 25 28 Grades 6-12 26 26 28 For the purposes of determining student capacity at individual schools, the following list clarifies adjustments to classroom spaces and the OSPI calculation. Special Education Resource Rooms: Each middle school requires the use of a standard classroom(s) for special education students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. English as a Second Language Programs: Each middle school and high school require the use of a standard classroom for students learning English as a second language. Middle School Computer Labs: Each middle school has computer labs, except Evergreen Middle School. Wireless access has been installed at all secondary schools. If additional classroom space is needed, these computer labs may be converted to mobile carts. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 15 BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued High School Career Development and Learning Center (Resource) Room: Each high school provides special education resource room and career development classrooms for students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. Preschool/ECEAP: Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs & typically developing students at 9 elementary schools. We also have the ECEAP program at 10 sites (6 elementary schools, 3 high schools, and 1 commercial sites). These programs decrease capacity at those schools. Alternative Learning Experience: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in an Alternative Learning Experience through our Internet Academy. These students have never been included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. 1418 Youth Reengagement: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in 1418 Youth Reengagement Open Doors program. These students are housed at the Truman campus but are not currently included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 16 BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 17 PORTABLE LOCATIONS The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year. Portables are used as interim measures to house students when increasing population impacts a school attendance area. Portables may also be required to house students when new or changing programs require additional capacity. They also provide housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used for other purposes such as storage or childcare programs or moved to another school for an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. With the school expansion projects funded through the 2017 Bond, new capacity has been created within the new schools and portables have been eliminated from these campuses. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 18 PORTABLE LOCATIONS, continued PORTABLES LOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT HIGH SCHOOLS NON NON INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL* INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL Adelaide 1 2 Decatur 8 1 Brigadoon 1 Federal Way Camelot 1 Thomas Jefferson Enterprise 3 Todd Beamer 8 Green Gables 1 TOTAL 16 1 Lake Dolloff 5 1 Lake Grove Lakeland Mark Twain 3 Meredith Hill 3 PORTABLES LOCATED Mirror Lake AT SUPPORT FACILITIES Nautilus 3 Olympic View MOT Panther Lake 4 TDC 9 Rainier View 5 Former TAFA Sherwood Forest 2 4 TOTAL 9 Silver Lake 1 3 Star Lake Sunnycrest 6 DISTRICT PORTABLES IN USE FOR ECEAP Twin Lakes 1 2 AND/OR HEADSTART Valhalla 4 Sherwood Forest 1 Wildwood Evergreen Woodmont 3 Total TOTAL 47 12 PORTABLES LOCATED AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS NON INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL Illahee Kilo 1 6 Lakota Sacajawea 5 Sequoyah 1 1 Evergreen TAF@ Saghalie 4 TOTAL 11 7 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 19 STUDENT FORECAST Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development and facility need. Enrollment projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are also made based on projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue projections are directly related to enrollment projections. Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department. Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school-building totals, grade level and program level to include vocational and special education students. The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of the school system are common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district’s census tracts and treats these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years. The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods for projecting student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below. In January 2022, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the Federal Way School District. The model used to forecast next year’s enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade growth, assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county-wide average), assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 20 STUDENT FORECAST, CON’T The last demographer update was completed prior to the City of Federal Way’s Housing Action Plan. The enrollment projections below have been updated to include anticipated new student growth generated from the planned development. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 21 STUDENT FORECAST, CON’T Percent Calendar Yr School Year Elementary Middle School High School Total K -12 Change 2018 2017-18 10,418 5,159 6,501 22,078 2019 2018-19 10,158 5,115 6,674 21,947 -0.6% 2020 2019-20 9,953 5,309 6,516 21,778 -0.8% 2021 2020-21 9,192 4,990 6,385 20,567 -5.6% 2022 2021-22 9,062 4,850 6,393 20,305 -1.3% 2023 2022-23 9,317 4,719 6,532 20,568 1.3% 2024 B2023-24 9,452 4,789 6,473 20,714 0.7% 2025 P2024-25 9,613 4,872 6,558 21,044 1.6% 2026 P2025-26 9,695 4,913 6,569 21,176 0.6% 2027 P2026-27 9,743 4,935 6,559 21,238 0.3% 2028 P2027-28 9,782 4,955 6,586 21,322 0.4% 2029 P2028-29 9,860 4,995 6,638 21,493 0.8% 2029 P2029-30 9,949 5,040 6,698 21,687 0.9% Elementary K-5 Middle School 6-8 High School 9-12 October 1 Head Count Enrollment History and Projections Includes Open Doors and Internet Academy 19,000 19,500 20,000 20,500 21,000 21,500 22,000 22,500 23,000 School Year Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast Series2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 22 STUDENT FORECAST, continued Most of the methods used for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of something else (e.g. population) or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for the school-age population over time. The report included 5 different calculations to provide a range of possible projections for the District to the year 2029. This model produces a projection that is between 19,500 and 21,000 when applied to the low, medium, and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models. Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. The long-range projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the State of Washington. Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current local economic conditions. The District tracks new development from five permitting jurisdictions. Long range planning assumes a student yield from proposed new housing consistent with historical growth patterns. Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of the school district community in the future. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected brick and mortar enrollment in recent years, as well as increased enrollment in the Internet Academy. The district’s 2022-23 enrollment was higher than projected. As we move farther away from the effects of COVID-19, we hope to see continued enrollment growth, especially considering the City of Federal Way’s plans to increase housing in the down-town core in conjunction with Sound Transit’s Link Light Rail development. We took a conservative look at residential developments in-progress and pre- application phase that were not taken into consideration with previous demographic studies because they were unknown at the time of the study. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 23 SECTION 4 – KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Capacity Summaries Site & Construction Costs Allocations Student Generation Rates Impact Fee Calculations Reference to Impact Fee Calculations FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 24 CAPACITY SUMMARIES All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information, Portable Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The District has recently adjusted its capacity calculation method for Elementary schools to better show capacity needed to comply with the K-3 Class Size Reduction. This adjustment is also shown in the portable capacity calculation. In order to allow for flexibility in portable usage the District will use an average class size calculation of 21 for each Elementary portable and an average class size of 25 for each Middle and High School portable. The information is organized with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle school, and high school levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 25 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – All Grades Actual Budget Calendar Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 CAPACITY School Year 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 22,592 22,957 22,957 22,957 23,569 23,569 23,569 23,569 Add Capacity 365 0 0 612 0 0 0 0 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 22,957 22,957 22,957 23,569 23,569 23,569 23,569 23,569 ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrollment 20,568 20,714 21,044 21,176 21,238 21,322 21,493 21,642 Internet Academy Headcount Enrollment1 (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 20,313 20,459 20,789 20,921 20,983 21,067 21,238 21,387 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM FTE CAPACITY 2,644 2,498 2,168 2,648 2,586 2,502 2,331 2,182 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY Current Portable Capacity 1,685 1,685 1,643 1,645 1,697 1,749 1,801 1,853 Add/Subtract Portable Capacity 0 (42)2 52 52 52 52 52 Adjusted Portable Capacity 1,685 1,643 1,645 1,697 1,749 1,801 1,853 1,905 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 4,329 4,141 3,813 4,345 4,335 4,303 4,184 4,087 NOTES: 1 - - Projected - - Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. This represents historic enrollment. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 26 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – Elementary Schools FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 27 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – Middle Schools FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 28 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – High Schools Actual Budget Calendar Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 CAPACITY School Year 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,853 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 Add/Subtract capacity 237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thomas Jefferson High School 237 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrollment 6,532 6,473 6,558 6,569 6,559 6,586 6,638 6,698 Internet Academy1 (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) Basic Ed without Internet Academy 6,352 6,293 6,378 6,389 6,379 6,406 6,458 6,518 S URPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY (262) (203) (288) (299) (289) (316) (368) (428) RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2 Current Portable Capacity 416 416 416 520 624 728 832 936 Add/Subtract portable capacity 0 0 52 52 52 52 52 52 As Needed on High School Campuses 52 52 52 52 52 52 Adjusted Portable Capacity 416 416 520 624 728 832 936 1,040 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY3 154 213 232 325 439 516 568 612 NOTES: 1 2 3 - - Projected - - Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. This represents historic enrollment. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only based on class size capacity of 25. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and no planning time in some classrooms. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 29 IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Single and Multi-Family Residences Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was established. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was substantially adopted by the City of Auburn, Federal Way, and Kent. The formula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi-family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. Impact Fee Calculation When applicable, the CFP includes variables for the calculation of the Impact Fee for single family and multi-family units based on King County Code 21A and the Growth Management Act. Plan Year 2023 Plan Year 2024 Single Family Units $0 $0 Multi-Family Units $0 $6,998 Impact Fee Calculation - King County Code 21A FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 30 IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS, CON’T School Site Acquisition Cost:Student Student Facility Cost /Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 0 0.1705 0.7104 $0 $0 Middle School 0.0682 0.3665 $0 $0 High School 0.0958 0.3665 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 School Construction Cost:Student Student % Perm Fac./Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 96.61%0 0.1705 0.7104 $0 $0 Middle School 98.36%0.0682 0.3665 $0 $0 High School 98.28% $16,017,095 237 0.0958 0.3665 $6,363 $24,344 TO TAL $6,363 $24,344 Temporary Facility Cost:Student Student % Temp Fac.Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 4.60%0.1705 0.7104 $0 $0 Middle School 2.75%0.0682 0.3665 $0 $0 High School 1.21%0.0958 0.3665 $0 $0 TO TAL $0 $0 School Construction Assistance Program Credit Calculation:Student Student Construction Cost Sq. Ft.State Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Allocation/Sq Ft Student Match SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 24683.00%0.1705 0.7104 $0 $0 Middle School 24683.00%0.0682 0.3665 $0 $0 High School 24683.00% $130 1 0.0958 0.3665 $1,963 $7,510 Total $1,963 $7,510 Tax Payment Credit Calculation SFR MFR Average Assessed Value2 (April 2022)$590,378 $236,260 Capital Bond Interest Rate (February 2022)3.58% 3.58% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $4,890,202 $1,956,982 Years Amortized 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate $1.45 $1.45 Present Value of Revenue Stream $7,091 $2,838 Single Family Multi-Family Residences Residences Mitigation Fee Summary Site Acquisition Cost -$ -$ Permanent Facility Cost 6,363$ 24,344$ Temporary Facility Cost -$ -$ State Match Credit (1,963)$ (7,510)$ Tax Payment Credit (7,091)$ (2,838)$ Sub-Total (2,691)$ 13,996$ 50% Local Share (1,345)$ 6,998$ Calculated Impact Fee1 -$ 6,998$ 1 Each jurisdiction (King County, Cities of Federal Way, Auburn, Kent) through local ordinances may adopt lesser fees. 2 Due to the high number of affordable housing projects in Federal Way there is a significant difference between Appraised and Taxable values. We have chosen to use the Appraised value to give a higher credit to future FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 31 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION, CON’T SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST Consistent with the capacity calculations described earlier, the District uses the OSPI square footage calculation for determining capacity at our secondary schools. Based on this methodology, the following construction costs for Thomas Jefferson High School are allocated as the proportionate share: Square Footage Capacity at approx. 131 sq. ft. Current: 179,119 1378 Planned: 210,000 1615 Increased Capacity 237 Increase as % 17.24% GMP $92,903,922 Proportionate Share $16,017,095 The District will use the above formulas created as a base for future Capital Facilities Plans during the life of the current bond authorization. The capacity of these schools may vary from year to year as programs are added or changed and construction cost may increase over time. FACILITIES CAPACITY Permanent Facility Capacity: Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on page 16. Capacity Summaries: The changes in the Capacity Summary reflect the changes in the capacities and student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown as increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 24-27. Student Generation Factor Analysis: Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single-family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 2023 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single- family units and multi-family units that were constructed in the District in the last five (5) years and can be found on the next page Temporary Facility Cost: The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on pages 17 and 18. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 32 STUDENT GENERATION RATES New Construction 2018-2022 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 33 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2023 to 2024 Item From/To Comment Percent of Permanent Facilities 96.95% to 97.65%Report #3 OSPI Percent Temporary Facilities 3.05% to 2.41%Updated portable inventory Average Cost of Portable $128,646 to $231,523 Cost of last portable purchased. Classrooms Construction Cost Allocation $246.83 to $246.83 Change effective July 2022 (2023 not available at time of production) State Match 62.95% to 63.86%Change effective July 2022 (2023 not available at time of production) Average Assessed Value Per King County Assessor's Office SFR- $465,326 to $581,023 Single-family residences MFR- $171,672 to $198,069 Apartments (2023 data corrected) Capital Bond Interest Rate 2.45% to 3.58%Market Rate Property Tax Levy Rate $1.85 to $1.45 King County Treasury Division Student Generation Factors Updated Housing Inventory Single-Family Elementary 0.1627 to 0.1705 Middle School 0.0278 to 0.0682 High School 0.0516 to 0.0958 Multi-Family Elementary 0.5158 to 0.7104 Middle School 0.3167 to 0.3665 High School 0.2081 to 0.3665 Impact Fee1 SFR- $0 to $0 Single-Family Residential based on the updated calculation MFR -$0 to $6,998 Multi-Family Residential based on the updated calculation 1 Each jurisdiction (King County, Cities of Federal Way, Auburn, Kent) through local ordinances may adopt lesser fees. Note: Student generation factors for our single family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation. Student generation factors for are multi- family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 19 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of a Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools No. 210 for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The King County, City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan will be requested to include the District's 2024 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element. This project may also SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 19 request the City of Des Moines to incorporate the District’s 2024 Capital Facilities Plan into their Comprehensive Plans. 2. Name of applicant: Federal Way School District No. 210. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Federal Way School District No. 210 33330 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 (253) 945-2000 Contact Person: Ms. Jennifer Thomas Student and Demographic Forecaster, Business Services Telephone: (253) 945-2071 Email: jthomas@fwps.org 4. Date checklist prepared: May 24, 2022 5. Agency requesting checklist: Federal Way School District No. 210. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District in June 2023. The Capital Facilities Plan will be forwarded to King County, the City of Federal Way, City of Kent, and the City of Auburn for inclusion in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It will also be forwarded to the City of Des Moines and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe for consideration. The District will continue to update the Capital Facilities Plan annually. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan sets forth the capital improvement projects that the District is currently implementing. This includes finishing construction on Federal Way High School and planning for several new voter-approved, Bond-funded projects. Additionally the plan covers the purchase and siting of temporary facilities at various locations. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will undergo additional environmental review, when appropriate, as they are developed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 19 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. This is a nonproject action. See Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The District will request that the following jurisdictions consider adopting the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Captial Facilities Plan as part of their respective Comprehensive Plan: • King County, • City of Federal Way, • City of Kent, • City of Auburn, • City of Des Moines, 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.) This is a non-project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District’s facilities needs. The projects included in the Captial Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project- specific environmental reviews. 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 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Federal Way School District. The District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. The City of Federal Way, parts of the cities of Kent, Des Moines and Auburn, parts of unincorporated King County, fall within the District's boundaries. A detailed map of the District's boundaries may be viewed at the District's main office. B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____________ The Federal Way School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan are located have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 19 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review. 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Specific soil types found at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Project-level environmental review for any projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will include identification of any agricultural soils and associated impacts. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Federal Way School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites have been or will be identified at the time of project-level environmental review when appropriate. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject, when appropriate, to project-specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of any fill materials to be used have been or will be identified at that time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The erosion impacts of the individual projects have been or will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Individual projects have been or will be subject to local approval processes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed renovation projects will require the construction of impervious surfaces. The extent of any impervious cover constructed will vary with each capital facilities project included in the Capital Facilities Plan. This issue has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The erosion potential of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and appropriate control measures have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 19 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The air-quality impacts of each project have been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project- specific environmental review when appropriate and relevant local approval processes. The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 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. There is a network of surface water bodies within the Federal Way School District. The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects. 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. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require work near the surface waters located within the Federal Way School District. Applicable local approval requirements have been or will be satisfied. 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. Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a component of SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 19 the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if located in a floodplain area, will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. 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. Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater resources. The impact of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on groundwater resources has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 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. The discharges of waste material that may take place in connection with the projects included in the Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. 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. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have storm water runoff consequences. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 19 Specific information regarding the storm water impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local storm water regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each project on ground and surface waters have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site. Specific information regarding the drainage pattern impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local drainange pattern regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ____deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ____evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ____shrubs ____grass ____pasture ____crop or grain ____ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____other types of vegetation A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 19 Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. The specific impacts to these species from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ________ An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on migration routes have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project- SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 19 specific environmental review when appropriate. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Inventories of any invasive animal species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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. The State Board of Education requires the completion of a life cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed. The energy needs of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on the solar potential of adjacent projects have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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: Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be considered during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may have any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses have been or will be identified during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 19 The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may contain existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used or produced during the project’s development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will comply with all current codes, standards, rules, and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval at the time they are developed when appropriate. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? A variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial and industrial areas exists within the Federal Way School District. The specific noise sources that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create normal construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis only. The construction projects could increase traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The projected noise impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 19 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. There are a variety of land uses within the Federal Way School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts on projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on land uses on nearby or adjacent properties have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The project sites covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have not been used recently as working farmlands or working forest lands. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that may affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations have been or will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe any structures on the site. The structures located on the proposed sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The remodeling and renovation projects in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the demolishment of school structures. The structures that will be demolished as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The sites that are covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have a variety of zoning classifications under the applicable zoning codes. Site-specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 19 Inventories of the comprehensive plan designations for the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be completed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shoreline master program designations of the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that have been classified as a critical area by the city or county have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The Federal Way School District currently serves approximately 21,500 students. The student population is expected to increase to 22,000 by the year 2029. This projection has been adjusted to reflect the current economic conditions. The District employs approximately 3,200 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of the projects contained therein, will displace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures will be proposed at that time, if necessary. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with existing uses and plans has been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 19 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. It is not anticipated that the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on existing housing have been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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? The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined on a project-specific basis when appropriate 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 19 The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Proposed measures to mitigate light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Federal Way School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The recreational impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, including proposed renovated school and support facilities, may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Adverse recreational effects of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to mitigation during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. There are no known places or objects listed on, or proposed for such registers on the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The existence of historic and cultural resources on or next to the sites has been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 19 has been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project-specific basis when appropriate. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The impact on public streets and highways of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The relationship between the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and public transit has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? An inventory of parking spaces located at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and the impacts of specific projects on parking availability has been or will be conducted during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Use of water, rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 19 be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The traffic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will substantially increase the need for other public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Remodeled/renovated school or facilities will be built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other ___________ Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, and sanitary sewer utilities are available at the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The types of utilities available at specific project sites have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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. Utility revisions and construction needs have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 19 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: . Name of signee: Jennifer Thomas . Position and Agency/Organization: Student and Demographic Forecaster . Date Submitted: 7 June 2023 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to 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; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed and/or renovated and remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads, and playgrounds could increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, although the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will increase the District's student capacities. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Storm water detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 19 The Capital Facilities Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to generate severe impacts on fish or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish cannot be identified at this time. Specific mitigation proposals have been or will be identified, however, during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The construction of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the consumption of energy. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 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 Capital Facilities Plan and individual projects contained therein should have no impact on these resources. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County and the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, and Auburn as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. 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? The Capital Facilities Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. The District does not anticipate that the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein will directly affect land and shoreline uses in the area served by the District. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 19 of 19 No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein are proposed at this time. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create temporary increases in the District's need for public services and utilities. Upon the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, however, the District does not anticipate that its need for public services and utilities will increase substantially beyond existing levels. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. June 6, 2018 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1. The adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan by King County to include the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn to include the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City of Federal Way’s, City of Kent’s, and the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Federal Way Public Schools Location of proposal, including street address, if any: The Federal Way Public Schools District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. Areas of the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, Milton, Algona, and Auburn fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County. Lead agency Federal Way Public Schools is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:30 p.m., June 23, 2023. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Mr. Ty Bergstrom Chief Finance and Operations Officer, Interim Federal Way Public Schools Telephone: (253) 945-2042 Address: 33330 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 Date. _________________ Signature ______________________________________________________________ You may appeal this determination in writing by 4:30 p.m., June 23, 2023 to Jennifer Thomas, Federal Way Public Schools, 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003, or jthomas@fwps.org Date of Issue: June 7, 2023 Date Published: June 16, 2023, and June 23, 2023 June 7, 2023 POLICY/TEXT AMENDMENT (P/T) #4 INCORPORATE KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #415 2022/2023 - 2028/2029 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2023 through 2028-2029 June 2023 Kent School District No. 415 12033 SE 256th Street Kent, Washington 98030-6643 (253) 373-7526 BOARD of DIRECTORS Mr. Joe Bento, President Ms. Meghan Margel, Vice Director Ms. Leslie Hamada, Legislative Representative Mr. Awale Farah, Director Mr. Tim Clark, Director ADMINISTRATION Israel Vela Superintendent of Schools Dr. Wade Barringer, Associate Superintendent Strategic Initiatives & Operations Dave Bussard, Executive Director Operations & Facilities Sara Dumlao, Assistant Director of Business Services Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table of Contents I - Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection ......................................................................... 3 III - Current Kent School District “Standard of Service" ............................................ 7 Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students ............................................... 7 Current District Standards of Service for Secondary Students .................................... 8 IV - Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools ........................................................ 9 V - Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan .......................................................... 14 VI - Portable Classrooms ....................................................................................... 19 VII - Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity ........................................................... 20 VIII - Finance Plan ................................................................................................. 26 IX – Summary of Changes to June 2022 Capital Facilities Plan .............................. 34 X Appendices ..................................................................................................... 35 I - Executive Summary This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan has been prepared by the Kent School District as the organization's capital facilities planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act, King County Code K.C.C. 21A.43 and Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac. This annual Plan update was prepared using data available in the spring of 2023 for the 2023-2024 school year. This annual update of the Plan reflects no new major capital projects. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document for all the district's needs. The district may prepare interim and periodic Long-Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, considering a longer or shorter period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the district as may be required. Prior Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School District have been adopted by Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, and Renton and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. This Plan has also been submitted to the cities of Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac for their information and inclusion in their Comprehensive Plans. In order for impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of Kent School District, the Metropolitan King County Council must adopt this Plan and a fee- implementing ordinance for the District. For impact fees to be collected in the incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton and Auburn must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes a standard of service in order to ascertain current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for local program needs in the District. The Growth Management Act, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs for students of the District. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. Functional capacity is based on an average capacity and updated to reflect changes to special programs served in each building. Portables in the interim capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. 1 The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District’s standard of service and the existing inventory of permanent facilities. The District's program capacity of permanent facilities reflects program changes and the state’s mandated reduction of class size to meet the standard of service for Kent School District. Portables provide additional interim capacity. Kent School District is the fifth largest (FTE basis) district in the state. Enrollment is electronically reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (“OSPI”) on Form P-223. Although funding apportionment is based on Annual Average Full Time Equivalent (AAFTE), enrollment on October 1 is a widely recognized “snapshot in time” that is used to report the District’s enrollment for the year as reported to OSPI. The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of interim facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. The District plans to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the interim use of portables. This Plan currently represents projects in process funded primarily by the Kent School District’s 2016 Bond, as well as the 2018 Capital Levy. Additional information about these projects can be found on the District’s capital projects homepage (link). Additionally, project updates sent to our community of stakeholders can be accessed on the KSD website (link). Based on revised student generation rates, our capacity and enrollment projections, the District will stay current with non-collection of student impact fee rate for the coming year. For a short overview, see Section IX (Summary of Changes to the June 2022 Capital Facilities Plan). 2 II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, enrollment growth projections are based on cohort survival and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years (See Table 2). For this Plan, the district relied substantially on the results from Dr. Les Kendrick’s study of long-range enrollment forecasts for the Kent School District in the Winter of 2022. King County live births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system (See Table 2). 7.49% of 24,337 King County live births in 2018 is projected for 1,824 students expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2023. This is a decrease of 937 live births in King County over the previous year. Early Childhood Education students (also identified as “ECE”), “Early Childhood Special Education (“ECSE”) students are forecast and reported to OSPI separately on Form P-223H for Special Education Enrollment. Capacity is reserved to serve students in the ECE programs at elementary schools. In addition to live birth data, enrollment projections for October 1, 2023 going forward rely upon the results of the enrollment study by Dr. Kendrick, utilizing the “medium growth” methodology. Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact to schools. Information on new residential developments and the completion of these proposed developments in all jurisdictions will be considered in the District's future analysis of growth projections. The Kent School District serves eight permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, and Auburn and smaller portions of the cities of SeaTac, Black Diamond, and Maple Valley. 3 STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR "Student Factor" is defined by King County code as "the number derived by a school district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit" based on district records of average actual student generated rates for developments completed within the last ten years. Following these guidelines, the student generation rate for Kent School District is as follows: Single Family Elementary .248 Middle School .085 Senior High .107 Total .440 Multi-Family Elementary .130 Middle School .049 Senior High .056 Total .235 The student generation factor is based on 1,728 new SFD (Single Family Detached) units built between 2017 and 2021. The student generation factor is based on 1,526 new MF (Multi- Family) units built during the same period. The multi-family units consisted of 1,222 apartment units and 340 townhome units. The District sees an average of 44 students for every 100 single family units that are built and an average of 24 students for every 100 multi-family units that are built. The rate for apartment units is higher than for townhome units. The District sees an average of 29 students for every 100 apartment units. The student generation rate also varies among apartment developments, based on the number of bedrooms in the unit. Units with three plus bedrooms have much higher student generation rates than units that have two or fewer bedrooms. Noting these differences can help the District when planning for future growth from housing. In preparing the 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 Capital Facilities Plan the District contracted with Educational Data Solutions, LLC led by Dr. Les Kendricks, a noted expert in demographic studies for school districts, to analyze and prepare the student generation factor. Within the district’s borders there are several income-based and multi-family housing projects coming on-line in 2022/2023. Once developed with occupancy occurring the District does recognize that the student generation for multi-family housing may impact future Capital Facilities Plan updates. One multi-family project worth noting, Covington Commons which appears to have many units with three-plus bedrooms and is likely to show better student growth than the medium project once completed. 4 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 OCTOBER REPORT 1251H (HEADCOUNT) ENROLLMENT HISTORY LB = Live Births LB in 2008 LB in 2009 LB in 2010 LB in 2011 LB in 2012 LB in 2013 LB in 2014 LB in 2015 LB in 2016 LB in 2017 October HC Enrollment 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 King County Live Births 1 25,222 25,057 24,514 24,630 25,032 24,910 25,348 25,487 26,011 25,274 Incr/(Decr)323 (165)(543)116 402 (122)438 139 524 (737) Kindergarten / Birth % 1 8.40%8.34%8.34%8.17%8.14%7.98%7.93%6.68%7.06%7.42% Kindergarten 2,119 2,090 2,045 2,013 2,037 1,989 2,010 1,703 1,837 1,875 Grade 1 2,186 2,127 2,131 2,067 2,056 2,061 2,036 1,882 1,768 1,945 Grade 2 2,055 2,190 2,163 2,163 2,077 2,008 2,091 1,980 1,817 1,840 Grade 3 1,922 2,070 2,176 2,195 2,143 2,043 1,995 2,001 1,938 1,887 Grade 4 2,087 1,956 2,089 2,195 2,218 2,118 2,038 1,912 1,924 1,953 Grade 5 2,008 2,116 1,958 2,103 2,189 2,169 2,120 1,937 1,872 1,953 Grade 6 2,079 2,023 2,058 1,952 2,120 2,184 2,164 2,024 1,894 1,962 Grade 7 Middle School 2,046 2,104 1,974 2,021 1,922 2,044 2,166 2,010 1,925 1,906 Grade 8 " "2,121 2,091 2,100 2,021 2,043 1,882 2,073 2,086 1,937 1,956 Grade 9 Senior High 2,483 2,428 2,093 2,105 2,006 2,004 1,888 2,006 2,043 2,011 Grade 10 " "2,046 2,151 2,165 2,099 2,080 1,946 2,035 1,813 1,959 2,050 Grade 11 " "1,873 1,802 1,818 1,865 1,823 1,732 1,663 1,744 1,583 1,677 Grade 12 " "1,539 1,576 1,742 1,730 1,810 1,654 1,634 1,484 1,656 1,467 Total Enrollment 2 26,564 26,724 26,512 26,529 26,524 25,834 25,913 24,582 24,153 24,482 Yearly Headcount Incr/(Decr)(48)160 (212)17 (5)(690)79 (1,331)(429)329 Cumulative Incr/(Decr)(267)(107)(319)(302)(307)(997)(918)(2,249)(2,678)(2,349) For 2023 CFP - Headcount Enrollment History 1 This number indicates actual births in King County 5 years prior to enrollment year as updated by Washington State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics. Kent School District percentage based on actual Kindergarten enrollment 5 years later. 2 Enrollment reported to OSPI on Form P-223 generates basic education funding and excludes Early Childhood Special Education ("ECSE" & "B2" or Birth to 2 Preschool Inclusive Education) and excludes College-only Running Start students. Change to Full Day Kindergarten for all schools Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 1 May 2023 5 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX - YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION Full Day Kindergarten at all Elem LB in 2017 LB in 2018 LB in 2019 LB in 2020 LB in 2021 Est LB in 2022 Est. LB in 2023 ACTUAL ENROLLMENT October 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 King County Live Births 25,274 24,337 24,090 23,686 23,428 23,583 23,973 Incr/(Decr)(213)(937)(247)(404)(258)155 390 Kindergarten / Birth % 7.42%7.49%7.53%7.60%7.60%7.75%7.75% FD Kindergarten 1,875 1,824 1,814 1,801 1,781 1,827 1,858 Grade 1 1,945 1,937 1,893 1,902 1,888 1,849 1,897 Grade 2 1,840 1,967 1,960 1,945 1,954 1,930 1,890 Grade 3 1,887 1,871 2,003 2,016 2,000 2,009 1,985 Grade 4 1,953 1,874 1,861 2,012 2,025 2,009 2,018 Grade 5 1,953 1,964 1,887 1,893 2,047 2,060 2,044 Grade 6 1,962 1,995 2,008 1,949 1,955 2,114 2,128 Grade 7 Middle School 1,906 1,939 1,975 2,007 1,948 1,954 2,113 Grade 8 " "1,956 1,903 1,936 1,991 2,024 1,964 1,970 Grade 9 Senior High 2,011 1,993 1,941 1,995 2,051 2,085 2,024 Grade 10 " "2,050 2,009 1,991 1,959 2,013 2,070 2,104 Grade 11 " "1,677 1,798 1,763 1,765 1,736 1,784 1,834 Grade 12 " "1,467 1,585 1,691 1,675 1,677 1,649 1,695 Total Enrollment Projection 24,482 24,659 24,723 24,910 25,099 25,304 25,560 Yearly Incr/(Decr)(100)177 64 187 189 205 256 Yearly Incr/(Decr) %-0.41%0.72%0.26%0.76%0.76%0.82%1.01% Total Enrollment Projection*24,482 24,659 24,723 24,910 25,099 25,304 25,560 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study Dec '22 ("Medium Growth Model") 2022 - 2028 Enrollment Projections PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Live births for King County are estimates for year 2022 & 2023 *Does not include iGrad, RS Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 2 May 2023 6 III - Current Kent School District “Standard of Service" In order to determine the capacity of facilities in a school district, King County Code 21A.06.1225 references a "standard of service" that each school district must establish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the District which would best serve the student population. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. The District has identified schools with significant special needs programs as “impact” schools and the standard of service targets a lower-class size at those facilities. Portables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. The standard of service defined herein will continue to evolve in the future. Kent School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service. This process will affect various aspects of the District's standard of service and future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students •Class size ratio for grades K - 3 is planned for an average of 23 students per class, not to exceed 26. •Class size ratio for grades 4 - 6 is planned for an average of 27 students per class, not to exceed 29. Some special programs require specialized classroom space and the program capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs is reduced. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in special programs and space must be allocated to serve these programs. Students may also be provided with music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility. Some identified students will also be provided educational opportunities in classrooms for special programs such as those designated as follows: Multilingual Learner Education (MLE) Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title I) – Federal Program Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) – State Program 7 Highly Capable Students – State Program Reading, math or science Labs Dual Language Programs in four elementary schools and one middle school Inclusive Education Service for Elementary and Secondary students with disabilities may be provided in a separate or self-contained classroom sometimes with a capacity of 10-15 students, depending on the program. Current District Standards of Service for Secondary Students The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect the capacity of the school buildings per the negotiated collective bargaining agreement with KEA. •The average class size ratio for grades 7–8 is 30 students per class and 143 students per day, with a maximum daily class load/enrollment of 150 based on five class periods per day. •The average class size ratio for grades 9-12 is 32 students per class and 153 students per day, with a maximum daily class load/enrollment of 160 based on five class periods per day. Like Inclusive Education Programs listed above, many other secondary programs require specialized classroom space which can reduce the functional capacity of the permanent school buildings, such as technology labs, performing arts activities, a variety of career and technical education programs, and other specialized programs. Space or Classroom Utilization As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a workspace during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of regular teaching stations at secondary schools. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of classrooms, the Kent School District has determined that the standard utilization rate is 95% for secondary schools. Functional capacity at elementary schools reflects 100% utilization at the elementary level. 8 IV - Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has permanent functional capacity to house 33,847 students and interim (portable) capacity to house 4,161. This capacity is based on the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section III. Included in this Plan is an inventory of the District's schools by type, address and current capacity (See Table 3). The ratio between permanent capacity and portable capacity is 87.8% - 12.2%. The functional capacity is periodically updated for changes in the programs, additional classrooms, and new schools. Functional capacity has been updated in this Plan to reflect program changes implemented in the Fall of 2022. Calculation of Elementary, Middle School and Senior High School capacities are set forth in Appendices A, B, and C. Maps of existing schools are included. For clarification, the following is a brief description of some of the non-traditional programs for students in Kent School District: iGrad - Kent School District has developed the Individualized Graduation and Degree Program or “iGrad”. iGrad is an Open Door (Drop-out Reengagement) School that offers a second plus chance to students aged 16-21 who have dropped out of high school or are at risk of not earning a high school diploma by age 21. iGrad is not included in this Capital Facilities Plan, because it is served as a leased space at the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center. Over the past three years, enrollment in the iGrad program has averaged over 250 students. Kent Virtual Academy - The Kent Virtual Academy is open to grades 6-12 and is currently serving 171 students. The virtual school offers a flexible learning experience designed to engage students when and where they work best. Each school day will include a combination of live (synchronous) virtual instruction and on-demand (asynchronous) learning opportunities outside of a traditional bell schedule. Students can attend live virtual lessons with their teachers and classmates, participate in live virtual class or small group discussions, check-in or meet with teachers, watch recorded video lessons, work independently on projects and lessons, participate in learning experiences outside the school setting for credit or to meet competencies. Virtual school students may also attend their boundary school for select classes and services. 9 2022 - 2023 Year Opened Carriage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235 - 140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 550 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 576 Covington Elementary 2018 CO 25811 156th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 620 Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 504 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031 626 Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 602 Fairwood Elementary 1969 FW 16600 - 148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 490 George T. Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 446 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405 - 120th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 602 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700 - 191st Place SE, Kent 98042 564 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 - 144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 578 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 596 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700 - 64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 550 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660 - 142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 658 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 580 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1994 MR 27710 - 108th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 522 Meridian Elementary 1939 ME 25621 - 140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 608 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98030 580 Neely-O'Brien Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 522 Panther Lake Elementary 2009 PL 12022 SE 216th Street, Kent, 98031 546 Park Orchard Elementary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 642 Pine Tree Elementary 1967 PT 27825 - 118th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 648 Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030 - 162nd Place SE, Renton 98058 578 River Ridge Elementary 2021 RR 00000 - 22420 Military Rd S SeaTac, WA 858 Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 554 Scenic Hill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98030 600 Soos Creek Elementary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 508 Springbrook Elementary 1969 SB 20035 - 100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 564 Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 22300 - 132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 578 Elementary TOTAL 16,850 Cedar Heights Middle School 1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street, Covington 98042 1,112 Mattson Middle School 1981 MA 16400 SE 251st Street, Covington 98042 922 Meeker Middle School 1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 1,154 Meridian Middle School 1958 MM 23480 - 120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 884 Mill Creek Middle School 2005 MC 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 1,058 Northwood Middle School 1996 NW 17007 SE 184th Street, Renton 98058 1,090 Canyon Ridge Middle School 1966 CR 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 0 Middle School TOTAL 6,220 Kent-Meridian High School 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98030 2,211 Kentlake Senior High School 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 2,516 Kentridge Senior High School 1968 KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 2,940 Kentwood Senior High School 1981 KW 2,608 Senior High TOTAL 10,275 Kent Laboratory Academy 2021 KA 00000 - 208th St Kent, WA 98030 502 Kent Virtual Academy KVA No hard Building i-Grad Program IG Not a KSD Building DISTRICT TOTAL 33,847 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 25225 - 180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 26915 - 186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 25800 - 164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 Functional CapacitySCHOOLABRADDRESS 31135 - 228th Ave SE, Black Diamond 98010 10 Kent-Meridian High School Kentlake High School Kentridge High School Kentwood High School King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA Kent School District 2022/23 School Year High School Boundaries Legend High School Buildings Kent-Meridian High School Kentlake High School Kentridge High School Kentwood High School ± 0 4 82 Miles 11 Kent School District 2022/23 School Year Middle School Boundaries Cedar Heights Middle School Mattson Middle School Meeker Middle School Meridian Middle School Mill Creek Middle School Northwood Middle School King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA 0 4 82 Miles Legend Cedar Heights Middle School Mattson Middle School Meeker Middle School Meridian Middle School Mill Creek Middle School Northwood Middle School Middle Schools ± 12 Kent School District 2022/23 School Year Elementary School Boundaries Carriage Crest Elementary Cedar Valley ElementaryCovington Elementary Crestwood Elementary East Hill Elementary Emerald Park Elementary Fairwood Elementary Daniel Elementary Glenridge Elementary Grass Lake Elementary Horizon Elementary Jenkins Creek Elementary Kent Elementary Lake Youngs Elementary Martin Sortun Elementary Meadow Ridge Elementary Meridian Elementary Millennium Elementary Neely O Brien Elementary Panther Lake Elementary Park Orchard Elementary Pine Tree Elementary Ridgewood Elementary Sawyer Woods Elementary Scenic Hill Elementary Soos Creek Elementary Springbrook Elementary Sunrise Elementary River Ridge Elementary King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA 0 4 82 Miles Legend Carriage Crest Elementary Cedar Valley Elementary Covington Elementary Crestwood Elementary Daniel Elementary East Hill Elementary Emerald Park Elementary Fairwood Elementary Glenridge Elementary Grass Lake Elementary Horizon Elementary Jenkins Creek Elementary Kent Elementary Lake Youngs Elementary Martin Sortun Elementary Meadow Ridge Elementary Meridian Elementary Millennium Elementary Neely O Brien Elementary Panther Lake Elementary Park Orchard Elementary Pine Tree Elementary Ridgewood Elementary River Ridge Elementary Sawyer Woods Elementary Scenic Hill Elementary Soos Creek Elementary Springbrook Elementary Sunrise Elementary Elementary Schools ± 13 V - Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan In November 2016, the voters of the Kent School District approved a bond measure for $252 million. This bonding authority provided for the replacement of Covington Elementary school, which opened in August of 2018, the new River Ridge Elementary school, and our new Kent Laboratory Academy, which both opened in August 2021. As a critical component of capital facilities planning, county and city planners and decision - makers are encouraged to consider safe walking conditions for all students when reviewing applications and design plans for new roads and developments. This should include sidewalks for pedestrian safety to and from school and bus stops as well as bus pull -outs and turn- arounds. Included in this Plan is an inventory of potential projects and sites identified by the District which are potentially acceptable site alternatives in the future (See Table 4 & Sitemap). Voter approved bond issues have included funding for the purchase of sites for some of these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan. Some funding is secured for the purchase of additional sites, but some may be funded with impact fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties meet current school construction requirements, and some property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs. The Board will continue an annual review of standards of service and those dec isions will be reflected in each update of the Capital Facilities Plan. Our District went out for a Bond Measure in April of 2023 and did not receive enough votes for approval. We are currently re-evaluating district needs and looking at next steps that align with the Strategic Plan which continues to make a priority to revitalize, rejuvenate and rebuild our aging schools as well as begin a process to remove interim classroom portables and find room or create permanent structures to reduce and eventually eliminate the more than 166 portable classrooms in our district. We will continue to determine capacity versus enrollment as well as programs to ensure this goal to reduce and or eliminate all portables in our district is obtained in the next several years. As a part of the planning process, the District has been tracking a few major development projects which have affected enrollment and will continue to increase students' forecasts. On Meeker Street in Kent we have seen several major apartment complexes, ETHOS and Midtown 64 Apartments. These continue to have an impact on enrollment as they fill up their newly built facilities. Alexian Gateway Project is located on the corner of Military Road and Veterans Drive in Kent and will begin occupying its 283 planned units in 2023-2024. In Covington, we are tracking a multi-family house development which has been approved and construction has begun. The 1700-unit Lakepointe Urban Community will fall within our 14 enrollment boundary and proposed completion of Phase 4 is shown to be 2027 . Construction in the Kent School District boundaries have been steadily rising over the last four years and planned communities are now being recognized through the planning teams in multiple city and county jurisdictions we serve. 15 ccccccccccccc cc cccccccccccccccccc c c c c c c c c c c c cVETERANS DRIVEO L D M IL IT A R Y R O A D S O U T HAMENITY SPACETRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURES2101220123012401210422042304240421052205230524052108220823082408210922092309240921122212231224122113221323132413211622162316241621022202230224022103220323032403------220623062406------220723072407------221023102410------221123112411------221423142414------221523152415MAINTENANCE SHEDM0011. UNIT NUMBERS READ TOP TO BOTTOM (FLOOR 1-4) AS INDICATED ON THE UNIT STACK ONE BEDROOM UNITSTWO BEDROOM UNITSTHREE BEDROOM UNITSLEGEND31023202330234023101320133013401310332033303340331043204330434043106320633063406310532053305340531073207330734073108320833083408311032103310341031093209330934093112321233123412311432143314341431113211331134113101320133013401TYPE A UNITS31153215331534153116321633163416------32173317341731183218331834183119321933193419------322033203420------32213321342131223222332234223123322333233423------3224332434241105120513051405NO UNIT - GARAGE ONLY-----*******BUILDING SIGNAGE------120413041404------12011301------------------1302------------120313031403110612061306140611071207130714071110121013101410110812081308140811091209130914091112121213121412111512151315141511161216131614161117121713171417------121813181418------121513151415------12141314141411111211131114111120122013201420112112211321142111241224132414241125122513251425112812281328142811291229132914291132123213321432113312331333143311361236133614361137123713371437------121913191419------122213221422------122313231423------122613261426------122713271427------123013301430------123113311431------123413341434------1235133514351138123813381438APARTMENT PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE MONUMENT SIGNS -------SHOWING THE STREET ADDRESSES OF EACH BUILDING AT EACH VEHICLE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. EACH ETHICAL ENTRANCE SHALL ALSO HAVE AN ILLUMINATED SITE PLAN AND / OR DIRECTLY SIGNS. THE SIGNS SHALL SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN (THE VIEWER'S CURRENT LOCATION) AND ALL BUILDING ADDRESSES. DWELLING NUMBERS SHALL BE INCLUDED. THE MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL HAVE A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND COLOR.ALL SITE SIGNAGE TO BE PER OWNERS SPECIFICATION AND DESIGN AND UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. * INDICATE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ILLUMINATED BUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE. SIGNAGE FOR BUILDINGS MUST INCLUDE THE ENTIRE BUILDING ADDRESS AND STREET NAME. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES IN HEIGHT. THE BUILDING SIGN SHALL HAVE A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND COLOR.542 1st AVE. SOUTH, FLOOR 4SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE LLC© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE II LLC© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE III PLLC© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE IV LLCALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS AND DESIGNS REPRESENTED OR REFERRED TO ARE THE PROPERTY OF AND ARE OWNED BY KATERRA INC. WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. THEY WERE CREATED, EVOLVED, DEVELOPED AND PRODUCED FOR THE SOLE USE ON AND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT AND NONE OF THE ABOVE MAY BE DISCLOSED OR GIVEN TO OR USED BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION FOR ANY USE OR PURPOSE WHATSOEVER INCLUDING ANY OTHER PROJECT, EXCEPT UPON WRITTEN PERMISSION AND DIRECTION OF KATERRA INC. OwnerConsultantBLDG. 1BLDG. 2BLDG. 3Key plan RevisionsMarkDateDescriptionN10/30/2020UNITNUMBERING/ADDRESSINGSHEET(1,2,3)G.00.014ALEXANGATEWAYAPARTMENTS23000 MILITARY RD S,KENT, WA 98032RMRM075-1800112/13/19IFC SETDrawn ByProject ManagerJob NumberDate Of OriginalProfessional SealSCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0"1UNIT NUMBERING PLANNORTH0 06/12/2019 PERMIT SET2 01/09/2020 REV.3 ITCDUPDATES6 05/22/2020 PC1 CORRECTIONS16 Phase 1BPhase 2Phase 3SE 260th St189th Ave SE 188th Ave SE191st Pl SE SE 259th Pl193r d P l S E 196 t h A v e S E SE 259th StSE 260th St19 9 t h A v e S E SE Timberlane Blvd198th Pl SESE 256th StSR 18 204th Ave SE2 0 1 s t A v e S E SE 258th St203rd Ave SE SE 258th PlPhase 4Phase 1APhasing LegendPhasing MapLakepointe Urban VillagePhasing MapLakepointe Urban Village200400400'0100SCALE: 1" = NNOTE:THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDINGS ROADWAYS ANDTRAILS, IS APPROXIMATE AND DOES NOT VEST TO THIER SPECIFICLOCATION. THE LOCATION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASEDON EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND THETERMS OF THE PLANNED ACTION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,AND APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS.January 30, 2017Phase 1B - Approximate Years 2019-2024Phase 2 - Approximate Years 2020-2025Phase 3 - Approximate Years 2023-2028Establishment of final grade, construction of Covington Connector toSoutheast boundary, construction of first phase of commercialdevelopment.Establishment of final lake perimeter, construction of 191st Place SEextension and associated R-12 residential development, construction ofsecond phase of commercial development on peninsula.Construction of third phase of commercial development.Preliminary Plat approval in third quarter 2021. Construction and FinalPlat Recording 2022.Phase 1A - Maple Hills Division 5Phase 4 - Approximate Years 2020-2027Completion of gravel pit reclamation, construction of MR andR-12 residential developmentUpdated September 15, 2021119108817 191st Pl SE Jenkins CreekSE 260th St189th Ave SE 188th Ave SE191st Pl SE SE 259th Pl19 3 r d P l S E 19 6 t h A v e S E SE 259th StSE 260th St19 9 t h A v e S E SE Timberlane Blvd198th Pl SESE 256th StSR 18 204th Ave SE2 0 1 s t A v e S E SE 258th St203rd Ave SE SE 258th PlBRCMU PARKS24,956 SF0.57 ACRCMU PARKS97,621 SF2.24 ACMR PARKS110,686 SF2.54 ACR-12 PARKS14,185 SF0.33 ACR-12 PARKS12,500 SF0.29 ACMR PARKS128,425 SF2.95 ACR-12 PARKS32,553 SF0.75 ACR-6 PARKS14,112 SF0.32 ACR-12 PARKS7,254 SF0.17 ACR-6 OPEN SPACE1,880,037 SF43.16 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE572,210 SF13.14 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE4,549 SF0.10 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE34,788 SF0.80 ACRCMU OPENSPACE86,894 SF1.99 ACR-6 PARKS9,908 SF0.23 ACMR PARKS12,799 SF0.29 ACMR OPEN SPACE22,507 SF0.52 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE5,687 SF0.13 ACR-6 OPEN SPACE139,837 SF3.21 ACR-6 OPEN SPACE57,182 SF1.31 ACPC o v i n g t o n C o n n e c t o r Master Development PlanLakepointe Urban VillageMaster Development PlanLakepointe Urban VillageJanuary 30, 2017WetlandWetland BufferUndisturbed Open SpacePublicly Accessible Parks and PlazasMedium Density Residential (R-6)Central Pond FeatureCovington Highlands TrailTrails / Offsite Trail ConnectionsStop LightProposed Park and Ride FacilityTransit StopProposed Truck and Bus Return RoutePublic StreetsHigh Density Residential (R-12)Mixed Residential (MR)Mixed Use / Commercial (RCMU)LegendBBike RouteCENTRAL POND FEATUREGateway ElementSteep Slope and Buffer200400400'0100SCALE: 1" = NProposed Trail ParkingFocal Point / Public Gathering SpotLandscape AreasJenkins CreekPPedestrian / Wildlife UndercrossingNOTE:THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDINGS ROADWAYS ANDTRAILS, IS APPROXIMATE AND DOES NOT VEST TO THIER SPECIFICLOCATION. THE LOCATION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASEDON EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND THETERMS OF THE PLANNED ACTION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,AND APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS.Mix of Multi-Family and Commercial isEncouraged within Peninsula AreaUpdated September 15, 2021Disturbed (Graded) Open SpaceSPECIAL PAVEMENTPARKS TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONE SQ FOOTAGE ACREAGE122,577 SF251,910 SF66,492 SF24,020 SF2.81 AC5.78 AC1.53 AC0.55 ACTOTAL464,999 SF 10.67 ACPOND TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONE SQ FOOTAGE ACREAGE366,128 SF106,040 SF334,094 SF0 SF8.41 AC2.43 AC7.67 AC0.00 ACTOTAL806,262 SF 18.51 ACOPEN SPACE TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONE SQ FOOTAGE ACREAGE86,984 SF22,507 SF617,234 SF2,077,056 SF1.99 AC0.52 AC14.17 AC47.68 ACTOTAL2,803,691 SF 64.36 ACCOMBINED OPEN SPACE TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONEPARKS2.81 AC5.78 AC1.53 AC0.55 ACTOTAL10.67 AC91.25 AC34.00 AC35.34 AC53.51 AC214.10 ACOPEN SPACE* POND8.41 AC2.43 AC7.67 AC0.00 AC18.51 AC*OPEN SPACE INCLUDES CRITICAL AREAS, BUFFERS, AND OTHER GREEN SPACES13.21 AC8.73 AC23.37 AC48.23 AC93.55 ACNET ACRES**78.03 AC25.27 AC11.98 AC5.27 AC120.55 AC1.99 AC0.52 AC14.17 AC47.68 AC64.36 ACGROSSACREAGETOTALAMENITIESWILDLIFE /PEDESTRIANUNDER-CROSSING**NET ACRES EQUALS GROSS ACREAGE MINUS TOTAL AMENITIESFUTURE CONNECTIONBEYOND PROPERTY BYOTHERS3646125718 VI - Portable Classrooms The Plan references use of portables as interim capacity for facilities. Currently, the District utilizes portables to house students more than functional capacity and for program purposes at some school locations (Please see Appendices A, B, C). Based on enrollment projections, implementation of full day kindergarten programs, lower state mandated class sizes, functional capacity, and no need for additional interim capacity, the District anticipates no need to purchase or lease additional portables during the next six - year period to ensure capacity requirement (Noted in section V. Six Yr. Planning Construction). During the time period covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that all of the District’s portables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During the useful life of some of the portables, the school-age population may decline in some communities and increase in others, and these portables provide the flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community. Portables may be used as interim facilities: 1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school facilities. 2. To cover the gap between the times of demand for increased capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet that demand. 3. To meet unique program requirements. Portables currently in the District’s inventory are continually evaluated resulting in some being improved and some replaced or when possible, be removed due to life expectancy. The Districts goal is to reduce and or eliminate all portables so we may provide an equitable learning environment for all. The Plan projects that the District will use portables to accommodate interim housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of portables, their impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the interrelationship between portables, emerging technologies, and educational restructuring will continue to be examined. 19 VII - Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity As stated in Section IV, the functional capacity study is periodically updated for changes in special programs and reflects class size requirements, class size fluctuations etc. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3, the functional capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts (See Tables 5 & 5 a-b-c). Enrollment is electronically reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis and funding apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). The first school day of October is widely recognized as the enrollment “snapshot in time” to report enrollment for the year. Kent School District continues to be the fifth largest district (both FTE and headcount basis) in the state of Washington. The P-223 Headcount for October 2022 was 24,482 with kindergarten students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECSE and college-only Running Start students. In October 2022, there were an additional 877 students in 11th and 12th grade participating in the Running Start program at different colleges and receiving credits toward both high school and college graduation. Of these students, 486 attended classes only at the college (“college-only”) and are excluded from FTE and headcount for capacity and enrollment comparisons. Kent School District has one of the highest Running Start program participation rates in the state. Based on the enrollment forecasts, permanent facility inventory and capacity, current standard of service, portable capacity, and future additional classroom space, the District plans to continue to satisfy required capacity through the interim use of portables (See Table 5 and Tables 5 a-b-c). While the district currently shows available capacity to address projected need on a purely statistical basis, there are variety of extenuating factors that need to be considered. The Kent School District currently makes significant use of portables, which we do not consider as part of our permanent standard of service. We have included portable space in our interim capacity figures, and we do not count that as a permanent space solution. Kent is unusual in that it incorporates neighborhoods intersecting with at least 6 municipalities, including Kent , Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, Renton, and SeaTac. The district covers 73 square miles and includes over 40 schools. Within this large geographic area, we expect to have pockets of localized capacity need that are not necessarily reflected in the aggregate figures. As one example, the Lakepointe Urban Village development in Covington may require new classroom capacity even as space may exist in schools on the far other end of the district’s boundaries. 20 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Actual Permanent Functional Capacity 1 33,847 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 Changes to Permanent Capacity 1 Capacity Increase (F) Additional Permanent Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 33,847 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 Interim Portable Capacity Elementary Portable Capacity Required 3,240 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 Middle School Portable Capacity Required 336 308 308 308 308 308 308 Senior High School Portable Capacity Required 654 540 540 540 540 540 540 Interim Portable Capacity Total 4,230 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 38,077 38,569 38,569 38,569 38,569 38,569 38,569 TOTAL ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 2 24,482 24,659 24,723 24,910 25,099 25,304 25,560 DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 13,595 13,910 13,846 13,659 13,470 13,265 13,009 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2022 ("Medium Growth Model") P R O J E C T E D Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 May 2023 21 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SCHOOL YEAR 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Actual Senior High Permanent Capacity 1 10,275 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 Changes to High School Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 10,275 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 Portables Interim Capacity 1 654 540 540 540 540 540 540 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 10,929 10,637 10,637 10,637 10,637 10,637 10,637 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 3 7,205 7,385 7,386 7,394 7,477 7,588 7,657 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 3,724 3,252 3,251 3,243 3,160 3,049 2,980 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 3 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2022 ("Medium Growth Model") P R O J E C T E D No Classroom Portables required at this time. Some Portables used for classroom and program purposes. SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: Grades 9 - 12 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C May 2023 22 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY 7-8 SCHOOL YEAR 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Actual Middle School Permanent Capacity 1 6,220 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 Changes to Middle School Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 6,220 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 Portable Interim Capacity 1 336 308 308 308 308 308 308 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 & 3 6,556 7,524 7,524 7,524 7,524 7,524 7,524 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 3,862 5,837 5,919 5,947 5,927 6,032 6,211 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 2,694 1,687 1,605 1,577 1,597 1,492 1,313 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. MIDDLE SCHOOL: Grades 7 - 8 2022-23 **Middle School: Grades 6-8 2023-24 and Beyond** 2 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2022 ("Medium Growth Model") P R O J E C T E D G r a d e 6 / 8 2 0 2 3 / 2 4 a n d b e y o n d Middle School Grade 6-8 No Classroom Portables required at middle schools at this time. Some Portables used for classroom and program purposes. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B May 2023 23 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY K-6 SCHOOL YEAR 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Actual Elementary Permanent Capacity 1 16,850 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 Additional Permanent Classrooms 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 16,850 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 Interim Portable Capacity 3,240 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 / 2 20,090 19,888 19,888 19,888 19,888 19,888 19,888 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 3 13,415 11,437 11,418 11,569 11,695 11,684 11,692 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 6,675 8,451 8,470 8,319 8,193 8,204 8,196 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Additional classrooms will be placed at schools with the greatest need for aleve overcrowding 3 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2022 ("Medium Growth Model") Enrollment & Projections reflect FULL Day Kindergarten at ALL Elementary schools @ 1.0 & exclude ECSE Preschoolers. P R O J E C T E D G r a d e K / 5 2 0 2 3 / 2 4 a n d b e y o n d Elementary Grade K-5 ELEMENTARY: Grades K - 6 Thru 2022-23 **ELEMENTARY: Grades K - 5 2023-24 and Beyond** Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A May 2023 24 VIII - Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2022-2023 through 2028-2029. The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact fees. The plan is based on future bond issues, state school construction assistance, collection of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act. In November 2016, the District held a special election to approve the authorization of $252,000,000 in bonding authority. The projects described below are part of this authorization. The first series of bonds ($80 million) were issued in February 2017, which funded the Covington Elementary Replacement School, as well as other infrastructure projects. Impact fees were used at both River Ridge Elementary School and Kent Laboratory Academy projects due to escalation in construction pricing across the Pacific Northwest. According to RCW 82.02.090, the definition of an impact fee is ". . . a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. `Impact fee' does not include a reasonab le permit or application fee." Mitigation or impact fees can be calculated on the basis of "unhoused student need" or "the maintenance of a district's level of service" as related to new residential development. A mitigation/impact fee may be imposed based upon a determination of insufficient existing permanent and/or interim portable school space or to pay for permanent and/or newly acquired interim portable school space previously constructed as a result of growth in the district. A district's School Board must first approve the application of the mitigation or impact fees and, in turn, approval must then be granted by the other general government jurisdictions having responsibility within the district, counties, cities and towns. (Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, SeaTac, and Unincorporated King County) Though the current enrollment projections increase for both elementary and secondary schools are relatively flat, the ongoing need to provide permanent instructional facilities to house students is a driving need as the shifts in our family populations continue, due to ongoing development. Previously collected Impact fees may be used to support and address the challenges related to the number of interim instructional facilities currently in use, the replacement of some of these aged facilities, the maintenance of the district's level of services, and the potential expansions to existing facilities in future years. The Kent School District 2022-2023 CFP update includes continued execution of the 2016 Capital Bond Projects, the 2018 Levy Projects, and the data collection and review of our Facility Assessment Reports. The District Facilities and Capital Planning Teams have come together and joined the Capital 25 Bond Planning Task Force (CBPTF) which included District personnel, design professionals, teaching staff, student voices, as well as community members who collaborated and discussed district needs. Our initial plan revealed priorities including school replacement due to age, and the need for added permanent facilities to (1) reduce and eliminate our need for portables and (2) accommodate future growth as housing in the Kent region continues to expa nd. We started with a list of 2 billion in needs and through itemizing and prioritizing, we brought the list of essential projects to 495 million. This list was brought before the District’s Board of Directors for comments, discussion, and approval. A Capital Bond Measure followed and went out to vote in April 2023 and did not pass with voter approval. We are now re-evaluating needs and figuring out next steps. Future updates to this Capital Facilities Plan will include details of any adopted planning . With the opening of Canyon Ridge Middle School, our sixth grade moving from elementary to middle school, and our boundary change, we are advancing opportunities to even out capacity at each site to accommodate our programs and student-based needs. For the Six-Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from Kent School District Capital Planning Team. Please see pages 13-14 for a summary of the cost basis. Cost Basis Summary For impact fee calculations, construction estimated costs are based on the last elementary school built in Kent, adjusted for inflation, and projected cost future elementary school, as well as average pricing of nearby school districts recently built new middle and new high school projects. Project Projected Cost New Elementary School $68,000,000 New Middle School $155,000,000 New High School $220,000,000 Site Acquisition Cost The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purchased or built on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 for a list of site acquisition costs and averages. District Adjustment The impact fee calculations on Appendix B & C result in a zero-dollar impact fee total for this year but may be adjusted if needed per RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) provision. 26 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN Secured Unsecured Impact SCHOOL FACILITIES *2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 TOTAL Local & State State 2 or Local 3 Fees 5 Estimated Estimated PERMANENT FACILITIES No School Projects at this time.$0 TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional portables 3 - 4 $0 OTHER N / A Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * F = Funded U = Unfunded NOTES: 2 The District anticipates receiving some State Funding Construction Assistance for some projects. 3 Facility needs are pending review. Some of these projects may be funded with impact fees. 4 Cost of portables based on current cost and adjusted for inflation for future years. 5 Fees in this column are based on amount of fees collected to date and estimated fees on future units. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 6 May 2023 27 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions & Costs Average of Sites Purchased, Sold or Built on within last 10 Years Type & # on Map School / Site Year Open / Purchased Sold Location Acreage Cost/Price Avg cost-price/acre Total Average Cost / Acre Elementary No Acquisitions for Elemenary Schools 0.00 $0 Elementary Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Elem site average Middle School No Acquisitions for Middle Schools 0.00 $0 Middle School Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Middle Schl Site Avg. Senior High No Acquisitions for Senior Highs 0.00 $0 $0 Senior High Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Sr Hi Site Average Note: All rural sites were purchased prior to adoption of Urban Growth Area. Numbers correspond to locations on Site Bank & Acquisitions Map on Page 35. Properties purchased prior to 2010 1 / Urban Site - Covington area North (So of Mattson MS)1984 2 / Rural Site - Ham Lake east (Pollard)1992 4 / Urban Site - Shady Lake (Sowers-Blaine-Drahota-Paroline)1995 0.00 $0 5 / Rural Site - SE of Lake Morton area (West property)1993 0 0 0 9 / Rural Site - McMillan Assemblage (South of MC)98 - 04 10 / Urban Site - Yeh-Williams (W of 132 Ave SE at SE 288)1999 12 / Urban Site - SE 256th Covington (Halleson)2000 12a / Urban Site - 156th Ave. SE Covington (Wikstrom)2004 12b / Urban Site - SE 256th St. Covington (West of CO)2004 Total Acreage & Cost Total Average Cost / Acre #DIV/0! Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 7 May 2022 28 KENT  SCHOOL  DISTRICT FACTORS  FOR  ESTIMATED  IMPACT  FEE  CALCULATIONS  Student Generation Factors - Single Family Student Generation Factors - Multi-Family Elementary (Grades K - 6) 0.248 Elementary 0.130 Middle School (Grades 7 - 8) 0.085 Middle School 0.049 Senior High (Grades 9 - 12) 0.107 Senior High 0.056 Total 0.440 Total 0.235 Projected Increased Student Capacity OSPI - Square Footage per Student, see side char Elementary 0 Elementary 115 Middle School 850 Middle School 148 Senior High (Academy)0 Senior High 173 Special Education ?? Required Site Acreage per Facility Elementary (required)12 Average Site Cost / Acre Middle School (required)25 Elementary $161,678 Senior High (required)40 Middle School $0 Senior High $0 New Facility Construction Cost Elementary $68,000,000 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost Middle School $155,000,000 Elementary @ 24 $315,000 Senior High $220,000,000 Middle School @ 29 $315,000 Senior High @ 31 $315,000 Temporary Facility Square Footage State Funding Assistance Credit Elementary 123,702 District Funding Assistance Percentage 51.86% Middle School 10,256 Senior High 21,296 Total 4.4% 155,254 Construction Cost Allocation CCA - Cost/Sq, Ft. $246.83 Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary 1,567,594 Middle School 760,483 District Average Assessed Value Senior High/Other 1,077,315 Single Family Residence $653,485 Total 95.6%3,405,392 Total Facilities Square Footage District Average Assessed Value Elementary 1,691,296 Multi-Family Residence $220,293 Middle School 770,739 Senior High/Other 1,098,611 Total 3,560,646 Bond Levy Tax Rate/$1,000 $1.02 Current Rate / 1,000 Tax Rate 0.0010 Developer Provided Sites / Facilities Value 0 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Dwelling Units 0 Current Bond Interest Rate 3.58% CPI Inflation Factor 5.20% Budget Preparations | OSPI (www.k12.wa.us) Kent School District Six‐Year Capital Facilities Plan (APPENDIX A)May 2023 29 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage Average Site Cost/Acre Facility Capacity Student Factor A 1 (Elementary)12 $161,678 0 0.248 A 2 (Middle School)25 $0 850 0.085 $0.00 A 3 (Senior High)40 $0 0 0.107 Total 77 $161,678 850 0.440 A $0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary)$68,000,000 0 0.248 0.903 B 2 (Middle School)$155,000,000 850 0.085 0.984 $15,252.00 B 3 (Senior High)$220,000,000 0 0.107 0.998 Total $443,000,000 850 0.440 B $15,252.00 Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence (Portables) Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary)$315,000 24 0.248 0.097 $315.74 C 2 (Middle School)$315,000 29 0.085 0.016 $14.77 C 3 (Senior High)$315,000 31 0.107 0.020 $21.75 Total $945,000 84 0.440 C $352.25 State Funding Assistance Credit per Single Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Construction Cost Allocation SPI Sq. Ft. / Student Assistance %Student Factor D 1 (Elementary)$246.83 115 0.5186 0.248 $3,650.73 D 2 (Middle School)$246.83 148 0.5186 0.085 $1,610.32 D 3 (Senior High)$246.83 173 0.5186 0.107 $2,369.52 D $7,630.57 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value (AAV)$653,485 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV)8.77 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r )0.10%TC $5,848.83 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 3.58% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calculation 10 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap ** A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $15,252.00 C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence $352.25 Subtotal $15,604.25 D = State Match Credit per Residence $7,630.57 TC = Tax Credit per Residence $5,848.83 Subtotal $13,479.40 Total Unfunded Need $2,124.85 50% Developer Fee Obligation $1,062 FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)$0 District Adjustment ($1,062) Net Fee Obligation per Residence - Single Family ($0.00) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (APPENDIX B)May 2023 30 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage Average Site Cost/Acre Facility Capacity Student Factor A 1 (Elementary)12 $161,678 0 0.13 A 2 (Middle School)25 $0 850 0.049 $0.00 A 3 (Senior High)40 $0 0 0.056 Total 77 $161,678 850 0.235 A $0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent / Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary)$68,000,000 0 0.13 0.903 B 2 (Middle School)$155,000,000 850 0.049 0.984 $8,792.33 B 3 (Senior High)$220,000,000 0 0.056 0.998 Total $443,000,000 850 0.235 B $8,792.33 Temporary Facility Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary)$315,000 24 0.13 0.097 $165.51 C 2 (Middle School)$315,000 29 0.049 0.016 $8.52 C 3 (Senior High)$315,000 31 0.056 0.020 $11.38 Total $945,000 84 0.235 C $185.40 State Funding Assistance Credit per Multi-Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Area Cost Allowance SPI Sq. Ft. / Student Equalization %Student Factor D 1 (Elementary)$246.83 115 0.5186 0.13 $1,913.69 D 2 (Middle School)$246.83 148 0.5186 0.049 $928.30 D 3 (Senior High)$246.83 173 0.5186 0.056 $1,240.12 D $4,082.11 Tax Credit per Multi Family Residence Average MF Residential Assessed Value (AAV)$220,293 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV)8.77 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r )0.10%TC $1,971.67 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 3.58% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calculation 10 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap ** A = Site Acquisition per Multi-Family Unit $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit $8,792.33 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $185.40 Subtotal $8,977.73 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $4,082.11 TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit $1,971.67 Subtotal $6,053.78 Total Unfunded Need $2,923.95 50% Developer Fee Obligation $1,462 FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)0 District Adjustment ($1,462) Net Fee Obligation per Residential Unit - Multi-family ($0.00) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (APPENDIX C)May 2023 31 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity Projected Projected % for SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATION Type Status Completion Program new Date Capacity Growth Approximate Approximate # on Map ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL & SENIOR HIGH TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional Capacity # on Map 2 OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Land Use Designation Type 12 256th - Covington (Halleson)25435 SE 256th, Covington 98042 Rural To be sold 12a 156th - Covington (Wikstrom)25847 156th Ave. SE, Covington 98042 Rural To be sold Notes: None King County King County Land Use Jurisdiction Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 May 2022 32 © copyright KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC. This map has been modified by KSD 05/22 Sawyer Woods Elementary Jenkins Creek Elementary Fairwood Elementary Ridgewood Elementary Northwood Middle School Lake Youngs Elementary Glenridge Elementary Kentridge High School Springbrook Elementary Soos Creek Elementary Sunrise Elementary Meridian Middle School Kentwood High School Park Orchard Elementary Martin Sortun Elementary Daniel Elementary East Hill Elementary Mill Creek Middle School Kent Elementary Kent-Meridian High School Scenic Hill Elementary Kent School District Administration Center Meadow Ridge Elementary Pine Tree Elementary Horizon Elementary Covington Elementary Cedar Heights Middle School Cedar Valley Elementary Crestwood Elementary Mattson Middle School Kentlake High School Neely O’Brien Elementary Carriage Crest Elementary MeridianElementary Meeker Middle School Grass Lake Elementary Emerald Park Elementary Millennium Elementary iGrad Kent Valley Early Learning Center The Outreach Program (TOP) Panther Lake Elementary River Ridge Elementary Kent Laboratory Academy 33 IX - Summary of Changes to June 2022 Capital Facilities Plan The Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") is updated annually based on previous Plans in effect since 1993. The primary changes from the June 2022 Plan are summarized here. Capacity changes continue to reflect fluctuations in class size ratio and program changes. Changes in portables or transitional capacity reflect use, lease or purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement between facilities. The District will be moving to a K-5 Elementary and 6-8 Middle School model beginning the 2023-2024 school year. Capacity has been added at the middle school level by reopening the former Sequoia Junior High (now Canyon Ride Middle School). The district worked with Educational Data Solutions, LLC to update student generation factors. The updated rates are included in the body of the Plan. The student headcount enrollment forecast is updated annually. All Elementary schools now have Full Day Kindergarten so six-year Kindergarten projections were previously modified to meet the requirements for Full Day Kindergarten programs at all elementary schools. The district expects to receive some State Funding Assistance (formerly called “state matching funds”) for projects in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually. Unfunded site and facility need will be reviewed in the future. The impact fees for 2024 calendar year will result in no collection of impact fees for both Single-Family and Multi-Family due to the capacity study completed in Spring 2023. 34 ITEM Grade /Type FROM TO Increase/ Decrease Comments Student Generation Factor Elem 0.27 0.248 -0.022 Single Family (SF)MS 0.105 0.085 -0.020 SH 0.075 0.107 0.032 Total 0.45 0.440 -0.010 Decrease Student Generation Factor Elem 0.082 0.130 0.048 Multi-Family (MF)MS 0.035 0.049 0.014 SH 0.029 0.056 0.027 Total 0.146 0.235 0.089 Increase State Funding Assistance Ratios (“State Match”) 52.49%51.86%-0.63%Per OSPI Website Area Cost Allowance $242.26 $246.83 4.570 Per OSPI Website Link Average Assessed Valuation (AV)SF $574,784 $653,485 78,701 Per King County AV - Average of Condominiums & Apts.MF $360,790 $220,293 (140,497)Per King county Debt Service Capital Levy Rate / $1000 $0.93 $1.02 $0.09 Per King Co. Assessor Report General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 2.45%3.58%1.13%Bond Buyers 20 year GO Index Impact Fee - Single Family SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 No Change Impact Fee - Multi-Family MF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 No Change X - Appendices Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors Include: 35 CITY-INITIATED COMP. PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS CPM #1 – Land Use Element Volume 1 and appendix. The changes to the Land Use Element consist of the following: • Comprehensive Land Use Map to be updated to reflect annexation of the area from the city of Kent for an approximately 155-acre area commonly known as The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave SE, SE 304th ST, and 118th Ave SE. Staff is proposing to establish Comprehensive Plan Map designations of “Single Family Residential” and “Moderate Density Residential” for the site where there were previously none. Changes will also include concurrent zoning changes including the establishment “R-1 Residential”, “R-5, Residential” and “R-10, Residential” zoning districts and the Bridges zoning Overlay , which is intended to recognize and be in accordance with the development standards allowed by the City of Kent’s municipal code as they were approved for the Bridges Planned Unit Development prior to its annexation into the City of Auburn. Zoning map and text amendments are proposed to be processed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments. August 2023 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development DATE: August 31, 2023 RE: Amend the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Map, Comprehensive Zoning Map, and Chapter 18.21 “Overlays” of the Zoning Code (Title 18) – creating a new “Bridges overlay” (CMP#1: CPA23-0003) I. BACKGROUND Beginning in 2019, the cities of Kent and Auburn determined that it is advantageous to both cities that the area located on Lea Hill known as the “Bridges” to be annexed to Auburn. The Bridges area is an approximately 155-acre area island of incorporated city of Kent surrounded completely by the city of Auburn. As part of the process of annexation by Auburn and de-annexation Kent, the cities have committed to coordinate and cooperate with respect to any emergency services, utilities, transportation, planning, and development issues affected by the annexation. Upon annexation, the Bridges area will adopt Auburn comprehensive plan land use designations and Auburn zoning classifications (also known as zones or zoning districts). The City’s Zoning Code (Title 18) provides Auburn the authority to establish zoning and land use designations for all lands within the City. Specifically, per ACC 18.02.100 prior to any parcel of land being annexed to the city, properties can be rezoned to an Auburn zoning classification and the Comprehensive Plan (Map) can be amended to reflect the future annexation area. In preparation of the annexation effective date, staff has analyzed which land use designations and zoning classifications are appropriate for the Bridges area. Staff has prepared an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the Comprehensive Zoning Map, and to Chapter 18.21 “Overlays”. No Comprehensive Plan text is proposed to be revised. The proposed amendments are described below. II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT Generally, all land within a City is assigned a land use designation. A City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows the location and boundaries for each designation. Land use designations build off the past Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the existing land use patterns, topography, natural features, and goals for future development within the City. Under Kent’s jurisdiction the Bridges area features two land use designations. The northern portion of the Bridges area (approx. 63 acres) is currently designated Single Family 3 Units Per Acre (SF-3) and the southern portion (approx. 92 acres) is designated Urban Separator. As stated in Kent’s Land Use Element of their Comprehensive Plan, the city has five general categories of land use designations: Agricultural, CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION August 2023 2 Single-Family Residential, Multifamily Residential, Commercial and Industrial. Within each of these land use designations, there are there are several zoning districts which allow varying levels of land uses, bulk, and scale of development. The Single-Family Residential designation allows single-family residential development at varying densities and housing forms. There are four single-family land use designations: SF-3, SF-4.5, SF-6 and SF-8. The SF-3 designation allows densities of up to three dwelling units per acre and implemented by the SR-3 zoning district. The Urban Separator designation is intended for low-density development to protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors. These areas also provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. The Urban Separator designation is implemented by Kent’s SR-1 zoning district. Further, lots within the Urban Separator designation must be as adhere to a clustering development pattern in order to maintain areas for open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Four environmentally sensitive area tracts exist within the Bridges area, with the largest being located in the southern portion of the Bridges areas. The Bridges area is already mostly subdivided into single family residential lots of varying sizes. Staff is proposing to designate the majority of the Bridges area to Auburn’s Single-Family Residential Designation. The Single-Family Land Use Designation is the predominant land use category in the city and accommodates interconnected subdivisions, neighborhoods, and communities that have a mix of lower density housing types. This designation is appropriate for previously the developed single-family residential areas in Bridges. Auburn too has an “Urban Separator” designation, implemented by an “Urban Separator Overlay”, in which the underlying land is designated Single Family but subject to the low density and lot clustering requirements prescribed in the overlay. The southeast portion of the Bridges area contains four “future development tracts”. These tracts have yet to be developed. The private developer of this Bridges area retains the rights to develop the future development tracts. Per discussions with the developer, the future development tracts will be built out with townhomes. To accommodate the developer’s intent for these tracts, staff is proposing to designate these tracts as Moderate Density Residential. The Moderate Density Residential land use designation is intended to accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types, ranging from single- family homes, townhomes, to multiple-family structures (e.g. apartment buildings). Exhibit A depicts the existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations for the Bridges area. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Generally, all land within a City is divided into zoning districts. The purpose of the each zones is to implement the land use designations of a City’s comprehensive plan. These zones prescribe the character of each zone and its particular suitability for specific uses and the need for such uses. Each zone also specifies the location, height and use of buildings, the size of setback areas, as well as parking, landscaping, and other open space requirements. The Bridges area was developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) by a single developer using Kent standards and code provisions. While the northern portion of the Bridges area is currently zoned SR-3 and the southern portion is zoned SR-1, the Bridges area features a unique application of the standards for these zones. The PUD process allows for the departures from the conventional siting, setback, and density requirements of a particular zoning district (in this case the SR-1 and SR-3 zones) in the interest of achieving superior site design by permitting design flexibility. The PUD process is intended to encourage unique developments. Further, the developer applied for and was granted certain adjustments (i.e. variances) from the zone-specific zoning development standards. For example, Kent CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION August 2023 3 approved an administrative variance for the Bridges area which increased the allowable site (lot) coverage and impervious (surface) limits on each lot created within the PUD by 25% from the standards of the SR-1 and SR-3 zoning districts. The result, what was developed under the Bridges PUD features of mix of conventional SR-1 and SR-3 standards, some adjustments to those standards, and lot clustering requirements as required by the Urban Separator designation. To accommodate the Kent standards and approvals by which the Bridges area was developed, staff is proposing a zoning overlay. This overlay will be referenced as the “Bridges Overlay”. The intent of this overlay is to adopt the zoning development standards and lot clustering requirements (i.e. the Kent standards and approvals) under which the PUD was developed. Staff recognizes that while the City’s zoning districts are similar to zoning development standards as the PUD (if not the same), there are some differences (or variations) between the standards. These variations are necessary to conform with development allowed by Kent zoning and approvals. Within the Bridges Overlay, Staff is proposing to rezone the area into three Auburn zoning districts. The developed northern portion, currently zoned SR-3 under Kent’s zoning, will be zoned R-5, Residential 5 dwelling units per acre. The southern developed portion, currently zoned SR-1 under Kent’s zoning, will be zoned R-1, Residential 1 dwelling unit per acre. Both the R-1 and R-5 zoning districts implement Auburn’s Single Family land use designation. Auburn’s R-5 zoning is most similar to what was developed under the Kent PUD area zoned SR-3. Similarly, Auburn’s R-1 zone is most similar to what was developed under the Kent PUD area zoned SR-1. The four “future development tracts” located in the southeast portion of Bridges are proposed to be zoned R-10, Residential 10 dwelling units per acre. As mentioned earlier, these tracts are proposed to be built out with townhomes. The R-10 allows for a variety of housing types including single family homes, duplexes, apartments, and townhomes. . Since the future development tracts are not yet developed, there are no zoning development standards to memorialize upon annexation. Therefore, upon annexation, they will be subject to Auburn’s R-10 zoning regulations. Exhibit B depicts the existing and proposed Comprehensive Zoning Map districts for the Bridges area. IV. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 18.21 “OVERLAYS” In conjunction with the proposed Bridges Overlay, Staff is proposing a new section, ACC 18.21.040, of code within Chapter 18.21 “Overlays” of the Auburn City Code. This new section of code will contain the zoning development standards under which the Bridges PUD was developed. Note that the table within this section references Auburn’s R-1 and R-5 zoning districts. However, through the overlay mechanism, the zoning development standards are not Auburn’s standard R-1 and R-5 regulations, instead they are Kent standards and approvals under which the Bridges area was developed. The other purpose of this section is to 1) describe the purpose of the overlay, 2) make clear that previously developed lots are subject to the standards within the table (not the future development tracts), 3) recognize and uphold the terms and conditions of the Kent PUD and land use approvals received prior to annexation, and 4) resolve conflicts between the terms or conditions of a previous city of Kent land use. Exhibit C depicts proposed updates to Chapter 18.21 ACC. V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION August 2023 4 The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment is attached to this memo as Exhibit A. The Zoning Map amendment is attached to this memo as Exhibit B. The Comprehensive Plan text amendment is shown in red and is attached to this memo as Exhibit C. VI. EXHIBIT(S) – CPM#1: CPA23-0003 A – Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment B – Proposed Comprehensive Zoning Map Amendment C – Proposed Text Amendment to Chapter 18.21 ACC “Overlays” VII. GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS 1. Administrative Variance: The planning director may, in specific cases, authorize a variance to the development regulations, subject to the criteria contained in ACC 18.70.015(A).i 2. Comprehensive Plan: Auburn's Comprehensive Plan is the leading policy document that guides the City's evolution and growth over a 20-year period. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the desired type, configuration, and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as the character and capacity of public facilities and services like streets and utilities. Its policies address critical topics such as housing, the environment, transportation, public safety, and economic development. The Comprehensive Plan also serves as the basis for the City's adoption of special purpose plans for the city such as transportation or utilities plans, and serves as the basis for development standards and regulations such as City zoning and critical area regulations.ii The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map.iii 3. Comprehensive Zoning Map: The zones set out in ACC 18.02.070 are established as the designations, locations, and boundaries thereof as set forth and indicated on the zoning map.iv 4. Development standards: means regulations pertaining to setbacks, landscaping, height, site coverage, signs, building layout, site design and related features of land use.v 5. Hard surface: means an impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof.vi 6. Impervious surface: means a hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A hard surface which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development.vii 7. Land use designation: All land within the City of Auburn is assigned a land use designation, which builds off the past Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the existing land use City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan pattern, previously approved subarea plans, topography, natural features, and targeted goals for shifting the character of specified areas. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows the location and boundaries for each designation. This map should be consulted together with the written policies of this Plan when decisions about zoning designations, land use activities, and development of public infrastructure are considered.viii CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION August 2023 5 8. Lot coverage: means that percentage of the plot or lot area covered by all buildings including accessory buildings and uses. Coverage is determined by measuring along a horizontal plane from the outermost edge of eaves, cornices, overhangs, or areas covered by a weathertight roof. The first two feet of an eave overhang will, however, not be used in the lot coverage calculation.ix 9. Overlay: An “overlay zone” is supplemental to the underlying zoning district and may establish additional or stricter standards and criteria for properties in addition to those of the underlying zoning district.x 10. Planned Unit Development: is a development built under those provisions of this title which permit departures from the conventional siting, setback, and density requirements of other sections of this title in the interest of achieving superior site development, creating open space , and encouraging imaginative design by permitting design flexibility.xi 11. Urban Growth Area: The designated portion of King County that encompasses all cities as well as other urban land where the large majority of the county’s future residential and emplo yment growth is intended to occur.xii 12. Urban Separator: Per King County Countywide Planning Policy DP-9, Urban Separators are permanent low-density incorporated and unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators are intended to protect Natural Resource Lands, the Rural Area, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space and wildlife corridors within and between communities while also providing public health, environmental, visual, and recreational benefits. Changes to Urban Separators are made pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies amendment process described in policy FW-1. Designated Urban Separators within cities and unincorporated areas are shown in the Urban Separators Map in Appendix 3 of the King County Countywide Planning Policies.xiii 13. Variance: means an adjustment in the application of the specific regulations of this title to a particular piece of property.xiv 14. Zone: means an area accurately defined as to boundaries and location on an official map to which a uniform set of regulations applies controlling the types and intensities of land uses, as set forth in this title.xv 15. Zoning: means the regulation of the use of private lands or the manner of construction related thereto in the interest of implementing the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Zoning includes both the division of land into separate and district zoning districts, and the specific use and development standards which regulate development. Such regulation shall also govern those public and quasi-public land use and buildings which provide for government activities and proprietary type services for the community’s benefit, except as prohibited by law. State and federal governmental activities are encouraged to cooperate under these regulations to secure harmonious city development.xvi 16. Zoning Map: as used in this title [Title 18], is that certain map, three copies of which are on file in the office of the city clerk, labeled “Comprehensive Zoning Map of the city of Auburn, Washington,” dated June 1, 1987, and adopted by Ordinance No. 4230 and signed by the mayor and city clerk, along with all amendments thereto. The types of zoning map amendments are listed in ACC 18.68.030(A).xvii CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION August 2023 6 i Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.70.015 ii City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan website: https://www.auburnwa.gov/ iii Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.070 iv ACC 18.02.070 v ACC 18.04.310 vi ACC 13.48.010(L) vii ACC 18.04.497 viii City of Auburn Land Use Element (Ordinance No. 6746) ix ACC 18.04.550 x ACC 18.04.676.1 xi Kent City Code (KCC) 15.02.332 xii 2021 Adopted King County Countywide Planning Policies (KCCPs) xiii2021 Adopted KCCPs xiv ACC 18.04.910 xv ACC 18.04.960 xviKCC 15.02.585 xvii ACC 18.02.080(A) October 2023 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development DATE: October 10, 2023 RE: Supplemental Memo regarding discussion at October 3rd regular meeting regarding Four Future Development Tracts of the Bridges Annexation Area and annual comprehensive plan amendments. I. BACKGROUND At the October 3rd regular Planning Commission meeting, in the discussion of the city-initiated change, CPA23-0003 commissioners raised concerns and questions regarding changing the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning classification of the project including four “future development tracts” (Tracts LLL, MMM, NNN, and OOO) shown on the Bridges PUD Plat Map (attached) to allow for townhomes. These tracts are located in the southeast corner of the Bridges area . These tracts have yet to be developed. The Bridges PUD private developer (Oakpointe) retains the right to develop the future development tracts. Oakpointe’s current proposal is to develop these tracts to include townhomes. Staff is therefore proposing to change the land use designation to “Moderate Density Residential” and the zoning classification to “R-10, Residential 10 dwelling units per acre”. Both the “Moderate Density Residential” and R-10 zone are intended to accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types, ranging from single-family homes, townhomes, to multiple-family structures (e.g. apartment buildings with an administrative use permit) and recent State and City actions lend support to the creation of more higher density, middle housing ownership opportunities. Commissioners referenced local newspaper article (Auburn Examiner online, Guest Contributor, March 16, 2021), a petition (linked in the online article), and a Kent City Council meeting (March 2, 2021 can be viewed on YouTube.com) as a source of the concerns and questions. Four main issues were identified in the newspaper article referenced above; these include 1) impacts to wetlands and associated buffers, 2) opportunity to provide public comment, 3) impacts to services and impact fees, and 4) increased density. The purpose of this supplemental memo is to provide more information and address these issues as it relates to changing the land use designation to “Moderate Density Residential” and the zoning classification to “R-10, Residential 10 dwelling units per acre”. II. IDENTIFIED ISSUES 1. TRACT TT WETLAND AND ITS ASSOCIATED BUFFER Four environmentally sensitive area tracts (B, I, TT, and Y shown on the Bridges PUD Plat Map) exist within the Bridges area. These tracts contain wetlands and their associated buffers. The largest sensitive area tract (TT) is adjacent to the four future development tracts, and as shown in Plat Note 27 (below), these tracts are affected by the wetland CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO October 2023 2 buffer. The buffer of the wetland within tract TT extends onto the four future development tracts. The concern is that the future development will rely on “old” Kent critical areas regulations that would allow for a smaller buffer than what would be allowed today, and subsequently would allow for more development of the critical areas. However, based on Plat Note 27 , the “old” Kent critical areas regulations cannot be applied. Development of the four future development tracts will not be vested to Kent critical area regulations. Instead, the tracts will be subject to the City of Auburn’s Critical Areas Ordinance (Chapter 16.10 Auburn City Code (ACC)) that is in effect on the date that the applicant’s application is determined to be complete. The category and rating of the wetland and its buffer will be evaluated according to Chapter 16.10 ACC, and the new buffer width that extends onto the four future development tracts will be established. This is the same process that any new development within the City would follow. Oakpointe understands that the four future development tracts are not vested to Kent’s critical areas regulations and that they will be required to prepare a critical areas report and mitigation plan for the development of these tracts. 2. OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT As noted in the Resolution No. 5736 Agenda Bill, generally, most residents of the Bridges community support annexation into the City of Auburn. A concern raised by residents in both the Bridges and surrounding general Lea Hill area is that Auburn residents (taxpayers) would bear the burden of the new development (traffic, roads, and parks) without having a fair opportunity to provide public comment on the new development because it would occur under a different jurisdiction (Kent). The four future development tracts will be developed under Auburn’s jurisdiction. It will require Auburn permits (building, architectural and site design review, civil, and utilities) as well as an environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). As stated on the Washington State Department of Ecology’s website for SEPA: “(SEPA) process identifies and analyzes environmental impacts associated with governmental decisions. These decisions may be related to issuing permits for private projects, constructing public facilities, or adopting regulations, policies, and plans. The SEPA review process helps agency decision-makers, applicants, and the public understand how the entire proposal will affect the environment. SEPA can be used to modify or deny a proposal to avoid, reduce, or compensate for probable impacts…” In addition to critical areas, other impacts that are not able to be addressed or mitigated under the project/permit review process, such as impacts to services (fire, police, schools)and traffic (possibly including impacts to off-site intersections and school walking routes) can be addressed and mitigated under the SEPA environmental review. Auburn’s SEPA “Environmental Review Procedures” contained in (Chapter 16.06 ACC) mirror that of the State requirements (Chapter 197-11 WAC). Both chapters require public notice. Auburn’s public notice rules (contained in Chapter 14.07 ACC) require CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO October 2023 3 posting a notice at the project site, posting at government buildings, publishing in newspaper of local circulation (i.e. the Seattle Times), and mailing within 300 feet of the project site (this width can be increased; additional public notice may be provided for proposals having or potentially having unusually widespread, unique or significant adverse impacts, or for other proposals, at the discretion of the responsible official). The public notice is also posted on the City’s Public Land Use Notice website. The SEPA review process (including public comment period and incorporation of comments) must be completed prior to approval or issuance of any permits/approvals. Additionally, Oakpointe will be required to hold a neighborhood review meeting prior to submitting an application to the city (per ACC 18.02.13). The neighborhood review meeting is triggered by 1) a residential subdivision project comprising 40 or more lots or units, 2) a multifamily residential project comprising 40 or more units, and 3) a mixed- use development project comprising 40 or more units. The purpose of a neighborhood review meeting is to allow for the neighborhood to have early opportunity to become familiar with the project and to identify any associated issues. The city expects the applicant to take into consideration the reasonable concerns and recommendations of the neighbors and other interested persons when preparing an application. The results of the neighborhood meeting must be provided with application submittal for City staff to review. The annexation action, that moves this community into the City of Auburn, addresses the concerns raised by the surrounding community who will have greater opportunity to express their concerns over future development. 3. IMPACTS TO SERVICES AND IMPACT FEES As mentioned previously, impacts to services, critical areas, and traffic will be evaluated through a subsequent project/permit review and SEPA process. Since the four future development tracts will be developed within the City of Auburn, impacts fees, including school fire, traffic, and parks will be assessed at the time of building permit issuance and collected by the City of Auburn. 4. INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Years ago the proposed uses of the four future development tracts, included an assisted living facility, commercial, and office uses. A plat modification to the approved Bridges PUD which would accommodate these uses was approved by the City of Kent Hearing Examiner in March 15, 2010 (Kent File No. PUD-2004-4(R), KIV#RPP4-2091934). The assisted living facility included a two-story, approximately 80,800 square foot, senior care facility that would provide full-time care for up to 120 residents. The facility would provide medical assistance, food preparation, dining areas, the facility would also contain loading and parking areas (a CUP was issued by the Kent Hearing Examiner on November 27, 2007 (City of Kent File No. CE-2007-1) for the assisted living facility). The area to be used for assisted living facility and commercial uses now is proposed to be used for townhomes. However, the four future development tracts are still vested to this plat modification. The current proposal of townhomes is more in line with Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan goals of promoting additional housing and the recent “middle housing” State House Bill (HB) 1110 and less intense than the previously approved concept. Middle housing means “buildings that are compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO October 2023 4 houses and contain two or more attached, stacked, or clustered homes including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing. Instead of a condominium style ownership, the future townhomes will allow for fee simple ownership; meaning that future residents will own the land beneath the home as well as the structure. The townhomes should look and function more like attached or detached single family residences. Currently City of Auburn subdivision regulations (Title 17 “Land Adjustments and Divisions”) does not allow for zero lot line construction and this form of ownership, but future code changes will implement these regulations as required by HB 1110. Further, HB 1110 requires that for cities with population of at least 75,000 the development of at least four units per lot on all lots zoned predominately for residential uses and the development of at least six units per lots on all lots predominately within one-quarter mile of walking distance of a major transit stop. A jurisdiction may also not apply more restrictive standards for middle housing than that of single-family residences, including regulations such as setbacks, lot coverage, impervious surface, etc. In other words, where one unit (home) per lot under current R-5 Auburn zoning is allowed, after implementation of HB 1110 a fourplex (or a sixplex if near transit) per lot would be allowed (in the R-5 zone). Therefore, the construction of fee simple townhomes, should not be out of character with the existing PUD development and future development surrounding the Bridges PUD. Additionally, the reality is that HB 1110 already requires that cities allow fourplex and/or townhouse style development without regard to density. The property would simply have to wait one additional year to submit their applications for the same form of development. III. ATTACHMENTS A – Bridges PUD Plat Map B – City of Auburn Agenda Bill - Resolution No. 5736 and signed Resolution IV. GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS 1. Administrative Use (Permit): “Administrative use” means a use permitted in a zone only after review and approval by the planning director or designee. Administrative uses are those which typically have some potential for impacts to neighboring properties, but which may be permitted within a zone following review by the city to establish conditions mitigating impacts of the use and to assure compatibility with other uses in the zone.i 2. Comprehensive Plan: Auburn's Comprehensive Plan is the leading policy document that guides the City's evolution and growth over a 20-year period. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the desired type, configuration, and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as the character and capacity of public facilities and services like streets and utilities. Its policies address critical topics such as housing, the environment, transportation, public safety, and economic development. The Comprehensive Plan also serves as the basis for the City's adoption of special purpose plans for the city such as transportation or utilities plans, and serves as the basis for development standards and regulations such as City zoning and critical area regulations.ii The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO October 2023 5 and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map.iii 3. Comprehensive Zoning Map: The zones set out in ACC 18.02.070 are established as the designations, locations, and boundaries thereof as set forth and indicated on the zoning map.iv 4. Development standards: means regulations pertaining to setbacks, landscaping, height, site coverage, signs, building layout, site design and related features of land use.v 5. Hard surface: means an impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof.vi 6. Impervious surface: means a hard surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A hard surface which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development.vii 7. Land use designation: All land within the City of Auburn is assigned a land use designation, which builds off the past Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, the existing land use City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan pattern, previously approved subarea plans, topography, natural features, and targeted goals for shifting the character of specified areas. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows the location and boundaries for each designation. This map should be consulted together with the written policies of this Plan when decisions about zoning designations, land use activities, and development of public infrastructure are considered.viii 8. Lot coverage: means that percentage of the plot or lot area covered by all buildings including accessory buildings and uses. Coverage is determined by measuring along a horizontal plane from the outermost edge of eaves, cornices, overhangs, or areas covered by a weathertight roof. The first two feet of an eave overhang will, however, not be used in the lot coverage calculation.ix 9. Planned Unit Development: is a development built under those provisions of this title which permit departures from the conventional siting, setback, and density requirements of other sections of this title in the interest of achieving superior site development, creating open space, and encouraging imaginative design by permitting design flexibility.x 10. Zone: means an area accurately defined as to boundaries and location on an official map to which a uniform set of regulations applies controlling the types and intensities of land uses, as set forth in this title.xi 11. Zoning: means the regulation of the use of private lands or the manner of construction related thereto in the interest of implementing the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Zoning includes both the division of land into separate and district zoning districts, and the specific use and development standards which regulate development. Such regulation shall also govern those public and quasi-public land use and buildings which provide for government activities and proprietary type services for the community’s benefit, except as prohibited by law. State and federal governmental activities are encouraged to cooperate under these regulations to secure harmonious city development.xii CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO October 2023 6 i ACC 18.04.025 ii City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan website: https://www.auburnwa.gov/ iii Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.070 iv ACC 18.02.070 v ACC 18.04.310 vi ACC 13.48.010(L) vii ACC 18.04.497 viii City of Auburn Land Use Element (Ordinance No. 6746) ix ACC 18.04.550 x Kent City Code (KCC) 15.02.332 xi ACC 18.04.960 xiiKCC 15.02.585 October 2023 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development DATE: October 23, 2023 RE: Supplemental memo regarding reopening public hearing for the Bridges Annexation Area annual comprehensive plan amendments (CPA23-0003 CPM#1). At the October 17th special Planning Commission meeting, in the discussion of the city-initiated change, Bridges amendments (CPA23-0003) commissioners asked questions regarding opportunities for the public to comment on the proposed amendments. By the date of the public hearing on Oct. 17th no comment public had been received. Staff appreciated the questions asked by the Planning Commission related to public notification methods and used this as an opportunity to conduct further research. City code prescribe public notification methods for both area-wide actions and site-specific amendment actions. Actions to establish land use controls for the Bridges community is an area-wide action but staff believes that applying the site-specific method of notification provides more meaningful notice for this proposed action. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing on November 7 to allow the opportunity to accept public comment by the Commission in response to staff providing additional noticing methods prior to the hearing. The purpose of the additional noticing is to provide both area-wide plan map amendment and site-specific plan map amendment noticing methods listed in Auburn City Code (ACC) 14.22.100(A)(1) and (2), including such actions as posting yellow land use notice signs within the Bridges area. At the Nov. 7th public hearing staff will summarize public comments received by the hearing date. Lastly, noticing for the Bridges annual comprehensive plan amendments will not be the only opportunity for the Bridges community and surrounding residents to comment on future proposals. As noted in the October 10, 2023 supplemental memo, following annexation, the four future development tracts will be developed under Auburn’s jurisdiction. This future development will require Auburn permit applications (building, architectural and site design review, civil, and utilities) as well as an environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The Bridges residents, as residents of Auburn, will have to opportunity to comment on the project actions under the SEPA “Environmental Review Procedures” contained in (Chapter 16.06 ACC) and the neighborhood review meeting process (ACC 18.02.13). Also, the annexation process includes additional opportunities for public comment before City Council and the City has been informing the Bridges Homeowner’s Association (HOA) with frequent updates that inform the community of upcoming Planning Commission and City Council anticipated meetings, hearings, and actions. Communication with the HOA does not CPA23-0003 – BRIDGES ANNEXATION 2ND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO October 2023 2 satisfy legal notice requirements but it does demonstrate another layer of communication that is occurring. 1 1 3 T HPLSE112THAVESE118THAVESE108THAVESESE 290TH ST SE299THST 127TH PL SE127THPLSE125THAVESESE 302ND PL SE 295TH ST 113THWAYSE114T HWAYS E 129THPLSE126THCTSESE 302ND PL 126TH CT SE128THCTSESE 296TH WAY SE301ST PL S E 301STWAYSE 293RD ST SE 300TH PL 114THAVESE129THAVESE108THAVESESE 296TH ST SE 302ND CT 130THAVESE1 2 1STPLSE114TH PL SESE297TH CT SE 288THPL SE 304TH PL SE 303RD CT130THW AYSESE301ST CT111THAVESE SE302ND CT SE 301ST ST 116THAVESE1 2 8 THPLSESE 298TH PL110THPLSE 111THAVESE126THAVESE111THAVESESE288THST SE 299TH PL SE 299THST SE 300TH WAY SE 298TH ST 107THPLS E SE 301ST PL S E 297TH ST 111THCTSESE298TH PL SE 297TH PL 125THCTSE110THAVESESE294THST S E 2 9 1 S T S T SE 288TH ST SE 299TH P L 125TH PL SESE 292 NDSTSE 290TH PL SE295THST 128THCT SE124TH PL SESE 302ND ST SE 302ND ST SE 299TH PL 129TH PL SE108THAVESE127TH WAY SE120THAVESESE 293RD ST SE 288TH ST 118THAVESESE 302ND ST SE 288TH PL SE 297TH ST 110TH PL SESE 294TH ST 11 2 T H P L S E SE 290TH PL SE 289TH ST SE 294TH ST 118THAVESE124THAVESE112THAVESESE 304TH ST SE 304TH ST 132NDAVESESE304THSTInformation 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6252Printed On: 07/20/23 Bridges Land Use Map Amendment (CMP#1: CPA23-0003) 0 240 480 720 960 1,200 FEET 1 1 3 T HPLSE108THAVESE118THAVESESE 290TH ST SE299THST 127TH PL SE127THPLSE125THAVESESE 302ND PL SE 295TH ST 113THWAYSE114T HWAYS E 129THPLSE126THCTSESE 302ND PL 126TH CT SE128THCTSESE 296TH WAY SE301STPL S E 301STWAYSE 300TH PL 114THAVESE129THAVESE108THAVESESE 296TH ST SE 302ND CT 130THAVESE1 2 1STPLSE114TH PL SESE297THCT SE 288THPL SE 304T H P L SE 303RD CT130THW AYSESE 293RD ST SE301ST CT111THAVESE SE302ND CT SE 301ST ST 116THAVESE1 2 8 THPLSESE 298THPL110THPLSE 111THAVESE126THAVESE111THAVESESE 299TH PL SE 299THST SE 300TH WAY SE 298TH ST SE288THST SE 301ST PL S E 297TH ST 111THCTSESE298TH PL SE 297TH PL 125THCTSE110THAVESESE294THST S E 2 9 1 S T S T SE 288TH ST SE 299TH P L 125TH PL SESE 292 NDSTSE 290TH PL SE295THST 128THCT SE124TH PL SESE 302ND ST SE 302ND ST SE 299TH PL 107THPLSE129TH PL SE108THAVESE127TH WAY SE120THAVESESE 288TH ST SE 293RD ST 118THAVESESE 302ND ST SE 288TH PL SE 297TH ST SE 294TH ST 110TH PL SE1 1 2 T H P L S E SE 290TH PL SE 289TH ST SE 294TH ST 118THAVESE124THAVESE112THAVESESE 304TH ST 1 0 7 T H A V E S E 132NDAVESESE 304TH ST SE304THSTCity of Auburn Land Use Designations Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Parcels Existing Kent Land Use Proposed Auburn Land Use City of Kent Land Use Designations Single-Family 3 Units/Acre Urban Separator EXISTING PROPOSED Single-Family 3 Units/Acre Urban Separator Single-Family ModerateDensityResidential 1 1 3 T HPLSESE 299TH ST118THAVESESE299THST 127TH PL SE127THPLSE125THAVESESE 302ND PL SE 295TH ST 113THWAYSE114T HWAYS E 129THPLSE126THCTSESE 302ND PL 126TH CT SE128THCTSESE 296TH WAY SE301ST PL S E 301STWAYSE 300TH PL 114THAVESESE298TH PL 129THAVESESE 296TH ST SE 302ND CT 130THAVESE1 2 1STPLSE114TH PL SESE297TH CT SE 288THPL SE 303RD CT130THW AYSESE301ST CT111THAVESE SE302ND CT SE 301ST ST 116THAVESESE 290TH ST 1 2 8 THPLSESE 298TH PL 111THAVESE126THAVESE111THAVESESE 299TH PL SE 300TH WAY SE 298TH ST SE 301ST PL S E 297TH ST 111THCTSESE 297TH PL 125THCTSE110THAVESESE288THST SE294THST S E 2 9 1 S T S T SE 288TH ST SE 299TH P L 125TH PL SESE 290TH ST SE 290TH PL SE 295TH ST 128THCT SE124TH PL SESE 302ND ST 129TH PL SE127TH WAY SE120THAVESESE 288TH ST SE 293RD ST SE 292ND ST SE 288TH ST 118THAVESESE 302ND ST 134THAVESESE 288TH PL SE 294TH PL SE 3 02ND PL SE 295TH ST SE 301ST ST SE 297TH ST 110TH PL SESE 294TH ST 11 2 T H P L S E SE 290TH PL SE289TH ST SE 294TH ST 118THAVESE124THAVESE132NDAVESE112THAVESESE 304TH ST SE304TH S T SE 304TH ST SE304THSTInformation 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6251Printed On: 07/19/23 Bridges Zoning Map Amendment (CMP#1: CPA23-0003) 0 220 440 660 880 1,100 FEET 1 1 3 T HPLSE118THAVESE112THAVESESE 299TH ST SE299THST 127TH PL SE127THPLSE125THAVESESE 302ND PL SE 295TH ST 113THWAYSE114T HWAYS E 129THPLSE126THCTSESE298TH PL SE 302ND PL 126TH CT SE128THCTSESE 296TH WAY SE301STPL S E 301STWAYSE 300TH PL 114THAVESE129THAVESESE 296TH ST SE 302ND CT 130THAVESE1 2 1STPLSE114TH PL SE116THAVESESE297THCT SE 288THPL SE 304TH PL SE 303RD CT130THW AYSESE301STCT111THAVESE SE 301ST ST 116THAVESESE 290TH ST SE288THST 1 2 8 THPLSESE 298THPL 111THAVESE126THAVESE111THAVESESE 299TH PL SE 300TH WAY SE 298TH ST SE 301ST PL S E 297TH ST 111THCTSESE 297TH PL 125THCTSE110THAVESESE294THST S E 2 9 1 S T S T SE 288TH ST SE 299TH P L SE 295TH ST 125TH PL SESE 290TH ST SE 290TH PL 128THCT SE124TH PL SESE 302ND ST 129TH PL SE127TH WAY SE120THAVESESE 293RD ST SE 288TH STSE 288TH ST 118THAVESESE 302ND ST 134THAVESESE 288TH PL SE 292ND ST SE 294TH PL SE 3 02ND PL SE 295TH ST SE 301ST ST SE 297TH ST 110TH PL SESE 294TH ST 1 1 2 T H P L S E SE 289TH ST SE 290TH PL SE 294TH ST 118THAVESE132NDAVESE124THAVESE112THAVESESE 304TH ST SE 304TH ST SE304T H S T City of Auburn Zoning C1 Light Commercial District I Institutional Use District P1 Public Use District R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre Existing Zoning Proposed Auburn Zoning/Bridges Overlay Parcels City of Kent Zoning Single-Family (SR-3) Single-Family (SR-1) EXISTING PROPOSED Single-Family (SR-3) Single-Family (SR-1) R-5 R-1 R-10 Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 1 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… Chapter 18.21 OVERLAYS Sections: 18.21.010 Lea Hill overlay. 18.21.020 West Hill overlay. 18.21.030 Urban separator overlay. 18.21.040 Bridges overlay 18.21.010 Lea Hill overlay. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for additional development standards to address the area commonly referred to as the Lea Hill annexation area, as annexed under city of Auburn Ordinance Nos. 5346 and 6121, and identified on the city of Auburn comprehensive zoning map. While the intent is that the development standards for zones in the Lea Hill annexation area will be similar to (if not the same as) corresponding zones in other areas of the city, some variations are needed to recognize previous development allowed by King County zoning. Unless otherwise provided for in this section, all other provisions and requirements of this title shall apply to properties within the Lea Hill overlay. B. Development Standards – Lots Previously Approved. 1. For any residential lot that had received final plat approval, final short plat approval, or preliminary plat approval or that King County had received and determined the application complete for a preliminary plat or short plat, prior to the effective date of annexation into the city of Auburn, the development standards in the following table shall apply. The property owner/applicant shall be responsible to provide to the city evidence of these previous approvals. 2. Any further subdivision of any lot and its subsequent use must conform to the permitted uses and standards referenced in the applicable zoning chapters of this title, except as modified by this section. For farm animals, subsection E of this section or ACC 18.31.220 shall apply. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 2 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… Zone Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft. per Unit) Min Lot Width (Ft.) Max Lot Coverage (%) Setbacks* Building Height Front (Ft.) Rear (Ft.) Side, Interior (Ft.) Side, Street (Ft.) Main (Ft.) Accessory (Ft.) R-1 8,000 N/A 35 35 20 5 5 10 35 35 R-5 2,500 N/A 30 35 10 5 5 10 35 16 R-7 2,500 6,000 30 35 10 5 5 10 35 16 R-10 2,500 4,300 30 40 10 5 5 10 35 35 R-16 2,500 2,700 30 55 10 5 5 10 35 35 R-20 2,500 2,175 30 55 10 5 5 10 35 35 * Garages and other similar structures with a vehicular access require a 20-foot setback from any street. C. Prior King County Approvals. The city of Auburn will recognize the terms of any King County- approved plat, PUD, conditional use permit, contract rezone or similar contractual obligations that may have been approved prior to the effective date of the annexation of the subject property. The conditions of any project that was approved by King County shall be required to be fulfilled in the city of Auburn. D. Planning Director Authorization. The planning director shall be authorized to interpret the language of any King County permit, plat or condition thereof and effectuate the implementation of same to the fullest extent possible. If there is a conflict between a previous King County approval and the Auburn regulation then the most restrictive provision shall apply as determined by the planning director. E. Farm Animals. 1. For properties greater than an acre in the R-1, R-5 and R-7 zones, it is permissible to keep farm animals (excluding goats and swine in the R-5 and R-7 zones); provided, there shall not be more than one horse, cow, donkey or other similar large animal, or four small animals such as sheep, or 12 poultry, rabbits, or similar size animals per each acre of Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 3 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… enclosed usable pasture or roaming area. This acreage requirement is in addition to the minimum lot size requirements of the zone. Property owners of more than an acre in the Lea Hill overlay may choose to apply these standards or the standards in ACC 18.31.220. 2. Shelters provided for farm animals shall be constructed no closer than 50 feet from any adjoining lot and shall be 100 feet from any public street or alley. Any corral, exercise yard, or arena shall maintain a distance of 35 feet from any property line. This excludes pasture area. 3. For those properties that do not meet the requirements of subsection (E)(1) of this section, and farm animals were present prior to annexation, the farm animals may remain as legal nonconforming uses. In such case the number of farm animals allowed may be the same as what the county zoning provisions had allowed prior to the effective date of the annexation of the subject property. F. Lot Averaging – R-1 Zone. It may be possible to subdivide land in the R-1 zone into lots smaller than 35,000 square feet if the property has a significant amount of nonbuildable land due to steep slopes, wetlands or similar features that would be in the public’s best interest to maintain. The following regulations shall apply in situations where lot averaging is permitted or required: 1. At least 50 percent of the subdivision must be set aside as open space. Critical areas (i.e., steep slopes, wetlands) can count towards the 50 percent requirement. Maintenance of the open space tract or easement shall be the responsibility of the property owner and/or a homeowners’ association. 2. The number of allowable lots in a subdivision shall be determined by multiplying the total number of acres in the subdivision by one. Any fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number with one-half being rounded up. 3. The minimum size of any lot shall be 8,000 square feet. For lots less than 35,000 square feet, the minimum lot width shall be consistent with the requirements of the R-5 zone (Chapter 18.07 ACC). All other applicable development standards related to the R-1 zone will continue to apply. 4. Lots within the subdivision shall be clustered so as to provide for continuity of open space within the subdivision and, where possible, with adjoining parcels. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 4 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… 5. Each lot within a subdivision shall illustrate a building area within which the house, accessory structures, and parking areas shall be constructed. The building area shall be exclusive of setbacks, nonbuildable areas or any required buffers from the nonbuildable areas. Any preliminary plat, final plat or short plat shall illustrate the building area for each lot. Any future construction will be limited to the identified building area. 6. A native growth protection easement or similar device, which may include provisions for the limited removal of vegetation and passive use of the easement, that perpetually protects the nonbuildable areas must be recorded with the final plat or short plat. G. All marijuana related businesses and marijuana cooperatives are prohibited land uses within the Lea Hill overlay. (Ord. 6642 § 6, 2017; Ord. 6369 § 3, 2011; Ord. 6245 § 13, 2009.) 18.21.020 West Hill overlay. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for additional development standards to address the area commonly referred to as the West Hill annexation area, as annexed under city of Auburn Ordinance No. 6122 and identified on the city of Auburn comprehensive zoning map. While the intent is that the development standards for zones in the West Hill annexation area will be similar to (if not the same as) corresponding zones in other areas of the city, some variations are needed to recognize previous development allowed by King County zoning. Unless otherwise provided for in this section, all other provisions and requirements of this title shall apply to properties within the West Hill overlay. B. Development Standards – Lots Previously Approved. 1. For any residential lot that had received final plat approval, final short plat approval, preliminary plat approval or that King County had received and determined the application complete for a preliminary plat or short plat, prior to the effective date of annexation, the development standards in the following table shall apply. The property owner/applicant shall be responsible to provide evidence of these previous approvals/decisions. 2. Any further subdivision of any lot and its subsequent use must conform to the permitted uses and standards referenced in the applicable zoning chapters of this title, except as modified by this section. For farm animals, subsection E of this section or ACC 18.31.220 shall apply. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 5 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… Zone Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft. per Unit) Min Lot Width (Ft.) Max Lot Coverage (%) Setbacks* Building Height Front (Ft.) Rear (Ft.) Side, Interior (Ft.) Side, Street (Ft.) Main (Ft.) Accessory (Ft.) R-1 8,000 N/A 35 35 20 5 5 10 35 35 R-5 2,500 N/A 30 35 10 5 5 10 35 16 R-7 2,500 6,000 30 35 10 5 5 10 35 16 * Garages and other similar structures with a vehicular access require a 20-foot setback from any street. C. Prior King County Approvals. The city of Auburn will recognize the terms of any King County- approved plat, PUD, conditional use permit, contract rezone or similar contractual obligations that may have been approved prior to the effective date of the annexation of the subject property. The conditions of any project that was approved by King County shall be required to be fulfilled in the city of Auburn. D. Planning Director Authorization. The planning director shall be authorized to interpret the language of any King County permit, plat or condition thereof and effectuate the implementation of same to the fullest extent possible. If there is a conflict between a previous King County approval and the Auburn regulation, then the most restrictive provision shall apply as determined by the planning director. E. Farm Animals. 1. For properties greater than an acre in the R-1, R-5 and R-7 zones within the West Hill overlay, it is permissible to keep farm animals (excluding goats and swine in the R-5 and R-7 zones); provided, there shall not be more than one horse, cow, donkey or other similar large animal, or four small animals such as sheep, or 12 poultry, rabbits, or similar size animals per each acre of enclosed usable pasture or roaming area. This acreage requirement is in addition to the minimum lot size requirements of the applicable zone. Property owners of more than an acre in the West Hill overlay district may choose to apply these standards, or the standards in ACC 18.31.220. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 6 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… 2. Shelters provided for farm animals shall be constructed no closer than 50 feet from any adjoining lot and no closer than 100 feet from any public street or alley. Any corral, exercise yard, or arena shall maintain a distance of 35 feet from any property line. This excludes pasture areas. 3. For those properties that do not meet the requirements of subsection (E)(1) of this section, and farm animals were present prior to annexation, the farm animals may remain as legal nonconforming uses. In such case, the number of farm animals allowed may be the same as what the county zoning provisions had allowed prior to the effective date of the annexation of the subject property. F. All marijuana related businesses and marijuana cooperatives are prohibited land uses within the West Hill overlay. (Ord. 6642 § 7, 2017; Ord. 6369 § 4, 2011; Ord. 6245 § 13, 2009.) 18.21.030 Urban separator overlay. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for additional development standards to address the area designated as urban separator in the city’s comprehensive plan, as prescribed in the interlocal agreement between the city and King County approved under city of Auburn Resolution No. 4113 and identified on the city of Auburn comprehensive land use map. Unless otherwise provided for in this section, all other provisions and requirements of this title shall apply to properties within the urban separator overlay. B. Development Standards. For property located within a designated urban separator, lot averaging shall be required. The regulations of ACC 18.21.010(F) shall apply in situations where lot averaging is used. C. All marijuana related businesses and marijuana cooperatives are prohibited land uses within the urban separator overlay. (Ord. 6642 § 8, 2017; Ord. 6245 § 13, 2009.) Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 7 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… 18.21.040 The Bridges overlay. A. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this section: 1. “Annexation area” means the area of land formerly within the boundaries of the city of Kent that was annexed by the city of Auburn pursuant to RCW 35.10.217 and more specifically described in Auburn Ordinance No. _______________. 2. “Annexation date” means the date specified in Auburn Ordinance No. ____________ as the effective date of annexation. B. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for additional development standards to address the area that was annexed from the city of Kent under city of Auburn Ordinance No. ____, and identified on the city of Auburn comprehensive zoning map. The area is commonly known as The Bridges Planned Unit Development (Bridges PUD) (King County Recording No. 2007122000095) annexation area. This is an approximately 155-acre area that was an island of incorporated city of Kent that was mostly subdivided and developed by a single developer using Kent standards and code provisions prior to annexation by the city of Auburn. While the intent of this overlay is to adopt development standards for zoning districts in the Bridges annexation area that will both be similar to (if not the same as) corresponding zones in other areas of the city of Auburn and be consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations, some variations are necessary to conform with development allowed by Kent zoning and approvals. Unless otherwise provided for in this section, all other provisions and requirements of this title shall apply to properties within the Bridges overlay. C. Development Standards – Lots Previously Approved. 1. For all uses of land occurring after the annexation date, the development standards in the following table shall apply to any residential lot in the annexation area that is part of a plat that received final plat approval prior to the annexation date. 2. With the exception of the Bridges PUD Future Development Tracts, as identified on the Bridges PUD Plat Map (Tract Nos. LLL, MMM, NNN, and OOO) any further subdivision of any lot and its subsequent use must conform to the permitted uses and standards referenced in the applicable zoning chapters of this title, except as modified by this section. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 8 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… Zone Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) (3) Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft. per Unit) Min Lot Width (Ft.) Max Lot Coverage (%) Max Impervious Surface (%) Setbacks Building Height Front (Ft.) (4) Rear (Ft.) (5) Side, Interior (Ft.) Side, Street (Ft.) Main (Ft.) (6) Accessory (Ft.) R-1(1) 34,000(7) N/A 30 37.5 50 10 5 5 10 35 23 R-5(2) 9,600 N/A 30 56.25 62.5 10 5 5 10 35 23 (1) Formerly Kent SR-1 zone prior to Auburn annexation. (2) Formerly Kent SR-3 zone prior to Auburn annexation. (3) Bridges PUD approved lot sizes ranging from 3,521 to 7,571 square feet. Per Bridges PUD Plat Map Restriction No. 2: “No lot or portion of a lot in this plat shall be divided and sold or resold or ownership changed or transferred whereby the ownership of any portion of this plat shall be less than the area required for the use district is which located.” (4) Garages and other similar structures with vehicular access require a 20-foot setback from any street. (5) 15-foot setback from alley. (6) 2.5-stories or 35 feet. (7) A minimum lot area of 2,500 square feet per lot allowed under city of Kent Urban Separator (Cluster Development Kent City Code (KCC) 12.04.263) for SR-1 zoned properties. D. Bridges PUD Future Development Tracts. Tract Nos. LLL, MMM, NNN, and OOO are subject to the R-10 zoning development standards contained in Chapter 18.07 ACC. E. Prior Kent Approvals. 1. Except as the planning director may determine pursuant to the provisions of (E)(2), the city of Auburn will recognize and uphold the terms and conditions of any city of Kent approved plat, PUD, conditional use permit, contract rezone or similar land use approval that the city of Kent approved prior to the annexation date. An applicant shall have the responsibility to provide to the city of Auburn documentation of any prior city of Kent approvals that the applicant believes should apply to a lot. 2. If there is a conflict between the terms or conditions of a previous city of Kent land use approval and this section or any other Auburn regulation, the planning director will determine, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the provisions of Chapter 18.54 Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 9 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… ACC, whether the Kent land use approval shall apply. The planning director’s interpretation of the language of any such approval or condition contained therein shall be final. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF LEGAL APPLICATION NOTICE File No. CPA23-0003 Applicant’s Representative: Alexandria Teague, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn 25 W Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 Applicant: Josh Steiner, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn 25 W Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 Property Owner: N/A Location: The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave. SE, SE 304th St., and 118th Ave. SE. Closing Date for Public Comments: November 7, 2023 I certify that on or before ___October 24, 2023_______, I did send a Notice of Application for the above referenced application (via a Multimedia Request and City mailing), as required by Auburn City Code 16.06.090 and 14.07.040, to all property owners located within 300 feet of the affected site. Said Notice was mailed pre-paid stamped through the United States Postal Service at least 15 days prior to the closing date for public comments noted above. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING OF LEGAL NOTICE BY APPLICANT File No. CPA23-0003 Applicant’s Representative: Alexandria Teague, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn 25 W Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 Applicant: Josh Steiner, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn 25 W Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 Property Owner: N/A Location: The Bridges Planned Unit Development. This area is generally bounded by SE 288th, 124th Ave. SE, SE 304th St., and 118th Ave. SE. Closing Date for Public Comments: November 7, 2023 I certify that on __________October 23, 2023_____________ I did erect a land use posting board at the location above, which included a Notice of Application for the above referenced application, as required by Auburn City Code 1.27 and 18.70.015(A)(2)(b). The board was erected at least 15 days prior to the closing date for public comments noted above. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Alexandria Teague 10/24/23 Name (please print or type) Date Signature NOTE This affidavit must be returned to the Department of Community Development least one week prior to the closing date for public comments or review of the application may be postponed. PRIVATE-INITIATED COMP. PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS CPM #2 – Land Use Element Volume 1 and appendix. The changes to the Land Use Element consist of the following: • BCRA Design, acting as Agent on behalf of MultiCare Health Systems, property owner, submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and associated Rezone. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Land Use Designation of five contiguous parcels of land totaling approximately 2.27 acres to “Public/Quasi-Public” and a zoning map amendment or rezone of the properties to the P-1, Public Use District. No Comprehensive Plan policy/text wording is proposed to be updated. The purpose of this rezone request is to prepare for anticipated sale and development of the site for city services use. Zoning map and text amendments are proposed to be processed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments. September 2022 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Alyssa Tatro, Planner II Department of Community Development DATE: August 30, 2023 RE: Private Application by MultiCare to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning Map– to change five parcels to the Public/Quasi-Public Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation & “P-1” Zoning District (CPM#2 MultiCare Site & City File Nos. CPA23-0001 & REZ23-0003) I. BACKGROUND The city of Auburn Comprehensive Plan establishes the principles, goals, objectives, and policies guiding future development of the city in compliance with Chapter 36.70A RCW, the Washington State Growth Management Act. Each year Jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act may accept privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications to include with the Annual updates as provided for in Chapter 14.22 ACC. The City’s code also allows consideration of concurrent zoning map changes as provided for in Chapter 18.68 ACC. Meghan Howey, Associate, with BCRA Design, acting as Agent on behalf of MultiCare Health Systems, property owner, submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and associated Rezone. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Land Use Designation of five contiguous parcels of land totaling approximately 2.27 acres to “Public/Quasi-Public” and a zoning map amendment or rezone of the properties to the P-1, Public Use District. No Comprehensive Plan text wording is proposed to be updated. The purpose of this rezone request is to prepare for anticipated sale and development of the site for city services use. The MultiCare site is located on the north side of 12th St SE and to the west of Auburn Way S, the properties are southwest of the Les Gove Park Campus. The total site area is 2.27 acres or 98,675 sq ft. and is flat, sparsely vegetated, and mostly undeveloped. Parcel # 1921059111 contains an approximately 12,760 square foot single-story medical office building and an associated parking lot, parcel # 1921059140 to the north contains an additional parking lot to support the medical building. On July 20, 2023, a Demolition Permit was issued for the medical building on site (City file No. DEM22- 0027). Auburn Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment Four of the five parcels associated with the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment currently have a land use designation of “Light Commercial” (Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, 1921059140). The remaining parcel (1921059160) located to the west currently has a land use REZ23-0003 & CPA23-0001 September 2023 2 designation of “Single Family Residential”. The Comprehensive Land Use Map will reflect the change in the name of the land use designation to “Public/Quasi-Public”. Zoning Map Amendment Four of the five parcels are currently zoned “C-1, Light Commercial” (Parcel Nos: 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, 1921059140). The remaining parcel (1921059160) located to the west is currently zoned “R-7, Residential 7 Dwelling Units Per Acre”. The Zoning Map will reflect the change in the name of the zoning designation to P-1, Public Use District. II. EXHIBIT(S) The Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment (before and after) is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit A. The Comprehensive Zoning Map amendment (before and after) is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit B. Exhibit C is a 2021 aerial photo of the site and vicinity. A – CPM#2 – Existing and Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map B – CPM#2 – Existing and Proposed Zoning Map C – CPM#2 – Vicinity Map III. GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS 1) Comprehensive Plan: Auburn's Comprehensive Plan is the leading policy document that guides the City's evolution and growth over a 20-year period. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the desired type, configuration, and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as the character and capacity of public facilities and services like streets and utilities. Its policies address critical topics such as housing, the environment, transportation, public safety, and economic development. The Comprehensive Plan also serves as the basis for the City's adoption of special purpose plans for the city such as transportation or utilities plans and serves as the basis for development standards and regulations such as City zoning and critical area regulations.i The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map.ii 2) Comprehensive Zoning Map: The zones set out in ACC 18.02.070 are established as the designations, locations, and boundaries thereof as set forth and indicated on the zoning map.iii 3) Land use designation: All land within the City of Auburn is assigned a land use designation, which builds off the past Comprehensive Plan Map, the existing land use City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan pattern, previously approved subarea plans, topography, natural features, and targeted goals for shifting the character of specified areas. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows the location and boundaries for each designation. This map should be consulted together with the written policies of this Plan when decisions about zoning designations, land use activities, and development of public infrastructure are considered.iv 4) Public use: means a use operated exclusively by a public body, such use having the purpose of serving the public health, safety, or general welfare, and including uses such as public schools, parks, playgrounds, and administrative and service facilities.v REZ23-0003 & CPA23-0001 September 2023 3 5) Quasi-public use: means a use operated by a private nonprofit educational, religious, recreational, charitable, or medical institution having the purpose primarily of serving the general public, and including uses such as churches, private schools and universities, community, youth and senior citizen recreational facilities, private hospitals, and the like. viii 6) Use: means an activity or purpose for which land or premises or a building thereon is designed, arranged, intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained, let or leased.vi 7) Zone: means an area accurately defined as to boundaries and location on an official map to which a uniform set of regulations applies controlling the types and intensities of land uses, as set forth in this title.vii 8) Zoning: A police power measure, enacted primarily by units of local government, in which the community is divided into districts or zones within which permitted and special uses are established, as are regulations governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards. Requirements vary from district to district, but they must be uniform within districts. A zoning ordinance consists of two parts – the text and a map.viii i City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan website, https://www.auburnwa.gov/ ii Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.070 iii ACC 18.02.070 iv City of Auburn Land Use Element (Ordinance No. 6746) v ACC 18.04.760 vi ACC 18.04.900 viii ACC 18.04.770 vii ACC 18.04.960 viii WSDOT January 2011 12TH ST SEF ST SEJ ST SE10TH PL SE J ST SE11TH ST SE 12TH ST SE 10TH ST SE DEALS WAY SEH ST SEH ST SEG ST SEF ST SEE ST SEA U B U R N W AY 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6262Printed On: 08/28/23 MultiCare Site Land Use Map Amendment CPM #2 (CPA23-00 01) 0 50 100 150 200 250 FEET 12TH ST SEF ST SEJ ST SE10TH PL SE J ST SE11TH ST SE 12TH ST SE 10TH ST SE DEALS WAY SEH ST SEH ST SEG ST SEF ST SEE ST SEA U B U R N W AY S Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Parcels Existing Land Use Proposed Auburn Land Use EXISTING PROPOSED F ST SE12TH ST SE J ST SE10TH PL SE 11TH ST SE J ST SE12TH ST SE 10TH ST SE DEALS WAY SEH ST SEH ST SEG ST SEF ST SEA U B U R N W AY 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6261Printed On: 08/29/23 MultiCare Site Zoning CPM #2 (REZ23-0003) 0 50 100 150 200 250 FEET 12TH ST SEF ST SEJ ST SE10TH PL SE J ST SE11TH ST SE 12TH ST SE 10TH ST SE DEALS WAY SEH ST SEH ST SEG ST SEF ST SEE ST SEA U B U R N W AY S C1 Light Commercial District C2 Central Business District C3 Heavy Commercial District C4 Mixed Use Commercial CN Neighborhood Shopping District DUC Downtown Urban Center I Institutional Use District Lakeland Hills South PUD LF Airport Landing Field District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Heavy Industrial District Open Space P1 Public Use District PUD Planned Unit Development R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R16 Residential 16 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservency RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units RO Residential Office District RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) TV Terrace View UNC Unclassified Use District Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Parcels EXISTING PROPOSED Page 1 of 2 CITY OF AUBURN Land Use Application #1323124 - City of Auburn CPA Project Contact Company Name:BCRA Design Name:Meghan Howey Email:mhowey@bcradesign.com Address:2106 Pacific Avenue 300 Phone #:(253) 682-8556 Tacoma WA 98402 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New None Comprehensive Plan Amendment Project Name:City of Auburn CPA Description of Work: A comprehensive plan map amendment is proposed for five contiguous parcels of land: 1921059160, 1921059161, 1921059140, 1921059111, and 1921059088. The proposal will change the land use designation from Single Family and Light Commercial to a Public/Quasi-Public designation. Project Details Development Type Map Amendment Page 2 of 2 CITY OF AUBURN Land Use Application #1323124 - City of Auburn CPA City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 1 of 23 City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment May 2023 City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 2 of 23 Table of Contents Narrative I. Non-Project Action Overview II. Response to Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Approval Criteria III. Response to Supplemental Questions Appendices Appendix A: Vicinity Map Appendix B: Current Zoning Map Appendix C: Current Land Use Map Appendix D: Future Zoning Map Appendix E: Future Land Use Map Appendix F: Pre-Application Meeting Summary - May 10, 2023 Appendix G: PSRC VISION 2050 City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 3 of 23 Project Team Owner & Applicant: City of Auburn Attn: Josh Arndt, Real Estate Manager 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Ph: (253) 288-4325 Email: jarndt@auburnwa.gov Land Use Planning Consultant: BCRA Attn: Meghan Howey 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402 Ph: (253) 682-8556 Email: mhowey@bcradesign.com City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 4 of 23 I. Non-Project Action Overview Figure 1: Current land use map and subject site identification A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is proposed for five contiguous parcels of land: 1921059160, 1921059161, 1921059140, 1921059111, and 1921059088. Per ACC 14.03.060 the application will be processed as a legislative non-project decision. The proposal will change the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation from Single Family and Light Commercial to a Public/Quasi-Public designation. Adjacent land use designations include Light Commercial to the north, Light Commercial and Single Family to the south. Other adjacent land use designations include Single Family to the west and Heavy Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public to the east. Please reference Figure 1, above. The subject site is approximately 2.27 acres and lies at the corner of State Route 164 and 12 th Street SE. Large public uses are located just east of the subject site, which include Les Gove Community Campus Plan. The areas north and south of the subject site are predominantly occupied by retail strip style commercial developments. Single-family homes are located behind commercial uses, which border the community. This Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request demonstrates a vision for this area that aligns with the City of Auburn Unified Development Code, countywide planning policies, PSRC’s VISION 2040 and VISION 2050. The proposed amendment will allow uses that support a more vibrant community and aims to accomplish several goals and themes of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in our application responses below. City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 5 of 23 II. Response to Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Criteria The decision criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications are contained within Auburn City Code 14.22.110. 14.22.110 Decision criteria for plan amendments. A. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; Response: This Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is accompanied by a Site- Specific Rezone request. The proposed Public Use (P-1) zone is an implementing zoning designation of the Public/Quasi Public land use designation (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Page LU-14). According to this same section, the designation criteria for this land use include: Designation Criteria: 1. Previously developed institutional uses; or 2. Meets the development parameters of the Public/Quasi-Public designation. 3. Properties identified in the Airport Master Plan as Landing Field. The City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Public/Quasi Public Designation section includes policy LU-103. This policy states a requirement for new designation requests: Policies. LU-103. This designation permits a wide array of uses that tend to be located in the midst of other dissimilar uses. For this reason, the following must be considered of new requests for this designation: a. The impacts that the designation may have on the surrounding community. b. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to new requests for this designation that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community. c. Site-specific conditions that should be attached to development proposals that are designed to mitigate impacts on the surrounding community. According to this policy, we have assessed subsections “a” and “b”, in the table below. Because these applications are non-project actions, subsection “c” is not applicable. City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 6 of 23 Table 18.35.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone LAND USE REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH USE RESPONSE TO POLICY CRITERIA PUBLIC Animal shelter, public Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Animal shelter, public” is a permitted use in this zone. Government facilities; this excludes offices and related uses that are permitted outright Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Government facilities; this excludes offices and related uses that are permitted outright” are a permitted use in this zone. Municipal parks and playgrounds Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Municipal parks and playgrounds” are a permitted use in this zone. RECREATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY Cemetery, public Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Cemetery, public” is a permitted use in this zone. College, university, public Administrative Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “College, university, public” is an administrative use in this zone. Library, museum Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Library, museum” is a permitted use in this zone. Meeting facility, public or private Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 7 of 23 mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Meeting facility, public or private” is a permitted use in this zone. Public schools (K-12) and related facilities Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Public schools (K-12) and related facilities” are a permitted use in this zone. RETAIL Restaurant, cafe, coffee shop, excluding drive-through facilities Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Restaurant, café, coffee shop, excluding drive-through facilities” are a permitted use in this zone. TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Wireless communications facility (WCF) (See ACC 18.04.912(W)) *See ACC 18.31.100 for use regulations and zoning development standards. Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Wireless communication facility (WCF) (See ACC 18.04.912(W))” is a use qualified with “*See ACC 18.31.100 for use regulations and zoning development standards.” Eligible facilities request (EFR) (Wireless communications facility) (See ACC 18.04.912(H)) Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. Small wireless facilities (ACC 18.04.912(Q)) Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Eligible facilities request (EFR) (Wireless communications facility) (See ACC 18.04.912(H))” are a permitted use in this zone. OTHER USES THAT ARE NOT LISTED Other uses may be permitted by the planning director or designee if the use is determined to be consistent Permitted Any future project under the proposed zone would be required to identify and mitigate potential project-related impacts. “Other uses may be City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 8 of 23 with the intent of the zone and is of the same general character of the uses permitted permitted by the planning director or designee if the use is determined to be consistent with the intent of the zone and is of the same general character of the uses permitted” are a permitted use in this zone. According to this analysis, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will remain internally consistent. 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; Response: By amending the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation to Public/Quasi-Public City services will have room to grow and increase. This designation will allow the City to amend the zones to a Public Use (P-1) zone. This zone’s permitted uses are focused on the provision of services, such as government facilities, public schools, parks, colleges, libraries, and museums to name a few. 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; Response: The City is currently in the process of updating the previous Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2015. Comprehensive Plans and zones are not static documents and adjustments need to occur over time. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) VISION 2050 was adopted in October 2020 and builds from VISION 2040. Local jurisdictions prepare plans that must be consistent with multicounty and countywide policies. VISION 2050 notes that the region is projected to grow by about 1.6 million people and 1.1 million jobs by 2050. Auburn’s share of growth is found in Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). King County’s CPP identifies 2019-2044 housing targets (12,000 net new residential units, 19,520 net new jobs). City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 9 of 23 Figure 2 – Population Growth by Regional Geography and County (PSRC VISION 2050, page 30) City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 10 of 23 Figure 3 – Employment Growth by Regional Geography and County (PSRC VISION 2050, page 30) Additionally, PSRC VISION 2050 modifies MPP-PS-16 in VISION 2040. The language changed to include community facilities (PSRC VISION 2050 Policy Matrix, Page 39). Public Services Goal: The region supports development with adequate public facilities and services in a timely, coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner that supports local and regional growth planning objectives (PSRC VISION 2050, page 109). MPP-PS-18 Locate community facilities and health and human services in centers and near transit facilities for all to access services conveniently (PSRC VISION 2050, page 114). City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 11 of 23 Figure 4 – VISION 2050 Policy Matrix Due to the regional growth that has occurred, communities have become increasingly denser. Increased density is accompanied by a need for increased public services. Rezoning this area to Public Use (P-1) will create more space for uses that support the public, such as government facilities, municipal parks and playgrounds, universities, public schools, retail facilities, and more. The area adjacent to the subject site is occupied by the City of Auburn’s Les Gove Community Campus Area. This campus provides more than twenty acres of services which includes a library, museum, park and playground, senior activity center, gymnasium, recreation center, and event center. It is helpful for families and individuals to have these services in one accessible area easily reached by public transportation. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment expands the available land for the City to provide public use and services. City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 12 of 23 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; Response: Please reference the response to approval criteria 3, which also applies to this section. 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region; Response: Not applicable. The proposed zone is an implementing zoning designation of the Public/Quasi Public land use designation (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Page LU-14). Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, and VISION 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region will remain consistent. 6. If the request is to change the land use designation of a specific property on the comprehensive land use map, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; Response: Not applicable. The previous land use designation was not made in error. b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; Response: North: The Light Commercial designation to the north of the subject site is compatible. According to the Comprehensive Plan “LU-89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited” (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Page LU-13). The Public/Quasi-Public designation take advantage of synergies with the adjacent light commercial area by drawing people to public uses which will in-turn activate businesses in these areas. South: The Light Commercial and Single-Family designations to the south of the subject site are compatible. The Single-Family designation will be supported by proximity to the public services accommodated in the Public/Quasi-Public designation. According to the Comprehensive Plan “LU-89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 13 of 23 with the adjacent areas where they are sited” (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Page LU-13). East: The Heavy Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public designations to the east are compatible with the subject site. The Heavy Commercial area covers a small parcel that is occupied by a gas station. This is a submittal use for this area and would support the designation. A very substantial area east of the subject site is designated Public/Quasi-Public, which is this application’s proposed land use designation. This area is occupied by the City of Auburn’s Les Gove Community Campus Area. This campus provides more than twenty acres of services, such as a library, museum, park and playground, senior activity center, gymnasium, recreation center, and event center. West: The subject site is adjacent to the Single-Family designation to the west. The Single-Family designation will be supported by proximity to the public services accommodated in the Public/Quasi-Public designation. According to the Comprehensive Plan “LU-89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited” (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Page LU- 13). c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. Response: Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) updated regional plans via VISION 2050 which was adopted October 2020. Consequently, the City of Auburn is currently in the process of updating their current Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2015. Comprehensive Plans and zones are not static documents and adjustments need to occur over time. Due to the regional growth that has occurred, communities have become increasingly denser. Increased density is accompanied by a need for increased public services. Rezoning this area to Public Use (P-1) will create more space for uses that support the public, such as government facilities, municipal parks and playgrounds, universities, public schools, retail facilities, and more. City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 14 of 23 III. Response to Supplemental Questions. The comprehensive plan was developed and adopted after significant study and public participation. The principles, goals, objectives, and policies contained therein shall be granted substantial weight when considering a proposed amendment. Therefore, the burden of proof for justifying a proposed amendment rests with the applicant, who must demonstrate that the request complies with and/or relates to the following decision criteria: 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and the plan will remain internally consistent; Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. 4. A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment; Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. 5. If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region; Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. 6. If the request is to change the land use designation of a specific property on the comprehensive land use map, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 15 of 23 b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. 7. Identify anticipated impacts from the proposed change. Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. 8. Identify the implementing zoning designation to be requested. Response: The implementing zoning designation to be requested is Public Use (P-1). 9. Discuss how the proposed change is consistent with the comprehensive plan designations of surrounding properties. Response: Please review the response to this question, which has been written in the approval criteria section above. 10. Discuss how the adopted City of Auburn utility plans and capital improvement programs support the change. Response: The Pre-application Conference Summary for file number PRE23-0025 is dated May 17, 2023. The reviewing parties determined that the utilities at this site are currently sufficient for the proposed non-project actions. Please reference their responses, below: “Traffic Engineering Division, James Webb Per 10.01.01.A of the Engineering Design Standards the proposed rezone may trigger the requirement to prepare a traffic impact analysis. It has been determined that this is not required at this time based on the proposed zoning.” Sewer Division, Robert Elwell 1. The existing building is connected to public sewer in 12th St SE. 2. Public sewer service to the lots will not be affected by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Storm Division, Tim Carlaw 1. The project is required to comply with the current July 2019 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and City of Auburn City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 16 of 23 Supplemental Manual. These documents have been adopted as the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (SWMM). 2. The site is currently connected to the public storm in Auburn Way South Water Division, Senait Gebreeyesus 1. The existing building is served by existing water service connections to the 8" water main in 12th St SE. 2. Water service to the lots will not be affected by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment.” City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 17 of 23 Appendix A: Vicinity Map King County Assessor's Office, King County GIS Center, King County, King county Assessor's Office, King County GIS Center, EagleView Technologies, Inc. King County Date: 3/13/2023 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County.± City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 18 of 23 Appendix B: Current Zoning Map RES: 1703 TS18 TS18 TS167 TS167 LAKELAND HILL SOUTH ACADEMY LAKELAND HILLS DOWNTOWN NORTHEAST AUBURN AUBURN NORTH BUSINESS AREA MUCKLESHOOT CASINOA ST SEB ST NWAUBU R N W A Y SM ST SEI ST NEC ST SWAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NC ST NWC ST NES 277TH ST 15TH ST SW W MAIN ST LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E MAIN ST 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S21ST ST SE KER S E Y WA Y SE 29TH ST SEM ST NWSE 312TH ST SE 320TH ST8TH ST NE 22ND ST NE 37TH ST NW SE 284TH ST LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEORAVETZ RD SE46TH PL S 2ND ST SE 17TH ST SE PERIMETER RD SW12TH ST SE 37TH ST SE R ST NES 296TH ST 56TH AVE SM ST NE4TH ST NED ST NWA ST NE4TH ST SE 104TH AVE SEA ST NWRON CROCKETT DR NWWESTVALLEYHWY S GREENRIVERRDSE D ST NELEA H IL L R D S E 116TH AVE SE37TH ST NE S 316TH ST H ST NW44TH ST NW S 3 00 T H PLSE 316TH ST RIVERWALKDR SE 112TH AVE SEEVERG R E E N WAY S EE ST NE49TH ST NE EAST VALLEY HWY E14TH ST NE H A R V E Y R D N E S 331STST DOGWOOD ST SEFRONTAGE RDF ST SE118TH AVE SEMILL POND DR SE105TH PL SEA ST SW15TH ST NE PEA S L E Y C A N Y ON RD S SE 286 T H S T BOUNDARY BLVD SW 6 2 N D ST SE 30TH ST NE RIVERV IEW DR NEO ST SWACADEMY DR SE6 5TH AVESH O W A R D R D S E 3 2 N D S T S E64THAVES T H O M A S A V E S ES 300TH ST HEMLOCK ST SE29TH ST NW SE304THWAY85TH AVE S41ST ST SE S 288TH ST TER R A C E DR N W Auburn AveMOUNT AIN V I E W D RSWSE 281ST ST 69TH S T S EG ST SWSUMNER-TAPPS HWYE 6TH ST NW S 2 9 2 N D S T AUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSE45THSTNE 6TH ST SE 10TH ST NE 3 R D ST SW 30TH ST NW 3RD ST NW 1 3 2 N D W AYSEEASTVA L L E Y ACCESS RD 14TH ST NW 107THPLSEL ST NE3RD ST NE 42ND PL NE OUTLETCOLLECTIONRD S W INDUSTRYDRSW8TH ST SW CROSS S T S E 16TH ST NW SE28 8 THST 9THST N E 1ST ST NW 49TH ST NW 62ND PL SS 325TH S T 1ST ST NE TERRACE VI E W D R SE63RD PLS1 0 7 T H A V E S E 3RD ST SE EMERALD D OWNSRD N W 16TH ST NE 4 TH ST S W 108TH AVE SEELLINGSON RD SWG ST NW55TH AVE SMARKET ST SW48TH AVE S1ST ST NE S E 3 0 4 T H ST 30TH ST NE M ST NEA ST NWA ST SED ST NES E 28 6 T H ST SE 304TH ST 112TH AVE SE112TH AVE SEEVERGREENWAYSEF ST SE17TH ST SE H O WARDRDSE56TH AVE SR ST SEDOGWOOD ST SE116TH AVE SESE 320TH ST F ST SEORD: 5092 5364 5397 ORD: 3803 ORD: 4689 ORD: 6660 ORD: 6691 ORD: 6641 ORD: 4627 ORD: 6667 ORD: 6183 ORD: 6024 6026 ORD: 5971 ORD: 6807 ORD: 6531 ORD: 6002 ORD: 6698 ORD: 5607 ORD: 4328 ORD: 4595 5659 ORD: 4300 5440 ORD: 6375 ORD: 6746 ORD: 6297 ORD: 4456 ORD: 6639 ORD: 6241 ORD: 6430 ORD: 6176 ORD: 4730 ORD: 4410 ORD: 4173 ORD: 6640 ORD: 6803 ORD: 6701 ORD: 6675 ORD: 6596 ORD: 4423 ORD: 6292 ORD: 5611 ORD: 5127 ORD: 6673 ORD: 5092 City of Auburn Zoning Map 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. Zoning map is current through Ordinance No. 6838 Map ID: 1016 Updated On : 1/10/2022 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Feet ®Printed Date: 1/11/2022 C1 Light Commercial District C2 Central Business District C3 Heavy Commercial District C4 Mixed Use Commercial CN Neighborhood Shopping District DUC Downtown Urban Center I Institutional Use District Lakeland Hills South PUD LF Airport Landing Field District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Heavy Industrial District Open Space P1 Public Use District PUD Planned Unit Development R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R16 Residential 16 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservency RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units RO Residential Office District RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) TV Terrace View UNC Unclassified Use District Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Areas Water Features Special Zoning Ordinances & Resolution Adopted Special Plan Areas Lea Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 5346 & 6121) West Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 6122) Urban Separators Overlay Airport Overlays Runway Overlay Zone 1 Inner Safety Zone 2 Inner Turning Zone 3 Outer Safety Zone 4 Sideline Safety Zone 5 Airport Operations Zone 6 ¬«3 ¬«4 ¬«2 ¬«3 ¬«1 ¬«5 ¬«3 ¬«3 ¬«2 ¬«4 ¬«1 ¬«6 ¬«6 City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 19 of 23 Appendix C: Current Land Use Map LAKELAND HILLSOUTH LAKELAND HILLS ACADEMY DOWNTOWN NORTHEAST AUBURN AUBURN NORTHBUSINESS AREA TS18 TS18 TS167 TS167 MUCKLESHOOTCASINO A ST SEB ST NWAUBURN WAY SM ST SEI ST NEC ST SWAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NC ST NWS 277TH ST C ST NE15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST LA K E T A P PSPKWYSEE MAIN ST 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S21ST ST SE KERSEYWAYSE 29TH ST SE SE 312TH STM ST NWSE 320TH ST8TH ST NE SE 284TH ST 22ND ST NE 37TH ST NW ORAVETZRDSELA K E L A NDHI LLSWAYSE4 6 TH P L S 2ND ST SE 17TH ST SE PERIMETERRDSW12TH ST SE 37TH ST SE S 296TH ST R ST NE56TH AVE SM ST NE4TH ST NE D STNWA ST NE4TH ST SE 104THAVESERONCROCKETTDRNWA ST NWGREENRIVERRDSE WESTVALLEYHWYSD ST NELEAHILL R D SE116TH AVE SE37TH ST NE S 316TH ST H ST NWS300TH P L44TH ST NW SE 316TH ST RIVERWALKDRSEE ST NE112TH AVE SEE V ERGREEN WA Y SE14TH ST NE EAST VALLEY HWY EHA R V E Y R D N E S 331ST ST DOGWOOD ST SEF ST SEFRONTAGERD118TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE 1 0 5 THPL S E A ST SWPEASLEY C A NYONRDS 6 2 N D STSE 30TH ST NE RIVERV IEWDRNEACADEMYDRSEBOUNDARY BLVD SW Auburn AveHO W AR D R D SE 3 2 N D ST SE S 300TH ST THOMAS A V E S E64TH AVE S29TH ST NW SE304THWAY85TH AVE S41ST ST SE S 288TH ST TERRACE DRNW SE 281ST ST M OUNT A INVIEW DRSW69TH ST SE 6TH ST NW SUMNER-TAPPSHWYES292NDST AUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRD SE45THSTNE 6TH ST SE 30TH ST NW 3RD ST NW 13 2 N D WAYSE107TH PL SEOUTLETCOLLECTIONRDSW42ND PL NE L ST NEINDUSTRYDRSW8TH ST SW CROSS ST S E 16TH ST NW 1ST ST NW 1ST ST NE SE30 4 T H ST A ST SE56TH AVE SM ST NEFSTSEH OWARDRDSE 112TH AVE SER ST SE112TH AVE SEDOGWOOD ST SE1 7 T H ST SE 30TH ST NE SE 320TH ST EVERGREENW AYSE116TH AVE SESE 304TH ST F ST SEAdopted Areas Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Areas Water Features Lea Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 5346 & 6121) West Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 6122) Urban Separators Overlay 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. Zoning map is current through Ordinance No. 6698,December 17, 2018 ¬Map ID: 6208Printed On: 9/14/2022 City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FEET City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 20 of 23 Appendix D: Future Zoning Map RES: 1703 TS18 TS18 TS167 TS167 LAKELAND HILL SOUTH ACADEMY LAKELAND HILLS DOWNTOWN NORTHEAST AUBURN AUBURN NORTH BUSINESS AREA MUCKLESHOOT CASINOA ST SEB ST NWAUBU R N W A Y SM ST SEI ST NEC ST SWAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NC ST NWC ST NES 277TH ST 15TH ST SW W MAIN ST LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E MAIN ST 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S21ST ST SE KER S E Y WA Y SE 29TH ST SEM ST NWSE 312TH ST SE 320TH ST8TH ST NE 22ND ST NE 37TH ST NW SE 284TH ST LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEORAVETZ RD SE46TH PL S 2ND ST SE 17TH ST SE PERIMETER RD SW12TH ST SE 37TH ST SE R ST NES 296TH ST 56TH AVE SM ST NE4TH ST NED ST NWA ST NE4TH ST SE 104TH AVE SEA ST NWRON CROCKETT DR NWWESTVALLEYHWY S GREENRIVERRDSE D ST NELEA H IL L R D S E 116TH AVE SE37TH ST NE S 316TH ST H ST NW44TH ST NW S 3 00 T H PLSE 316TH ST RIVERWALKDR SE 112TH AVE SEEVERG R E E N WAY S EE ST NE49TH ST NE EAST VALLEY HWY E14TH ST NE H A R V E Y R D N E S 331STST DOGWOOD ST SEFRONTAGE RDF ST SE118TH AVE SEMILL POND DR SE105TH PL SEA ST SW15TH ST NE PEA S L E Y C A N Y ON RD S SE 286 T H S T BOUNDARY BLVD SW 6 2 N D ST SE 30TH ST NE RIVERV IEW DR NEO ST SWACADEMY DR SE6 5TH AVESH O W A R D R D S E 3 2 N D S T S E64THAVES T H O M A S A V E S ES 300TH ST HEMLOCK ST SE29TH ST NW SE304THWAY85TH AVE S41ST ST SE S 288TH ST TER R A C E DR N W Auburn AveMOUNT AIN V I E W D RSWSE 281ST ST 69TH S T S EG ST SWSUMNER-TAPPS HWYE 6TH ST NW S 2 9 2 N D S T AUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSE45THSTNE 6TH ST SE 10TH ST NE 3 R D ST SW 30TH ST NW 3RD ST NW 1 3 2 N D W AYSEEASTVA L L E Y ACCESS RD 14TH ST NW 107THPLSEL ST NE3RD ST NE 42ND PL NE OUTLETCOLLECTIONRD S W INDUSTRYDRSW8TH ST SW CROSS S T S E 16TH ST NW SE28 8 THST 9THST N E 1ST ST NW 49TH ST NW 62ND PL SS 325TH S T 1ST ST NE TERRACE VI E W D R SE63RD PLS1 0 7 T H A V E S E 3RD ST SE EMERALD D OWNSRD N W 16TH ST NE 4 TH ST S W 108TH AVE SEELLINGSON RD SWG ST NW55TH AVE SMARKET ST SW48TH AVE S1ST ST NE S E 3 0 4 T H ST 30TH ST NE M ST NEA ST NWA ST SED ST NES E 28 6 T H ST SE 304TH ST 112TH AVE SE112TH AVE SEEVERGREENWAYSEF ST SE17TH ST SE H O WARDRDSE56TH AVE SR ST SEDOGWOOD ST SE116TH AVE SESE 320TH ST F ST SEORD: 5092 5364 5397 ORD: 3803 ORD: 4689 ORD: 6660 ORD: 6691 ORD: 6641 ORD: 4627 ORD: 6667 ORD: 6183 ORD: 6024 6026 ORD: 5971 ORD: 6807 ORD: 6531 ORD: 6002 ORD: 6698 ORD: 5607 ORD: 4328 ORD: 4595 5659 ORD: 4300 5440 ORD: 6375 ORD: 6746 ORD: 6297 ORD: 4456 ORD: 6639 ORD: 6241 ORD: 6430 ORD: 6176 ORD: 4730 ORD: 4410 ORD: 4173 ORD: 6640 ORD: 6803 ORD: 6701 ORD: 6675 ORD: 6596 ORD: 4423 ORD: 6292 ORD: 5611 ORD: 5127 ORD: 6673 ORD: 5092 City of Auburn Zoning Map 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. Zoning map is current through Ordinance No. 6838 Map ID: 1016 Updated On : 1/10/2022 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Feet ®Printed Date: 1/11/2022 C1 Light Commercial District C2 Central Business District C3 Heavy Commercial District C4 Mixed Use Commercial CN Neighborhood Shopping District DUC Downtown Urban Center I Institutional Use District Lakeland Hills South PUD LF Airport Landing Field District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Heavy Industrial District Open Space P1 Public Use District PUD Planned Unit Development R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R16 Residential 16 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservency RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units RO Residential Office District RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) TV Terrace View UNC Unclassified Use District Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Areas Water Features Special Zoning Ordinances & Resolution Adopted Special Plan Areas Lea Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 5346 & 6121) West Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 6122) Urban Separators Overlay Airport Overlays Runway Overlay Zone 1 Inner Safety Zone 2 Inner Turning Zone 3 Outer Safety Zone 4 Sideline Safety Zone 5 Airport Operations Zone 6 ¬«3 ¬«4 ¬«2 ¬«3 ¬«1 ¬«5 ¬«3 ¬«3 ¬«2 ¬«4 ¬«1 ¬«6 ¬«6 City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 21 of 23 Appendix E: Future Land Use Map LAKELAND HILLSOUTH LAKELAND HILLS ACADEMY DOWNTOWN NORTHEAST AUBURN AUBURN NORTHBUSINESS AREA TS18 TS18 TS167 TS167 MUCKLESHOOTCASINO A ST SEB ST NWAUBURN WAY SM ST SEI ST NEC ST SWAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NC ST NWS 277TH ST C ST NE15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST LA K E T A P PSPKWYSEE MAIN ST 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S21ST ST SE KERSEYWAYSE 29TH ST SE SE 312TH STM ST NWSE 320TH ST8TH ST NE SE 284TH ST 22ND ST NE 37TH ST NW ORAVETZRDSELA K E L A NDHI LLSWAYSE4 6 TH P L S 2ND ST SE 17TH ST SE PERIMETERRDSW12TH ST SE 37TH ST SE S 296TH ST R ST NE56TH AVE SM ST NE4TH ST NE D STNWA ST NE4TH ST SE 104THAVESERONCROCKETTDRNWA ST NWGREENRIVERRDSE WESTVALLEYHWYSD ST NELEAHILL R D SE116TH AVE SE37TH ST NE S 316TH ST H ST NWS300TH P L44TH ST NW SE 316TH ST RIVERWALKDRSEE ST NE112TH AVE SEE V ERGREEN WA Y SE14TH ST NE EAST VALLEY HWY EHA R V E Y R D N E S 331ST ST DOGWOOD ST SEF ST SEFRONTAGERD118TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE 1 0 5 THPL S E A ST SWPEASLEY C A NYONRDS 6 2 N D STSE 30TH ST NE RIVERV IEWDRNEACADEMYDRSEBOUNDARY BLVD SW Auburn AveHO W AR D R D SE 3 2 N D ST SE S 300TH ST THOMAS A V E S E64TH AVE S29TH ST NW SE304THWAY85TH AVE S41ST ST SE S 288TH ST TERRACE DRNW SE 281ST ST M OUNT A INVIEW DRSW69TH ST SE 6TH ST NW SUMNER-TAPPSHWYES292NDST AUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRD SE45THSTNE 6TH ST SE 30TH ST NW 3RD ST NW 13 2 N D WAYSE107TH PL SEOUTLETCOLLECTIONRDSW42ND PL NE L ST NEINDUSTRYDRSW8TH ST SW CROSS ST S E 16TH ST NW 1ST ST NW 1ST ST NE SE30 4 T H ST A ST SE56TH AVE SM ST NEFSTSEH OWARDRDSE 112TH AVE SER ST SE112TH AVE SEDOGWOOD ST SE1 7 T H ST SE 30TH ST NE SE 320TH ST EVERGREENW AYSE116TH AVE SESE 304TH ST F ST SEAdopted Areas Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Areas Water Features Lea Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 5346 & 6121) West Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 6122) Urban Separators Overlay 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. Zoning map is current through Ordinance No. 6698,December 17, 2018 ¬Map ID: 6208Printed On: 9/14/2022 City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FEET City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 22 of 23 Appendix F: Pre-Application Meeting Summary - May 10, 2023 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY CITY FILE NO: PRE23-0025 PROJECT NAME: COMP PLAN MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICANT: MEGHAN HOWEY MEETING DATE: May 10, 2023 at 1:00pm This summary reflects the information provided for and at the Pre-Application Conference , and is intended to assist the Applicant with preparing plans for submittal to the City and increase efficiency. The City has attempted to provide a complete review of your proposal, however, given the conceptual nature, there may be items that arise later in your project that were not identified here due to a lack of clarity or understanding of your project intent. Further information or revisions provided by the Applicant may influence or change plan reviewer comments as permit applications and development plans are submitted for review. Also, additional information may be needed to complete the project to applicable City standards. These notes will be kept on file for a period of two years. One follow up meeting can be arranged to further clarify or discuss revisions to the proposal that were made to accommodate comments identified in this summary. To request a follow up meeting, please identify the staff that you would like to meet with and send an email directly. Another application fee will apply for any further meeting requested beyond the first and second. General publications and forms can be found on the City’s website here: Resource Library Forms and here: Public Works Publications and Forms. The anticipated applications that apply to this project are listed under “Anticipated Submittals” near the end of this document, along with links to other City standards and documents. Following your meeting with the City of Auburn, you are encouraged to take our Pre-Application Meeting Customer Survey. PARCEL NUMBER: 1921059160 (Note the project may span across multiple parcels.) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are proposed for five contiguous parcels of land: 1921059160, 1921059161, 1921059140, 1921059111, and 1921059088. The proposal will change the Comprehensive Land Use Designation to a Public/Quasi-Public designation. The parcels will be rezoned to Public Use (P-1). APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES: Megan Howey - mhowey@bcradesign.com CITY REPRESENTATIVES: Devin Cannon - dcannon@auburnwa.gov Alyssa Tatro - atatro@auburnwa.gov Steve Sturza - ssturza@auburnwa.gov DEPARTMENT-SPECIFIC COMMENTS The following comments are not intended to be all inclusive. Please be sure to refer to each document and City Code section mentioned below for additional detail and the specific regulations. REVIEWER: ALYSSA TATRO DIVISION: PLANNING Reviewed by: Alyssa Tatro, Planner II, 253-804-5031 / atatro@auburnwa.gov Date Published: May 17, 2023 Page 1 of 6 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY 1. Proposal: A Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendment for five contiguous parcels. The proposal would change the Comprehensive Plan designation to Public/Quasi-Public and rezone the properties to P-1, Public/Quasi-Public zone. 2. The parcels proposed for the Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment are as follows: 1921059160, 1921059161, 1921059111, 1921059088, and 1921059140. 3. Parcel # 1921059160 is zoned R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre and has a land use designation of Single Family. The remaining 4 parcels are zoned C-1, Light Commercial and have a land use designation of Light Commercial. 4. Adjacent Zoning Designations: North: C-1, Light Commercial West: R-7, Residential 7 DU/acre East: C-3, Heavy Commercial South: C-1, Light Commercial and R-7, Residential 7 DU/acre 5. Adjacent Land Use Designations: North: Light Commercial West: Single Family East: Heavy Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public South: Light Commercial and Single Family 6. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application, a Rezone application, and a SEPA application will be required. Auburn City Code Chapter(ACC) 18.68 discusses Zoning Amendments (Rezone) and Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22 discusses the Comprehensive Plan, including amendment applications and the decision criteria. • ACC Chapter 14.22: https://auburn.municipal.codes/ACC/14.22 • ACC Chapter 18.68: https://auburn.municipal.codes/ACC/18.68 7. The decision criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications are contained within Auburn City Code 14.22.110. The approval criteria for Rezone applications are contained within ACC 18.68.040. 8. Per ACC 18.68.030(A)(2) the application would be considered a site-specific rezone category 2. It will be processed as a legislative non-project decision, consistent with ACC 14.03.060. Zoning/Development Standards: 9. If the proposals were approved, the parcels zoned P-1 will need to comply with all standards and regulations of the P-1 zone. 10. The P-1 zone is intended to provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community. 11. The Use table and development regulations applicable to the P-1 zone are contained in ACC 18.35. The Date Published: May 17, 2023 Page 2 of 6 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY Comprehensive Plan Amendment application will need to address and analyze the impact of all potential uses that are allowable in the P-1 zone. Use table is under ACC 18.35.030. 12. As a non-project action, development proposal plans and reports would not be required to be submitted to meet the criteria. However, a Site plan of the existing site and land features is required per the application(s) submittal checklist. Environmental: 13. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is required for the proposal. Please see the Department of Ecology’s website for the most recent SEPA Environmental Checklist. https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance/SEPA-checklist- guidance REVIEWER: STEVE STURZA DIVISION: DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING REVIEWER: CRUE WOODARD DIVISION: BUILDING REVIEWER: JAMES WEBB DIVISION: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING For questions regarding the Traffic review comments below, please contact the Development Engineering representative identified above. Per 10.01.01.A of the Engineering Design Standards the proposed rezone may trigger the requirement to prepare a traffic impact analysis. It has been determined that this is not required at this time based on the proposed zoning. REVIEWER: DEVIN CANNON DIVISION: PERMIT CENTER Reviewed By: Devin Cannon, Permit Technician I (253) 876-1942 / dcannon@auburnwa.gov 1. The 2023 City of Auburn fee schedule may be found here: www.auburnwa.gov/documents. 2. Please note: all submittals are done electronically through www.MyBuildingPermit.com (MBP) REVIEWER: ANDREW BERGFORD DIVISION: FIRE - LAND USE Reviewed By: Andrew Bergford, Assistant Fire Marshal Valley Regional Fire Authority (253) 288-5874 / andrew.bergford@vrfa.org Date Published: May 17, 2023 Page 3 of 6 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REVIEWER: ROBERT ELWELL DIVISION: SEWER For questions regarding the Utility review comments below, please contact the Development Engineering representative identified above. SEWER 1. The existing building is connected to public sewer in 12th St SE. 2. Public sewer service to the lots will not be affected by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. REVIEWER: TIM CARLAW DIVISION: STORM For questions regarding the Utility review comments below, please contact the Development Engineering representative identified above. STORM 1. The project is required to comply with the current July 2019 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and City of Auburn Supplemental Manual. These documents have been adopted as the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (SWMM). 2. The site is currently connected to the public storm in Auburn Way South. REVIEWER: SENAIT GEBREEYESUS DIVISION: WATER Reviewed By: Senait Gebreeyesus, Water Utility Engineer 253-804-5061 / sgebreeyesus@auburnwa.gov 1. The existing building is served by existing water service connections to the 8" water main in 12th St SE. 2. Water service to the lots will not be affected by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Date Published: May 17, 2023 Page 4 of 6 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PERMIT CENTER INFORMATION For questions regarding permitting requirements please contact a Permit Technician via the Permit Center at 253-931-3090 or permitcenter@auburnwa.gov. ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SUBMITTAL The application, review, and approval process for all applications is via electronic submittal. Applications and associated plans, reports, and documents are made directly through MyBuildingPermit.com. Most applications will be responded to by the end of the following business day with further instructions payment information for application fees. If there are further questions on the application process, please contact the Permit Techinican listed above. PROJECT CONTACT Most City application forms ask for a “Project Contact”. We will direct all project correspondence (questions about your project, requests to make corrections in response to City review, notification that a project has been approved, etc.) to this individual. Please ensure that the proper person, along with their title, current address, phone number, and email address, is provided. FEES AND PAYMENT See adopted Fee Schedule links below or contact the Permit Center at 253-931-3090 or permitcenter@auburnwa.gov to help determine the fees associated with your submittal. Contacting in advance will ensure an accurate estimate of the payment needed and minimize complications. Forms of payment accepted are cash, check, Visa, or MasterCard (all card payments incur an additional 3% service charge). City of Auburn Fee Schedules Date Published: May 17, 2023 Page 5 of 6 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY USEFUL LINKS, HANDOUTS, AND APPLICATIONS Zoning and Land Use Auburn City Code Downtown Urban Center Auburn Shoreline Master Program(SMP) City of Auburn Public GIS Map City of Auburn Survey Monuments Public Viewer City of Auburn Ordinances and Resolutions Public Records Requests Engineering Standards, Civil Applications, and Handouts Visit the Public Works Standards and Publics Webpage Building Design & Construction Auburn Building Code & Design Requirements Residential Design Requirements WA State Building Code WA State Energy Code References Special Inspection Agreement Date Published: May 17, 2023 Page 6 of 6 City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 23 of 23 Appendix G: PSRC VISION 2050 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF AUBURN Land Use Application #1323219 - City of Auburn CPA Project Contact Company Name:BCRA Design Name:Meghan Howey Email:mhowey@bcradesign.com Address:2106 Pacific Avenue 300 Phone #:(253) 682-8556 Tacoma WA 98402 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New None Rezone Project Name:City of Auburn CPA Description of Work: A site specific rezone is proposed for five contiguous parcels of land: 1921059160, 1921059161, 1921059140, 1921059111, and 1921059088. The proposal will change the zone from Residential 7 DU/Acre (R-7) and Light Commercial District (C-1) to Public Use (P-1). Project Details Development Activity Rezone Page 2 of 2 CITY OF AUBURN Land Use Application #1323219 - City of Auburn CPA City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 1 of 11 City of Auburn Site-Specific Zoning Map Amendment May 2023 City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 2 of 11 Table of Contents Narrative I. Non-Project Action Overview II. Response to Zone Map Amendment Approval Criteria Appendices Appendix A: Vicinity Map Appendix B: Current Zoning Map Appendix C: Current Land Use Map Appendix D: Future Zoning Map Appendix E: Future Land Use Map City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 3 of 11 Project Team Owner & Applicant: City of Auburn Attn: Josh Arndt, Real Estate Manager 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Ph: (253) 288-4325 Email: jarndt@auburnwa.gov Land Use Planning Consultant: BCRA Attn: Meghan Howey 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98402 Ph: (253) 682-8556 Email: mhowey@bcradesign.com City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 4 of 11 I. Non-Project Action Overview Figure 1: Current zoning map and subject site identification A Zoning Map Amendment is proposed for five contiguous parcels of land: 1921059160, 1921059161, 1921059140, 1921059111, and 1921059088. Per ACC 18.68.030(A)(2) the application would be considered a site-specific rezone category 2. It will be processed as a legislative non-project decision, consistent with ACC 14.03.060. The proposal will change the zone from Residential 7 DU/Acre (R-7) and Light Commercial District (C-1) to Public Use (P-1). Adjacent zoning designations include Light Commercial (C-1) to the north, Light Commercial (C-1) and Residential 7 DU/acre (R-7) to the south. Other adjacent zones include Residential 7 DU/acre (R-7) to the west and Heavy Commercial (C-3) to the east. Please reference Figure 1, above. The subject site is approximately 2.27 acres and lies at the corner of State Route 164 and 12 th Street SE. Large public uses are located just east of the subject site, which include Les Gove Community Campus Plan. The areas north and south of the subject site are predominantly occupied by retail strip style commercial developments. Single-family homes are located behind commercial uses, which border the community. City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 5 of 11 These parcels are currently designated by the Comprehensive Plan to be Single Family and Light Commercial. However, a related proposal will change the Comprehensive Plan designation to Public/Quasi-Public for which Public Use (P-1) is an implementing zoning district (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Page LU-14). This rezone request demonstrates a vision for this area that aligns with the City of Auburn Unified Development Code, countywide planning policies and PSRC’s VISION 2040 and VISION 2050. The proposed zoning will allow uses that support a more vibrant community and aims to accomplish several goals and themes of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in our application responses below. II. Response to Zoning Map Amendment Criteria The approval criteria for site-specific rezone applications are contained within ACC 18.68.040. The parcels included in this proposal will comply with all standards and regulations of the Public Use (P-1) zone. The P-1 zone is intended to provide for the appropriate location and development of public uses that serve the cultural, educational, recreational, and public service needs of the community. 18.68.040 Rezone (zoning map amendment) approval criteria. There is no presumption of validity for a rezone (zoning map amendment) and the applicant has the burden of proof in establishing compliance with all of the following criteria: A. The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan; or Response: An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation has been proposed in conjunction with this application. The proposal will change the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation from Single Family and Light Commercial to a Public/Quasi- Public designation. The Public Use (P-1) zone is an implementing zoning designation within this land use designation (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Page LU-14). B. The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning; and Response: The City is currently in the process of updating the previous Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2015. Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Maps are not static documents and adjustments need to occur over time to reflect changes in the community’s needs. City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 6 of 11 Due to the regional growth that has occurred, communities have become increasingly denser. Increased density is accompanied by a need for increased public services. Rezoning this area to Public Use (P-1) will create more space for uses that support the public, such as government facilities, municipal parks and playgrounds, universities, public schools, retail facilities, and more. These are uses permitted in this zone per ACC Table 18.35.030. The proposed location for the rezone is a natural area for this amendment to occur. The area adjacent to the subject site is occupied by the City of Auburn’s Les Gove Community Campus Area. This campus is over twenty acres and includes services, such as a library, museum, park and playground, senior activity center, gymnasium, recreation center, and event center. It is helpful for families and individuals to have these services in one accessible area easily reached by public transportation. By expanding this area for public services to grow, the community of Auburn is better served. C. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. Response: Yes. Future development of the site will require site plan review and compliance with the City’s Unified Development Code which ensures the promotion of public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed amendment will not put undue burden on municipal services, emergency response capability, or similar existing requirements. In fact, provision of more space for public use by the City will enhance the public health, safety and welfare. Furthermore, any future development will be reviewed as a site plan application which will allow for the appropriate City departments to consider municipal services and emergency response capability. City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 7 of 11 Appendix A: Vicinity Map King County Assessor's Office, King County GIS Center, King County, King county Assessor's Office, King County GIS Center, EagleView Technologies, Inc. King County Date: 3/13/2023 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County.± City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 8 of 11 Appendix B: Current Zoning Map RES: 1703 TS18 TS18 TS167 TS167 LAKELAND HILL SOUTH ACADEMY LAKELAND HILLS DOWNTOWN NORTHEAST AUBURN AUBURN NORTH BUSINESS AREA MUCKLESHOOT CASINOA ST SEB ST NWAUBU R N W A Y SM ST SEI ST NEC ST SWAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NC ST NWC ST NES 277TH ST 15TH ST SW W MAIN ST LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E MAIN ST 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S21ST ST SE KER S E Y WA Y SE 29TH ST SEM ST NWSE 312TH ST SE 320TH ST8TH ST NE 22ND ST NE 37TH ST NW SE 284TH ST LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEORAVETZ RD SE46TH PL S 2ND ST SE 17TH ST SE PERIMETER RD SW12TH ST SE 37TH ST SE R ST NES 296TH ST 56TH AVE SM ST NE4TH ST NED ST NWA ST NE4TH ST SE 104TH AVE SEA ST NWRON CROCKETT DR NWWESTVALLEYHWY S GREENRIVERRDSE D ST NELEA H IL L R D S E 116TH AVE SE37TH ST NE S 316TH ST H ST NW44TH ST NW S 3 00 T H PLSE 316TH ST RIVERWALKDR SE 112TH AVE SEEVERG R E E N WAY S EE ST NE49TH ST NE EAST VALLEY HWY E14TH ST NE H A R V E Y R D N E S 331STST DOGWOOD ST SEFRONTAGE RDF ST SE118TH AVE SEMILL POND DR SE105TH PL SEA ST SW15TH ST NE PEA S L E Y C A N Y ON RD S SE 286 T H S T BOUNDARY BLVD SW 6 2 N D ST SE 30TH ST NE RIVERV IEW DR NEO ST SWACADEMY DR SE6 5TH AVESH O W A R D R D S E 3 2 N D S T S E64THAVES T H O M A S A V E S ES 300TH ST HEMLOCK ST SE29TH ST NW SE304THWAY85TH AVE S41ST ST SE S 288TH ST TER R A C E DR N W Auburn AveMOUNT AIN V I E W D RSWSE 281ST ST 69TH S T S EG ST SWSUMNER-TAPPS HWYE 6TH ST NW S 2 9 2 N D S T AUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSE45THSTNE 6TH ST SE 10TH ST NE 3 R D ST SW 30TH ST NW 3RD ST NW 1 3 2 N D W AYSEEASTVA L L E Y ACCESS RD 14TH ST NW 107THPLSEL ST NE3RD ST NE 42ND PL NE OUTLETCOLLECTIONRD S W INDUSTRYDRSW8TH ST SW CROSS S T S E 16TH ST NW SE28 8 THST 9THST N E 1ST ST NW 49TH ST NW 62ND PL SS 325TH S T 1ST ST NE TERRACE VI E W D R SE63RD PLS1 0 7 T H A V E S E 3RD ST SE EMERALD D OWNSRD N W 16TH ST NE 4 TH ST S W 108TH AVE SEELLINGSON RD SWG ST NW55TH AVE SMARKET ST SW48TH AVE S1ST ST NE S E 3 0 4 T H ST 30TH ST NE M ST NEA ST NWA ST SED ST NES E 28 6 T H ST SE 304TH ST 112TH AVE SE112TH AVE SEEVERGREENWAYSEF ST SE17TH ST SE H O WARDRDSE56TH AVE SR ST SEDOGWOOD ST SE116TH AVE SESE 320TH ST F ST SEORD: 5092 5364 5397 ORD: 3803 ORD: 4689 ORD: 6660 ORD: 6691 ORD: 6641 ORD: 4627 ORD: 6667 ORD: 6183 ORD: 6024 6026 ORD: 5971 ORD: 6807 ORD: 6531 ORD: 6002 ORD: 6698 ORD: 5607 ORD: 4328 ORD: 4595 5659 ORD: 4300 5440 ORD: 6375 ORD: 6746 ORD: 6297 ORD: 4456 ORD: 6639 ORD: 6241 ORD: 6430 ORD: 6176 ORD: 4730 ORD: 4410 ORD: 4173 ORD: 6640 ORD: 6803 ORD: 6701 ORD: 6675 ORD: 6596 ORD: 4423 ORD: 6292 ORD: 5611 ORD: 5127 ORD: 6673 ORD: 5092 City of Auburn Zoning Map 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. Zoning map is current through Ordinance No. 6838 Map ID: 1016 Updated On : 1/10/2022 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Feet ®Printed Date: 1/11/2022 C1 Light Commercial District C2 Central Business District C3 Heavy Commercial District C4 Mixed Use Commercial CN Neighborhood Shopping District DUC Downtown Urban Center I Institutional Use District Lakeland Hills South PUD LF Airport Landing Field District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Heavy Industrial District Open Space P1 Public Use District PUD Planned Unit Development R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R16 Residential 16 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservency RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units RO Residential Office District RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) TV Terrace View UNC Unclassified Use District Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Areas Water Features Special Zoning Ordinances & Resolution Adopted Special Plan Areas Lea Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 5346 & 6121) West Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 6122) Urban Separators Overlay Airport Overlays Runway Overlay Zone 1 Inner Safety Zone 2 Inner Turning Zone 3 Outer Safety Zone 4 Sideline Safety Zone 5 Airport Operations Zone 6 ¬«3 ¬«4 ¬«2 ¬«3 ¬«1 ¬«5 ¬«3 ¬«3 ¬«2 ¬«4 ¬«1 ¬«6 ¬«6 City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 9 of 11 Appendix C: Current Land Use Map LAKELAND HILLSOUTH LAKELAND HILLS ACADEMY DOWNTOWN NORTHEAST AUBURN AUBURN NORTHBUSINESS AREA TS18 TS18 TS167 TS167 MUCKLESHOOTCASINO A ST SEB ST NWAUBURN WAY SM ST SEI ST NEC ST SWAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NC ST NWS 277TH ST C ST NE15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST LA K E T A P PSPKWYSEE MAIN ST 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S21ST ST SE KERSEYWAYSE 29TH ST SE SE 312TH STM ST NWSE 320TH ST8TH ST NE SE 284TH ST 22ND ST NE 37TH ST NW ORAVETZRDSELA K E L A NDHI LLSWAYSE4 6 TH P L S 2ND ST SE 17TH ST SE PERIMETERRDSW12TH ST SE 37TH ST SE S 296TH ST R ST NE56TH AVE SM ST NE4TH ST NE D STNWA ST NE4TH ST SE 104THAVESERONCROCKETTDRNWA ST NWGREENRIVERRDSE WESTVALLEYHWYSD ST NELEAHILL R D SE116TH AVE SE37TH ST NE S 316TH ST H ST NWS300TH P L44TH ST NW SE 316TH ST RIVERWALKDRSEE ST NE112TH AVE SEE V ERGREEN WA Y SE14TH ST NE EAST VALLEY HWY EHA R V E Y R D N E S 331ST ST DOGWOOD ST SEF ST SEFRONTAGERD118TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE 1 0 5 THPL S E A ST SWPEASLEY C A NYONRDS 6 2 N D STSE 30TH ST NE RIVERV IEWDRNEACADEMYDRSEBOUNDARY BLVD SW Auburn AveHO W AR D R D SE 3 2 N D ST SE S 300TH ST THOMAS A V E S E64TH AVE S29TH ST NW SE304THWAY85TH AVE S41ST ST SE S 288TH ST TERRACE DRNW SE 281ST ST M OUNT A INVIEW DRSW69TH ST SE 6TH ST NW SUMNER-TAPPSHWYES292NDST AUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRD SE45THSTNE 6TH ST SE 30TH ST NW 3RD ST NW 13 2 N D WAYSE107TH PL SEOUTLETCOLLECTIONRDSW42ND PL NE L ST NEINDUSTRYDRSW8TH ST SW CROSS ST S E 16TH ST NW 1ST ST NW 1ST ST NE SE30 4 T H ST A ST SE56TH AVE SM ST NEFSTSEH OWARDRDSE 112TH AVE SER ST SE112TH AVE SEDOGWOOD ST SE1 7 T H ST SE 30TH ST NE SE 320TH ST EVERGREENW AYSE116TH AVE SESE 304TH ST F ST SEAdopted Areas Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Areas Water Features Lea Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 5346 & 6121) West Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 6122) Urban Separators Overlay 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. Zoning map is current through Ordinance No. 6698,December 17, 2018 ¬Map ID: 6208Printed On: 9/14/2022 City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FEET City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 10 of 11 Appendix D: Future Zoning Map RES: 1703 TS18 TS18 TS167 TS167 LAKELAND HILL SOUTH ACADEMY LAKELAND HILLS DOWNTOWN NORTHEAST AUBURN AUBURN NORTH BUSINESS AREA MUCKLESHOOT CASINOA ST SEB ST NWAUBU R N W A Y SM ST SEI ST NEC ST SWAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NC ST NWC ST NES 277TH ST 15TH ST SW W MAIN ST LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST E MAIN ST 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S21ST ST SE KER S E Y WA Y SE 29TH ST SEM ST NWSE 312TH ST SE 320TH ST8TH ST NE 22ND ST NE 37TH ST NW SE 284TH ST LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEORAVETZ RD SE46TH PL S 2ND ST SE 17TH ST SE PERIMETER RD SW12TH ST SE 37TH ST SE R ST NES 296TH ST 56TH AVE SM ST NE4TH ST NED ST NWA ST NE4TH ST SE 104TH AVE SEA ST NWRON CROCKETT DR NWWESTVALLEYHWY S GREENRIVERRDSE D ST NELEA H IL L R D S E 116TH AVE SE37TH ST NE S 316TH ST H ST NW44TH ST NW S 3 00 T H PLSE 316TH ST RIVERWALKDR SE 112TH AVE SEEVERG R E E N WAY S EE ST NE49TH ST NE EAST VALLEY HWY E14TH ST NE H A R V E Y R D N E S 331STST DOGWOOD ST SEFRONTAGE RDF ST SE118TH AVE SEMILL POND DR SE105TH PL SEA ST SW15TH ST NE PEA S L E Y C A N Y ON RD S SE 286 T H S T BOUNDARY BLVD SW 6 2 N D ST SE 30TH ST NE RIVERV IEW DR NEO ST SWACADEMY DR SE6 5TH AVESH O W A R D R D S E 3 2 N D S T S E64THAVES T H O M A S A V E S ES 300TH ST HEMLOCK ST SE29TH ST NW SE304THWAY85TH AVE S41ST ST SE S 288TH ST TER R A C E DR N W Auburn AveMOUNT AIN V I E W D RSWSE 281ST ST 69TH S T S EG ST SWSUMNER-TAPPS HWYE 6TH ST NW S 2 9 2 N D S T AUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRDSE45THSTNE 6TH ST SE 10TH ST NE 3 R D ST SW 30TH ST NW 3RD ST NW 1 3 2 N D W AYSEEASTVA L L E Y ACCESS RD 14TH ST NW 107THPLSEL ST NE3RD ST NE 42ND PL NE OUTLETCOLLECTIONRD S W INDUSTRYDRSW8TH ST SW CROSS S T S E 16TH ST NW SE28 8 THST 9THST N E 1ST ST NW 49TH ST NW 62ND PL SS 325TH S T 1ST ST NE TERRACE VI E W D R SE63RD PLS1 0 7 T H A V E S E 3RD ST SE EMERALD D OWNSRD N W 16TH ST NE 4 TH ST S W 108TH AVE SEELLINGSON RD SWG ST NW55TH AVE SMARKET ST SW48TH AVE S1ST ST NE S E 3 0 4 T H ST 30TH ST NE M ST NEA ST NWA ST SED ST NES E 28 6 T H ST SE 304TH ST 112TH AVE SE112TH AVE SEEVERGREENWAYSEF ST SE17TH ST SE H O WARDRDSE56TH AVE SR ST SEDOGWOOD ST SE116TH AVE SESE 320TH ST F ST SEORD: 5092 5364 5397 ORD: 3803 ORD: 4689 ORD: 6660 ORD: 6691 ORD: 6641 ORD: 4627 ORD: 6667 ORD: 6183 ORD: 6024 6026 ORD: 5971 ORD: 6807 ORD: 6531 ORD: 6002 ORD: 6698 ORD: 5607 ORD: 4328 ORD: 4595 5659 ORD: 4300 5440 ORD: 6375 ORD: 6746 ORD: 6297 ORD: 4456 ORD: 6639 ORD: 6241 ORD: 6430 ORD: 6176 ORD: 4730 ORD: 4410 ORD: 4173 ORD: 6640 ORD: 6803 ORD: 6701 ORD: 6675 ORD: 6596 ORD: 4423 ORD: 6292 ORD: 5611 ORD: 5127 ORD: 6673 ORD: 5092 City of Auburn Zoning Map 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. Zoning map is current through Ordinance No. 6838 Map ID: 1016 Updated On : 1/10/2022 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Feet ®Printed Date: 1/11/2022 C1 Light Commercial District C2 Central Business District C3 Heavy Commercial District C4 Mixed Use Commercial CN Neighborhood Shopping District DUC Downtown Urban Center I Institutional Use District Lakeland Hills South PUD LF Airport Landing Field District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Heavy Industrial District Open Space P1 Public Use District PUD Planned Unit Development R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R16 Residential 16 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservency RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units RO Residential Office District RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) TV Terrace View UNC Unclassified Use District Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Areas Water Features Special Zoning Ordinances & Resolution Adopted Special Plan Areas Lea Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 5346 & 6121) West Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 6122) Urban Separators Overlay Airport Overlays Runway Overlay Zone 1 Inner Safety Zone 2 Inner Turning Zone 3 Outer Safety Zone 4 Sideline Safety Zone 5 Airport Operations Zone 6 ¬«3 ¬«4 ¬«2 ¬«3 ¬«1 ¬«5 ¬«3 ¬«3 ¬«2 ¬«4 ¬«1 ¬«6 ¬«6 City of Auburn CPA May 19, 2023 Page 11 of 11 Appendix E: Future Land Use Map LAKELAND HILLSOUTH LAKELAND HILLS ACADEMY DOWNTOWN NORTHEAST AUBURN AUBURN NORTHBUSINESS AREA TS18 TS18 TS167 TS167 MUCKLESHOOTCASINO A ST SEB ST NWAUBURN WAY SM ST SEI ST NEC ST SWAUBURN WAY NR ST SE124TH AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY NC ST NWS 277TH ST C ST NE15TH ST SW W MAIN ST 15TH ST NW SE 304TH ST LA K E T A P PSPKWYSEE MAIN ST 132ND AVE SE51ST AVE S21ST ST SE KERSEYWAYSE 29TH ST SE SE 312TH STM ST NWSE 320TH ST8TH ST NE SE 284TH ST 22ND ST NE 37TH ST NW ORAVETZRDSELA K E L A NDHI LLSWAYSE4 6 TH P L S 2ND ST SE 17TH ST SE PERIMETERRDSW12TH ST SE 37TH ST SE S 296TH ST R ST NE56TH AVE SM ST NE4TH ST NE D STNWA ST NE4TH ST SE 104THAVESERONCROCKETTDRNWA ST NWGREENRIVERRDSE WESTVALLEYHWYSD ST NELEAHILL R D SE116TH AVE SE37TH ST NE S 316TH ST H ST NWS300TH P L44TH ST NW SE 316TH ST RIVERWALKDRSEE ST NE112TH AVE SEE V ERGREEN WA Y SE14TH ST NE EAST VALLEY HWY EHA R V E Y R D N E S 331ST ST DOGWOOD ST SEF ST SEFRONTAGERD118TH AVE SEMILLPONDDRSE 1 0 5 THPL S E A ST SWPEASLEY C A NYONRDS 6 2 N D STSE 30TH ST NE RIVERV IEWDRNEACADEMYDRSEBOUNDARY BLVD SW Auburn AveHO W AR D R D SE 3 2 N D ST SE S 300TH ST THOMAS A V E S E64TH AVE S29TH ST NW SE304THWAY85TH AVE S41ST ST SE S 288TH ST TERRACE DRNW SE 281ST ST M OUNT A INVIEW DRSW69TH ST SE 6TH ST NW SUMNER-TAPPSHWYES292NDST AUBURN-BLACKDIAMONDRD SE45THSTNE 6TH ST SE 30TH ST NW 3RD ST NW 13 2 N D WAYSE107TH PL SEOUTLETCOLLECTIONRDSW42ND PL NE L ST NEINDUSTRYDRSW8TH ST SW CROSS ST S E 16TH ST NW 1ST ST NW 1ST ST NE SE30 4 T H ST A ST SE56TH AVE SM ST NEFSTSEH OWARDRDSE 112TH AVE SER ST SE112TH AVE SEDOGWOOD ST SE1 7 T H ST SE 30TH ST NE SE 320TH ST EVERGREENW AYSE116TH AVE SESE 304TH ST F ST SEAdopted Areas Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Areas Water Features Lea Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 5346 & 6121) West Hill Overlay (Ordinance: 6122) Urban Separators Overlay 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. Zoning map is current through Ordinance No. 6698,December 17, 2018 ¬Map ID: 6208Printed On: 9/14/2022 City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 FEET SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 1 of 22 SEPA Environmental Checklist Non-Project Action: City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Site-Specific Rezone Prepared by: BCRA Meghan Howey 2106 Pacific Ave., Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 682-8556 May 23, 2023 SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 2 of 22 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Site-Specific Rezone 2. Name of applicant: BCRA on behalf of the City of Auburn 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Meghan Howey, BCRA Planner 2106 Pacific Ave., Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 682-8556 mhowey@bcradesign.com City of Auburn 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 4. Date checklist prepared: May 23, 2023 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Auburn 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): A Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed amendments covered by this checklist is tentatively scheduled for (but no earlier than) October 18, 2023. City Council consideration of the proposed amendments is planned for December. City Council action on plan amendments typically occur prior to the end of the calendar year, but is not required to occur. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no future plans or additions anticipated as part of this non-project action. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental information includes historical decisions related to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. These decisions include: SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 3 of 22 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2022 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP22-0018) Issued September 27, 2022. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2020 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP20-0018) Issued September 25, 2020. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2019 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP19-0028) Issued September 23, 2019. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2018 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP18-0010) Issued September 19, 2018. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2017 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP17-0014) Issued September 19, 2017. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2016 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP16-0010) Issued September 28, 2016. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – Major update in compliance with the periodic update required under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and in response to community visioning programs and community changes. 2015 Comprehensive Plan, (SEP15-0031) Issued November 2, 2015. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2014 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP14-0011) Issued September 16, 2014. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2013 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP13-0028) Issued September 17, 2013. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2012 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP12-0023) Issued September 10, 2012. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2011 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, (SEP11-0021) Issued October 18, 2011. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, City-initiated, Group 1, (SEP10-0019) 2010 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, City-initiated, Group 2, (SEP10-0028) 2010 SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 4 of 22 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2010 Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendments, Privately-initiated, Group 2, (SEP10-0013) 2010 City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance – 2009 Amendments to the Auburn Zoning Code and Land Division Ordinance. 2009 Puget Sound Regional Council - Final Environmental Impact Statement - Vision 2040: Growth Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region. March 2008. 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. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendments. September 2004. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments. October 2003. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendments. October 2002. City of Auburn. Final Determination of Non-Significance - 2001 Comprehensive Plan amendments. October 2001. City of Auburn - Auburn Downtown Plan/Final EIS. April 2001. City of Auburn - Addendum to the Final Determination of Non-Significance - 1996 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. November 1996. City of Auburn - Addendum to the Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Comply with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Decision. October 1996. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 5 of 22 City of Auburn - Addendum to the Final Determination of Non-Significance - 1995 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. November 1995. City of Auburn - Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act. October 1994. City of Auburn - Final Environmental Impact Statement - City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: Staff Draft and Recommendations. May 1986. City of Auburn. - Final Determination of Non-Significance - Downtown Design Study. April 1990. City of Auburn - Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments on City Expansion and Urban Growth. July 1991. City of Auburn - Final Environmental Impact Statement: Auburn North CBD Analysis. November 1991. City of Auburn -Final Determination of Non-Significance - Comprehensive Plan Amendments on Sensitive and Critical Lands. January 1992. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department - Final Environmental Impact Statement: Soos Creek Community Plan Update. December 1991. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Countywide Planning Policies Proposed Amendments. May 1994. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: King County Comprehensive Plan. July 1994. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services - Proposed Lakeland Hills South Mining and Reclamation Plan and Planned Community Development: Final Environmental Impact Statement. July 21, 1992. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services - Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County, Washington: Final EIS. September 20, 1993. Pierce County, Department of Planning and Land Services - Final Supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County, Washington. June 1994. 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. There are no known applications pending for governmental approvals that are directly affection the subject property. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 6 of 22 The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed comprehensive plan map amendment and site-specific rezone 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 amendment. 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. The City of Auburn annually considers amendments to its Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan map amendment and site-specific rezone addressed by this environmental checklist are described as follows: - A site-specific zoning map amendment is proposed for five contiguous parcels of land: 1921059160, 1921059161, 1921059140, 1921059111, and 1921059088. Per ACC 18.68.030(A)(2) the application would be considered a site-specific rezone category 2. It will be processed as a legislative non-project decision, consistent with ACC 14.03.060. The proposal will change the zone from Residential 7 DU/Acre (R-7) and Light Commercial District (C-1) to Public Use (P-1). - A Comprehensive Plan map amendment is proposed for five contiguous parcels of land: 1921059160, 1921059161, 1921059140, 1921059111, and 1921059088. Per ACC 14.03.060 the application will be processed as a legislative non-project decision. The proposal will change the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation from Single Family and Light Commercial to a Public/Quasi-Public designation. 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. Parcels: 1921059160; 1921059161; 1921059140; 1921059111; 1921059088 Addresses: 617 12th Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002; 601 12th Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002; No address assigned; 735 12th Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002; 1155 Auburn Way S, Auburn, WA 98002 SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 7 of 22 Vicinity Map SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 8 of 22 B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The proposed applications this checklist is based on are non-project actions. Site topography is relatively flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The site is relatively flat. 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. However, there is no designated farmland within the City of Auburn. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There is no known slope instability or soil movement at the site or in the immediate vicinity. 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, seismic, and landslide hazard areas are provided as maps that are part of the critical areas ordinance inventory. None of these areas are mapped within or in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and site-specific rezone 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. 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)? 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, if any: SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 9 of 22 This is a non-project action; no site-specific erosion control measures are 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/soil resources 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. These potential impacts would be avoided by implementing best management practices and complying with 2014 WA State Dept. of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington with City of Auburn Supplement. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. 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. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 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. There are no known surface water bodies on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. 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. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 10 of 22 Not applicable. This is a 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 a non-project action. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The subject site does not lie within a 100-year floodplain. 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. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. b. Ground Water: 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (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. Not applicable. This is a 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. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 11 of 22 4. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ☐ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ☐ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ☐ shrubs ☐ grass ☐ pasture ☐ crop or grain ☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ☐ other types of vegetation: Overgrown with weeds in untended areas. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. However, in general urban development results in the removal or alteration of many types of vegetation. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are none known at this time. The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species online mapping tool does not indicate the presence of any priority habitats on the subject site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Blackberry, English Ivy, Scots broom and other invasive shrubs and grasses may be located on site but are not known. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 12 of 22  Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Birds typical of a remnant urban environment, such as crows  Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Animals typical of a remnant urban environment, such as rats  Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are none known at this time. The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species online mapping tool does not indicate the presence of any priority species on the subject site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. This is a non-project action. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. There are none known at this time. 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, which could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 13 of 22 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 5. 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. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, 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? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 14 of 22 The subject site is partially occupied by an existing medical office building and associated parking. The other portion of the site is vacant. This is a non-project action, so potential impacts are not applicable. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? There is no designated farmland in the City of Auburn. 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: There is no designated farmland in the City of Auburn. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is an existing medical office building on site, but it is no longer used/vacant. This is a non-project action. However, a separate proposal from MultiCare will demolish this structure. MultiCare is currently in the process of obtaining the proper permits. The building will likely be demolished by the 10/18/23 projected Planning Commission meeting. Please note, the Site Plan denotes the building’s future demolition. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. However, a separate proposal from MultiCare will demolish this structure. MultiCare is currently in the process of obtaining the proper permits. The building will likely be demolished by the 10/18/23 projected Planning Commission meeting. Please note, the Site Plan denotes the building’s future demolition. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classifications of the site are Residential 7 DU/acre (R-7) and Light Commercial District (C-1). However, the site-specific rezone would change these classifications to Public Use (P-1) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current Comprehensive Plan designations are Single Family and Light Commercial. However, the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment would change the designation to Public/Quasi-Public. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? There is no shoreline master program designation of the subject site. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 15 of 22 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, specifically. This proposal is a non-project action. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None, specifically. This 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: This proposal is a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and site-specific rezone as described in response to the environmental checklist application question A.11 above. The evaluation by staff and the public hearing and review process that occurs as part of this process will be used to help evaluate whether a particular proposal is consistent with existing plans. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None, specifically. This 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. 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. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. However, one of the parcels (APN 1921059160) is currently zoned Residential 7 DU/acre (R-7). Because this parcel is only 0.17 acres, one dwelling unit / single-family house could be accommodated. Therefore, by rezoning this parcel, one dwelling unit would be eliminated. Per AMC 18.07.010.E, “The R-7 single-family residential zones are intended to create a living environment of optimum standards for single-family dwellings. It is further intended to achieve development densities of five to seven dwelling units per net acre. This zone will provide for the development of single-family detached dwellings and for such accessory uses as are related, incidental and not detrimental to the residential environment.” c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None specifically. This proposal is a non-project action. However, the rezone will eliminate one potential future single-family home. The rezone will create a Public Use (P-1) zone which supports and increases SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 16 of 22 public services. By increasing public services, higher density residential development is supported. This is in alignment with regional and local plans, which specify the need for increased housing. 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? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. This 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. This 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. This proposal is a non-project action. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Les Gove Community Campus Area is adjacent to the subject site. This campus provides more than twenty acres of services which includes a library, museum, park and playground, senior activity center, gymnasium, recreation center, and event center. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 17 of 22 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: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. However, as a matter of information, there are no buildings on the site that are over 45 years old or eligible for listing. On the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation’s online interactive map, one inventory point exists east of the subject site, which states “Determined Not Eligible” with the Property ID No. 85789 ACAP Day Care. Another inventory point exists south of the subject site, which also states “Determined Not Eligible” with the Property ID No. 710057. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Research utilizing the Washington Information System or Architectural & Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) system website for this property and nearby areas. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The subject site is served by State Route 164 and 12th Street SE. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 18 of 22 b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? King County Metro serves the subject site with Route 915. Stop ID 58370 and 57760 are located at the intersection of State Route 164/Auburn Way S and 12th Street SE, which is approximately 250 feet from the subject site (across the street). c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The subject site is approximately 0.4 miles away from a railroad yard. Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific both operate freight railroad lines within Auburn. Auburn is also a commuter rail station site for the Sounder commuter rail line between Tacoma, Seattle and Everett. Service began September 18, 2000. Amtrak trains pass through Auburn but do not stop in the city. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This proposal is a non-project action. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 19 of 22 The site-specific rezone proposes changing the subject site to Public Use (P-1). The Comprehensive Plan map amendment seeks to change the designation to Public/Quasi Public. Both of these modifications would support increased public services, which are permitted uses through these designations. This is a non-project action, so there are no direct impacts on public services. The pre-application for this project (City File No. PRE23-0025) contains comments from reviewing parties state that utilities are available on the site and sufficient for use. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: Electricity, water, refuse service, telephone, public sewer, public storm, water, other – cable TV. All of the above utilities are currently available to the subject site as confirmed by reviewing parties during the pre-application. 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, pre-application comments by reviewers state that these actions will not impact services. 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. ________________________________________________ May 23, 2023___________________ Signature Date Type name of signee: Meghan Howey Position and agency/organization: Planner, BCRA Date submitted: May 23, 2023 SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 20 of 22 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions IT IS NOT REQUIRED to use this section 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?  Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: This non-project action does not involve site development. Therefore, impacts such as, discharges to water, emissions to air, production, storage, or release or toxic of hazardous substances of production of noise cannot be accurately assessed at this time. Impacts to resources 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. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?  Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: This non-project action does not involve site development. Therefore, impacts to plants, animals, fish or marine life cannot be accurately assessed at this time. These impacts 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. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?  Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: This non-project action does not involve site development. Therefore, impacts to energy or natural resources cannot be accurately assessed at this time. These impacts 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. 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?  Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 21 of 22 There are no known 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. 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?  Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: There are no shorelines or shoreline uses on or near the subject site. The proposal will change the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation from Single Family and Light Commercial to a Public/Quasi-Public designation. Adjacent land use designations include Light Commercial to the north, Light Commercial and Single Family to the south. Other adjacent land use designations include Single Family to the west and Heavy Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public to the east. The change is compatible with surrounding land use designations for the following reasons, which will be assessed by the City of Auburn through their formal review: North: The Light Commercial designation to the north of the subject site is compatible. According to the Comprehensive Plan “LU-89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited” (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Page LU-13). The Public/Quasi-Public designation take advantage of synergies with the adjacent light commercial area by drawing people to public uses which will in-turn activate businesses in these areas. South: The Light Commercial and Single-Family designations to the south of the subject site are compatible. The Single-Family designation will be supported by proximity to the public services accommodated in the Public/Quasi-Public designation. According to the Comprehensive Plan “LU-89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited” (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Page LU-13). East: The Heavy Commercial and Public/Quasi-Public designations to the east are compatible with the subject site. The Heavy Commercial area covers a small parcel that is occupied by a gas station. This is a submittal use for this area and would support the designation. A very substantial area east of the subject site is designated Public/Quasi-Public, which is this application’s proposed land use designation. This area is occupied by the City of Auburn’s Les Gove Community Campus Area. This campus provides more than twenty acres of services, such as a library, museum, park and playground, senior activity center, gymnasium, recreation center, and event center. West: The subject site is adjacent to the Single-Family designation to the west. The Single-Family designation will be supported by proximity to the public services accommodated in the Public/Quasi- Public designation. According to the Comprehensive Plan “LU-89. The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited” (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Page LU-13). Furthermore, the site-specific rezone will change the zone from Residential 7 DU/Acre (R-7) and Light Commercial District (C-1) to Public Use (P-1). Adjacent zoning designations include Light Commercial (C-1) to the north, Light Commercial (C-1) and Residential 7 DU/acre (R-7) to the south. Other adjacent zones include SEPA Environmental Checklist (WAC 197-11-960) May 2023 Page 22 of 22 Residential 7 DU/acre (R-7) to the west and Heavy Commercial (C-3) to the east. The proposed zone is an implementing zoning designation of the Public/Quasi Public land use designation and is therefore compatible (City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Page LU-14). This computability will also be reviewed by the City of Auburn during a formal review. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities?  Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The Pre-application Conference Summary for file number PRE23-0025 is dated May 17, 2023. The reviewing parties determined that the utilities at this site are currently sufficient for the proposed non-project actions. Please reference their responses, below: “Traffic Engineering Division, James Webb Per 10.01.01.A of the Engineering Design Standards the proposed rezone may trigger the requirement to prepare a traffic impact analysis. It has been determined that this is not required at this time based on the proposed zoning.” Sewer Division, Robert Elwell 1. The existing building is connected to public sewer in 12th St SE. 2. Public sewer service to the lots will not be affected by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Storm Division, Tim Carlaw 1. The project is required to comply with the current July 2019 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and City of Auburn Supplemental Manual. These documents have been adopted as the City of Auburn Surface Water Management Manual (SWMM). 2. The site is currently connected to the public storm in Auburn Way South Water Division, Senait Gebreeyesus 1. The existing building is served by existing water service connections to the 8" water main in 12th St SE. 2. Water service to the lots will not be affected by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment.” 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. There are no known conflicts with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal will be evaluated for compliance and congruity with the aforementioned laws and requirements by the City of Auburn via a legislative non- project decision consistent with ACC 14.03.060. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (NOH) MultiCare – Non-project Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone CPA23-0001 and REZ23-0003 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) for the following described project. The permit applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at One E Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001. Proposal: A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and site-specific category 2 Rezone is requested for five contiguous parcels of land. The application is a legislative non-project decision and will be processed in accordance with Auburn City Code 14.03.060. Four of the five parcels are currently zoned C-1, Light Commercial and have an underlying land use designation of Light Commercial. Parcel #1921059160 is zoned R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units per acre and has an underlying land use designation of single-family. The proposal would change the land use designation of the five parcels to Public/Quasi-Public and the zoning designation to P-1, Public Use District. Location: The non-project action will span five contiguous parcels; parcel # 1921059160, 1921059161, 1921059140, 1921059111, & 1921059088. The properties are located on the north side of 12th ST SE, approx. 350 west of Auburn Wy S, within the Northwest ¼ of Township 21N, Range 5E, Section 9, W.M. Notice of Application: August 16, 2023 Application Complete: June 23, 2023 Permit Application: May 26, 2023 File Nos. CPA23-0001 and REZ23-0003 Property Owner: MultiCare Health Systems Applicant’s Representative: Meghan Howey, Associate BCRA Design 2106 Pacific Ave, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 mhowey@bcradesign.com 253-682-8556 Applicant: Same as above Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: • None Other Permits, Plans, and Approvals Needed: • None Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Page 2 of 2 Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required for this proposal. The public hearing has been scheduled for October 17, 2023, at 7:00 PM. The public hearing will be held in-person in the City Council Chambers, 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001 and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the meeting at the phone number listed below. Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85310195862 Meeting ID: 853 1019 5862 Phone: 253-215-8782 - US (Tacoma) Any interested person is invited to appear and express comments or opinions on the proposed project. Written comments may be emailed to the contact person below, mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W Main St., Auburn WA, 98001, or submitted at the public hearing. 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. For questions regarding this project, please contact Alyssa Tatro, Planner II, at atatro@auburnwa.gov or 253-804-5031 Date of Issuance: October 4, 2023 CPM #3 – Land Use Element Volume 1 and appendix. The changes to the Land Use Element consist of the following: • Request by Chris Ferko, Director of Planning Services, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc. on behalf of Auburn Dairy Products Inc. to change the comprehensive plan designation six parcels totaling approximately 3.11 acres near W. Main Street & G Street SW from “Downtown Urban Center” to “Light Industrial” Comprehensive Plan map designation. The action also includes an associated zoning map amendment (rezone) for the eastern four of the six parcels representing approximately 0.67 acres from current classifications of DUC, Downtown Urban Center and R-20, Residential 20 dwelling units per acre zoning districts. The zoning is proposed to change to M-1, Light Industrial zoning district as a contract rezone where certain land use and architectural & site design conditions are applied. Zoning map and text amendments are proposed to be processed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan map amendments. October 2023 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Dinah Reed, Senior Planner Department of Community Development DATE: September 1, 2023 RE: Privately initiated application by Auburn Dairy Products Inc. to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning Map and to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designations and concurrent zoning classifications affecting six parcels The zoning map change (rezone) is proposed through a Contract Rezone with conditions (CPM #3: CPA23-0002 & City File No. REZ23-0004) I. BACKGROUND The city of Auburn Comprehensive Plan establishes the principles, goals, objectives, and policies guiding future development of the city in compliance with Chapter 36.70A RCW, the Washington State Growth Management Act. Each year Jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act may accept privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications to include with the Annual updates as provided for in Chapter 14.22 ACC. The City’s code also allows consideration of concurrent zoning map changes as provided for in Chapter 18.68 ACC. Jacob Miller, Project Planner of Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc. on behalf of Jerry Williams, Vice President of Auburn Dairy Products, Inc. submitted applications for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and associated zoning map change (Rezone). Auburn Dairy Products, Inc. (Auburn Dairy) was established in downtown Auburn at 702 West Main Street in 1923 with a manufacturing operation of dairy products. The operation has grown since it was originally established and anticipates another expansion of operations in the same location. Auburn Dairy presently owns six parcels totaling 3.11 acres that are in the “Downtown Urban Center” Comprehensive Plan map designation. The existing manufacturing plant comprises the two western parcels (totaling 2.44 acres) located south of West Main Street and west of G Street SW, and four parcels (totaling 0.67 acres) are located across the street to the east of G Street SW. While the parcels have a single comprehensive plan map designation, they have various zoning classifications. The existing manufacturing operation is within the City’s “M-1, Light Industrial” zoning district. The parcel at the corner of West Main Street and G Street SW is zoned “DUC, Downtown Urban Center”, and the three parcels directly south are zoned “R-20, Twenty Dwelling Units per Acre”. The location of the Auburn Dairy site is between two predominant land uses. To the west across the railroad tracks and to the south, land is developed with warehouses, large outdoor storage areas and CPM #3: CPA23-0002 & REZ23-0004 September 2023 2 industrial uses. To the east of the site the land is developed as an older single-family residential neighborhood (Note: this residential area is zoned multi-family). In addition, the Interurban Trail, a recreational open space path that runs north/south just west of the site, easily accesses the downtown area on Main Street near the subject property. The proposed amendments are described below. II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT The “Downtown Urban Center” Comprehensive Plan designation is applied exclusively in downtown Auburn and is intended to be developed to appeal to pedestrian-oriented activities, while also providing services to residents and area employees. The mix of uses should provide services and encourage retail. The only implementing zoning district for this land use is the “DUC, Downtown Urban Center” zoning district. By contrast, the “Light Industrial” land use designation is intended to accommodate a range of industrial and commercial uses. The designation is intended to provide an attractive location for manufacturing and processing/assembling land use activities that contribute to quality surroundings. It is distinguished from heavier industrial uses by requiring that significant activities take place inside of buildings and higher development standards. The Auburn Dairy existing use and future expansion model largely conforms to this description making it more consistent with a Light Industrial land use designation. The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the Auburn Dairy property holdings (six parcels) to “Light Industrial” which will increase conformance of the city long-term adopted map designations with the existing and planned future land use while recognizing property investment. III. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT The existing Auburn Dairy operation on the western two parcel are zoned “M-1, Light Industrial”. Auburn Dairy has completed past expansions to the south side of the manufacturing plant and continues to have space needs and has been exploring options for further expansion with city staff for a few years; but only this year have applications been submitted. The proposed expansion, to include office space, parking and dry good storage is most consistent with M-1 zoning since these uses are in support of and part of the existing manufacturing operation. However, M-1 zoning is inconsistent with the “Downtown Urban Center” Comprehensive plan map designation. This is because it is not listed as one of the implementing zoning districts. Because of the sensitive nature of the location of the proposed expansion parcels which abuts a residential neighborhood and its location on West Main Street, the City staff have been in discussions with the applicant about pursuing a contract rezone from current classifications of DUC, Downtown Urban Center and R-20, Residential 20 dwelling units per acre zoning districts to M-1 zoning district for the four parcels east across G Street SW. The contract rezone will impose conditions related to both the land use activity and the particular architectural design standards for future development exclusively to these four parcels. The conditions would prohibit those uses currently allowed in the M- 1 zoning district that generate significant traffic, noise, light and/or odor, such as heavy manufacturing, outdoor storage, vehicle sales and services, and contractor yards. Additional uses excluded would include marijuana related uses, sexually oriented businesses, and taverns. It would also limit the uses to office space, parking and dry good storage and similar, as the more compatible components of the overall food manufacturing plant. CPM #3: CPA23-0002 & REZ23-0004 September 2023 3 There will also be conditions to ensure the Downtown Urban Center Architectural and Site Design Standards, with some exceptions, are applied to new development of the eastern four parcels. This is important that new buildings and development be compatible with the surrounding land uses, in particular the residential area, and continue the vibrancy and activation the Main Street corridor as an important part of the Downtown Urban Center. The parcels will also continue to be part of the Puget South Regional Council’s designated regional growth center for Auburn. IV. EXHIBIT(S) A. CPM #3: The Comprehensive Land Use Map amendment (before and after) is shown by map and is attached to this memo as Exhibit A. B. CPM #3: The Zoning Map amendment (before and after) is shown by map and is attached to this memo as Exhibit B. C. CPM #3: 2021 aerial photo with parcels outlined. V. GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS 1) Comprehensive Plan: Auburn's Comprehensive Plan is the leading policy document that guides the City's evolution and growth over a 20-year period. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the desired type, configuration, and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as the character and capacity of public facilities and services like streets and utilities. Its policies address critical topics such as housing, the environment, transportation, public safety, and economic development. The Comprehensive Plan also serves as the basis for the City's adoption of special purpose plans for the city such as transportation or utilities plans, and serves as the basis for development standards and regulations such as City zoning and critical area regulations.i The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan. The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map.ii 2) Comprehensive Zoning Map: The zones set out in ACC 18.02.070 are established as the designations, locations, and boundaries thereof as set forth and indicated on the zoning map.iii 3) Land use designation: All land within the City of Auburn is assigned a land use designation, which builds off the past Comprehensive Plan Map, the existing land use City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan pattern, previously approved subarea plans, topography, natural features, and targeted goals for shifting the character of specified areas. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows the location and boundaries for each designation. This map should be consulted together with the written policies of this Plan when decisions about zoning designations, land use activities, and development of public infrastructure are considered.iv 4) Use: means an activity or purpose for which land or premises or a building thereon is designed, arranged, intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained, let or leased.v 5) Zone: means an area accurately defined as to boundaries and location on an official map to which a uniform set of regulations applies controlling the types and intensities of land uses, as set forth in this title.vi CPM #3: CPA23-0002 & REZ23-0004 September 2023 4 6) Zoning: A police power measure, enacted primarily by units of local government, in which the community is divided into districts or zones within which permitted and special uses are established, as are regulations governing lot size, building bulk, placement, and other development standards. Requirements vary from district to district, but they must be uniform within districts. A zoning ordinance consists of two parts – the text and a map.vii i City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan website, https://www.auburnwa.gov/ ii Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.070 iii ACC 18.02.070 iv City of Auburn Land Use Element (Ordinance No. 6746) v ACC 18.04.900 viii ACC 18.04.770 vi ACC 18.04.960 vii WSDOT January 2011 October 2023 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Phillip Stephens, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Dinah Reed, Senior Planner Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager Department of Community Development DATE: October 17, 2023 RE: Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPM #3: CPA23-0002 & City File No. REZ23-0004) Revisions to Recommended Conditions of Contract Rezone I. REVISIONS TO STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT REZONE The conditions proposed for the contract rezone of the privately-initiated Auburn Dairy Operation application were set forth in the staff report included in the Planning Commission packet and discussed at the meeting on October 3, 2023. After preparation of the staff report, further review and discussion of the revised project narrative, which is attached to this memo, occurred between the applicant, Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc. (applicant’s agent), and City staff which is resulting in an addition of two conditions related to the M-1 zoning district as they pertain to setbacks and modification of two of the Downtown Architectural & Site Design Standards related conditions. There are no modifications to recommended map changes for Comprehensive Plan map revisions or zoning map; only to the rezone conditions. As the staff report states, four parcels (King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125) located across G Street SW are proposed to be developed as an expansion of the existing Auburn Dairy manufacturing operation. The development includes a new office building south of W. Main Street, a surface parking lot south of the office building, and a dry goods storage building east of the parking lot which will abut residential zoned lots. The proposal for the zoning map change to the M-1, Light Industrial zoning district would require the future office building and dry goods storage building to observe a set back from property lines at a distance (20-25 feet) that conflicts in two ways. 1) First, the Downtown Architectural & Site Design Standards require that buildings along W. Main Street to be set immediately at the back of the sidewalk to reinforce an active pedestrian experience along designated Pedestrian Streets (W. Main Street is a Pedestrian 1 Street). 2) Second, the area proposed for development of the parking lot and dry goods storage building is 18,000 square feet in total area. The side and/or rear setback when abutting a residential zoned lot requires a 25-foot setback. Meeting this setback would greatly reduce the available footprint area of the dry goods storage building and its usefulness. CPM #3: CPA23-0002 & REZ23-0004 October 2023 2 Additionally, landscape standards in the M-1 zone require observance of a 10-foot landscape buffer abutting residential property, and Pedestrian 1 Streets (W. Main Street) require that abutting uses include retail, restaurants, or personal service uses. 1) To offset elimination of the 10-foot landscape buffer requirement, the dry goods storage building is being required to meet the Downtown Architectural & Site Design Standards “Treatment of Blank Walls” which lists a variety of ways to reduce visual impact by providing visual interest. 2) It is not the expectation of City staff that the new office building on W. Main Street to have uses open to the public, such as retail, restaurants, or personal service shops. The office building is proposed to provide necessary secondary uses for the existing dairy operation, such as office space, lobbies, break rooms, etc. Therefore, the Downtown Architectural & Site Design Standards for the office building are revised to eliminate the retail and service use requirement. The subject property (King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125) shall comply with the following additions and modifications of conditions that were set forth in the staff report. II. Additions to Zoning district – related conditions Standards New Conditions Instead of ACC 18.23.040 M-1 Development Standards, the front, side interior, and rear setbacks shall comply with the standards of the Downtown Urban Center zoning district. Instead of ACC 18.50.040 Landscape Development Standards, landscaping shall be provided as defined in the Downtown Architectural & Site Design Standards (ACC 18.29.060). III. Modifications to the Architectural & Site Design Standard-related Conditions Section Standard Guidelines Applicable to Site Design – General 1.A.1. Parking shall be located over, under, behind, or to the side of principal buildings. Parking structures are strongly encouraged. Pedestrian Streets – Land Use 1.A. Along Pedestrian 1 Streets, ground floor uses that face the sidewalk shall be retail, restaurant or personal service uses. human-scale, active uses that create visual interest for pedestrians. Examples include break rooms, lobbies, office space, etc. 3RD ST SWCLAY ST NW1ST ST SWH ST NWG ST NWF ST NWE ST SWG ST SWFSTSWW MAIN ST 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6252Printed On: 08/28/23 Auburn Dairy Land Use Map CPM#3 (CPA23-0002) 0 50 100 150 200 250 FEETCLAY ST NWH ST NW1ST ST SWG ST NW3RD ST SW F ST NWESTSWG ST SWFSTSWW MAIN ST Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Parcels Existing Land Use Proposed Auburn Land Use EXISTING PROPOSED 1ST ST SWCLAY ST NWH ST NWG ST NWF ST NWE ST SWG ST SWFSTSWW MAIN ST 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6260Printed On: 08/28/23 Auburn Dairy Zoning Map #3 (REZ23-0004) 0 50 100 150 200 250 FEET3RDSTSW 1ST ST SWCLAY ST NWH ST NWG ST NWF ST NWE ST SWG ST SWFSTSWW MAIN ST C1 Light Commercial District C2 Central Business District C3 Heavy Commercial District C4 Mixed Use Commercial CN Neighborhood Shopping District DUC Downtown Urban Center I Institutional Use District Lakeland Hills South PUD LF Airport Landing Field District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Heavy Industrial District Open Space P1 Public Use District PUD Planned Unit Development R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R16 Residential 16 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservency RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units RO Residential Office District RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) TV Terrace View UNC Unclassified Use District Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Parcels EXISTING PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: PROJECT NARRATIVE AND EXHIBITS Auburn Dairy Parcels NEC – G St. SW and 1st St. SW Auburn, Washington Prepared for: Auburn Dairy Products, Inc. October 2023 Our Job No. 21620 2 INTRODUCTION Auburn Dairy Products, Inc., (the “Applicant”) proposes to amend the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to redesignate six (6) parcels from “Downtown Urban Center” (DUC) to “Light Industrial,” and to amend the City of Auburn’s Zoning Map to rezone three (3) parcels from “Residential -20 Dwelling Units per Acre” (R-20) to “Light Industrial” (M-1), and rezone one (1) parcel from DUC to M-1. This proposal includes properties recently acquired by Auburn Dairy Products, and the existing Auburn Dairy facilities. Three of the newly acquired parcels are zoned R-20, and one is zoned DUC. All four (4) of the new parcels are included in the Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment (CPA) and the Contract Rezone to change both the zoning and land use designations to “Light Industrial.” The two (2) existing Auburn Dairy parcels are included in the CPA to change the land use designations from “DUC” to “Light Industrial.” Including all Auburn Diary parcels in the proposal creates a cohesive area of Light Industrial zoning and land use designations that will allow Auburn Dairy to expand its business in a manner supported by the City of Auburn’s land use planning policies. The applicant proposes a Contract Rezone for the four parcels east of G Street SW. The Contract Rezone will include a reduced list of allowed uses in the M-1 zone, and modified development and design standards from the DUC. Combining the M-1 allowed uses with the DUC development and design standards will allow the applicant to improve the parcels to support the Auburn Dairy operation and ensure compatibility with the adjacent DUC and R-20 zones. SITE AND VICINITY The subject parcels are generally located on the western edge of downtown Auburn, northeast of the intersection of G Street SW and 1st Ave SW and are addressed as 16 G St. SW, 22 G St. SW, 632 W Main St, 702 W Main St, and 117 G St. SW. The existing Auburn Dairy facilities are located at 702 W Main St. and 117 G St. SW, and the new properties are located 16 G St. SW, 22 G St. SW, and 632 W Main St. The new Auburn Dairy parcels that are currently zoned R-20 are 6,000 square feet each (18,000 square feet total) and recently contained two single family homes which have since been demolished. The new Auburn Dairy parcel currently zoned DUC is 10,720 square feet and recently contained a church. The parcels are generally flat and have sidewalks along both street frontages. The broader area is characterized by a mixture of uses, with industrial and warehouse uses to the south and west, and commercial and residential uses to the north and east. Directly south of the properties are industrial and warehouse facilities. To the west is the Auburn Dairy plant, followed by a railroad right-of-way, the Interurban Trail, and additional industrial and warehouse uses. To the north across the alley is a vacant lot (a church building was demolished in 2022), and a public school that fronts West Main Street. Across West Main Street to the north there are two restaurants/lounges and a single-family home. East of the properties along G Street SW are two single-family homes and a duplex. The WA-18 and WA-167 interchange is about a mile southwest of the properties, both of which serve as primary routes to I-5 and I- 90. Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 below for more information. 3 FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP TABLE 1 – PARCEL INFORMATION PROPOSAL OVERVIEW The applicant proposes to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate the subject parcels from DUC to Light Industrial. The applicant also proposes a Contract Rezone to amend the Zoning Map to rezone three (3) parcels from R-20 to M-1 and one (1) parcel from DUC to M-1, with restrictions on allowed uses and incorporation of DUC development and design standards. Refer to Figures 2 and 3 below for maps of the existing and proposed designations. 4 FIGURE 2 - COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP: EXISTING AND PROPOSED Existing FLUM Proposed FLUM FIGURE 3 - ZONING MAP: EXISTING AND PROPOSED Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: The Comprehensive Plan Amendment in conjunction with a Contract Rezone will allow Auburn Dairy to improve the parcels to support its dairy plant to the west. The Dairy’s intent is to construct an office building at the corner of W Main St. and G St. SW, along with an accessory parking lot and small storage building on the subject parcels to the south. The amendment will be compatible with the adjacent DUC and Residential zoning through a Contract Rezone as described below. CONTRACT REZONE: A Contract Rezone is proposed to reduce the table of allowed uses in the M-1 zone, and to adopt a modified version of the DUC development and design standards . Pairing the proposed M-1 uses and DUC standards will ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and will facilitate the Dairy’s intent to improve the parcels to support its operation. 5 Please refer to Appendix A for the applicant’s proposed list of allowed and excluded uses. In short, uses highlighted in yellow will be allowed in accordance with the City’s M-1 use table. Uses not highlighted will be prohibited. Please refer to Appendix B for the applicant’s proposed changes to the DUC development standards. In short, the applicant proposes to adopt DUC development standards with amendments that are suitable to the subject parcels and the dairy operation. Contract Rezones are allowed pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Auburn Zoning Code: “In order to mitigate any impacts that may result from a rezone the city may enter into a contract with the property owner. The contract shall outline the conditions of approval and the obligations of the property owner. The contract shall be binding upon the owner and the owner’s heirs, assigns and successors. The contract shall run with the land, be signed by the property owner(s) and be recorded with the appropriate King County office, for properties located in King County, or recorded at the appropriate Pierce County office for properties located in Pierce County. Any amendments to the contract shall be approved by the city council.” Key considerations in support of the Contract Rezone: • Compatibility with Adjacent Residential Development: The applicant’s parcels are adjacent to residential properties to the east, which necessitates an exclusion of certain uses that generate significant traffic, noise, light, and/or odor. To this end, the applicant’s proposal excludes medium and heavy manufacturing and outdoor uses including those dedicated to vehicle sales and services, contractor yards, and equipment storage. The proposal also excludes sensitive uses including marijuana sales/production, sexually oriented businesses, and taverns. In tandem with the proposed reduction of allowed uses in the M-1, this proposal includes a modified version of the DUC development standards found in AMC 18.29.060 and the Downtown Urban Center City of Auburn Design Standards. The combination of the modified M -1 uses, and DUC standards will ensure that future development will be compatible with the adjacent residential development. This proposal honors the City’s determination that the DUC and R-20 zones can be sited adjacent to one another as seen in the immediate vicinity of this proposal, and throughout the downtown area. • Compatibility with DUC Zoning: The applicant’s parcels are in near proximity to the corridor of DUC zoned properties on W Main Street. In addition, the Comprehensive Land Use Map designates a broader area for future DUC zoning. The applicant’s proposal will allow uses that are also allowed in the DUC zone. Allowed uses will include retail, service, residential, recreational, educational, public assembly, and communication uses. This proposal will also require future development to largely adhere to the DUC development and design standards found in AMC 18.29.060 and the Downtown Urban Center City of Auburn Design Standards which will promote development that is consistent with the character of downtown. • Compatibility with the Auburn Dairy: The proposal will allow uses that are compatible with the Auburn Dairy, in particular an accessory parking lot for a future office building on W Main Street, and a future small storage building. These uses will be designed in accordance with the City’s development and design standards as described herein, which will ensure compatibility between adjacent uses. Please refer to Figure 4 below for a conceptual development plan for the subject parcels. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Contract Rezone are also warranted due to recently changed economic conditions. The Dairy was established in 1923 and has prospered on the site of the existing dairy plant, but it has become evident in recent years that expansion of the Dairy’s facilities is necessary to support increased demand for its products. As such, the Dairy has acquired the s ubject parcels as part of 6 a plan to relocate administrative offices to a new building, and to repurpose the floor area inside the Dairy plan for facility operations. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The site plan below illustrates Auburn Dairy’s planned use of the site. A new office building will be constructed at the corner of W Main Street and G St. SW with an accessory parking lot constructed on the subject parcels to the south. A storage building will be constructed in a future phase on the east side of the site facing away from adjacent residential properties. The office building will be occupied by the Dairy’s administrative personnel. The storage building will store dry goods. FIGURE 4 – CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 7 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / REZONE CRITERIA The following are responses to the City of Auburn’s approval criteria as contained in the Auburn City Code Sections 14.22.110 and 18.68.040, and City application forms: # Criteria Response COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA 1. ACC 14.22.110(A)(1): The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and will contribute to the overall consistency of the plan. Specifically, the following goals and policies support of the proposed change: “Economy: Cornerstone institutions will strategically expand in regional prominence. As industry grows, land use policy will support efforts to grow within Auburn.” The Auburn Dairy has been a cornerstone in Auburn for 100 years. It is poised to strategically expand to grow within Auburn. “Celebration: The Community will be made aware of and celebrate the accomplishments of our local, regional and international leaders in manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution.” The Auburn Dairy has been a cornerstone in Auburn for 100 years. The company sources milk from local neighbors allowing Auburn Dairy to support the economy and contribute to a smaller carbon footprint as part of the company’s commitment to healthy living. “LU-40: Encourage a broad mix of uses within the downtown area. A wide range of consumer-oriented goods and services are compatible within this designation since creating an attractive shopping environment is a primary emphasis. Permitted uses include retail trade, offices, personal services, eating and drinking establishments, financial institutions, governmental offices, and similar uses. Legally established existing uses that do not fit within the range of desired new uses continue to be a valuable part of the downtown economy and character and should be allowed to evolve and operate in a manner that resembles listed permitted uses.” The proposed amendment and rezone will facilitate Auburn Dairy’s evolution in a manner that is compatible with the City’s long range planning goals and vision for downtown. “LU-82 A wide range of commercial activities may be allowed to provide increased opportunities for sales tax revenue.” The Auburn Dairy contributes to the wide range of commercial activities in the area, the expansion of which results in opportunities for sales tax revenue. “ED-3 The importance of downtown Auburn as a unique retail environment and subregional center of commerce should be considered in the City’s economic plan.” 8 For 100 years Auburn Dairy has been an integral part of downtown Auburn as a unique retail environment and subregional center of commerce. Overall, the policies listed in the Comprehensive Plan encourage a diverse mix of commercial uses, especially within the downtown area, and encourage the expansion of legally established businesses and uses that are not supported by current regulations. This proposal includes a Contract Rezone to ensure the use and aesthetics of the future development of the parcels is compatible with surrounding land uses and zones. When implemented, subsequent development will adhere to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and will further the economic and aesthetic vibrancy of the downtown area. 2. ACC 14.22.110(A)(2): Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased. The change to Light Industrial and M-1 under a contract rezone will not appreciably increase service needs as compared to the DUC designation under the Comprehensive Plan. Both zones allow land uses that have similar service needs. The change from R-20 to M-1 would likely create a potential need for increased services, but the change from DUC to M-1 will reduce the potential need. 3. ACC 14.22.110(A)(3): Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. At the time of adoption, it wasn’t known that the Auburn Dairy would need to expand and evolve due to changing economic conditions. This proposal will ensure through the contract rezone that the future use of the parcels will be compatible with downtown development over time, consistent with LU-40. 4. ACC 14.22.110(A)(4): A determination of change or lack of change in conditions or circumstances has occurred since the adoption of the latest amendment to the specific section of the comprehensive plan that dictates the need for a proposed amendment. The current version of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2015, prior to the recent business increase at the Dairy. This increase has prompted the company’s acquisition of additional parcels for the development of a new office building, parking lot, and storage building. 5. ACC 14.22.110(A)(5): If applicable, a determination that a question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for either King and/or Pierce County, as appropriate, and Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region. A question of consistency does not exist between the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the countywide planning policies for King or Pierce County or Vision 2040: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region. 6. ACC 14.22.110(A)(6): If the request is to change the land use designation of a specific property on the comprehensive land use The proposal is consistent with findings (b) and (c) as follows: b. (b) The most predominant Land Use Designations surrounding the subject parcels are DUC and Light Industrial. To the west, across the train tracks and Interurban Trail is a large area of Light Industrial. 9 map, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: a. The current land use designation was clearly made in error or due to an oversight; b. The proposed land use designation is adjacent to property having a similar or compatible designation, or other conditions are present to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties; c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. South of SR 18 there is an area designated Light Industrial with a strip of Heavy Industrial on the northern portion. This pattern of land use indicates that DUC and Light Industrial designations are compatible with each other. c. d. Furthermore, the Dairy is proposing a Contract Rezone that will ensure compatibility with adjacent DUC zoning and residential development. The proposed table of allowed uses overlaps with allowed uses in the DUC zone and is sensitive to adjacent residential properties, and the proposed amended DUC standards will further the character in the downtown area by ensuring the aesthetic compatibility of future development. e. (c) The current version of the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2015, prior to the recent growth in business at the Dairy. This increase has prompted the company’s acquisition of additional parcels for the development of a new office building, parking lot, and storage building. 7. From CPA Application: Identify anticipated impacts from the proposed change in the Land Use Designations. The proposed land use designation could result in nonresidential development on the site, which has different characteristics in the areas of traffic, aesthetics, etc. The change in designation could also result in an increased need for public services compared to residential, but not significantly different than DUC zoning. Finally, the change in designation could result in increased employment opportunities in the Downtown area and increase tax base to fund public services. 8. From CPA Application: Identify the implementing Zoning designation(s) to be requested. To see which zones implement the requested Land Use Designations, review the "Land Use Element" of the Comprehensive Plan. Note that you are also required to apply for a Rezone. The zoning district requested is Light Industrial (M-1) which is the only implementing district of the Light Industrial Land Use Designation under the Comprehensive Plan. 9. From CPA Application: Discuss how the proposed change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations of surrounding properties. - The properties surrounding the site are designated DUC in the Comprehensive Plan. The DUC designation is compatible with Light Industrial. Both designations allow many of the same land uses, and the Contract Rezone will exclude uses that are heavy industrial in character and will require future development be designed according to the proposed amended DUC standards. - 10 10. From CPA Application: Discuss how the adopted City of Auburn utility plans and Capital Improvement Programs support the change. The proposal to change the designation from DUC to Light Industrial is not significantly different regarding utilities and capital improvements. Both designations allow similar uses that require similar utility services and roadway infrastructure. City programs that support the change include the following: Transportation Improvement Program (2023 – 2028) • Water Comprehensive Plan (2015) • • Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2015) Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan (2015) REZONE CRITERIA ACC 18.68.040: There is no presumption of validity for a rezone (zoning map amendment) and the applicant has the burden of proof in establishing compliance with all of the following criteria: A. The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan; or B. The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning; and C. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. Per Item (B), the rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning. Specifically, it has recently become evident that expansion of Auburn Dairy’s facilities is necessary to support increased demand for its products. This change in economic conditions was not foreseen at the time of the original zoning. In a broader view, the City adopted the FLUM designation of DUC for the subject parcels to intensify land use in the downtown area. The transition to M-1 from R-20 under a contract rezone is consistent with the goal to allow a greater range of land uses and development rights in the downtown area. The rezone also bears a substantial relationship to public welfare. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan states that cornerstone institutions continue to be a valuable part of the downtown economy and character and should be allowed to evolve and operate in a manner that resembles listed permitted uses. The Plan’s policy is to support efforts of cornerstone institutions to expand and grow within Auburn. Furthermore, fostering a wide range of commercial activities in the downtown area provide increased opportunities for sales tax revenue 1. Rezone – Submittal Checklist 2. The intent of the zoning code and the comprehensive plan of the City. Is the rezone consistent with the comprehensive plan? The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and will contribute to the overall consistency of the plan. Specifically, the following goals and policies support of the proposed change: “Economy: Cornerstone institutions will strategically expand in regional prominence. As industry grows, land use policy will support efforts to grow within Auburn.” The Auburn Dairy has been a cornerstone in Auburn for 100 years. It is poised to strategically expand to grow within Auburn. “Celebration: The Community will be made aware of and celebrate the accomplishments of our local, regional and international leaders in manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution.” The Auburn Dairy has been a cornerstone in Auburn for 100 years. The company sources milk from local neighbors allowing Auburn 11 Diary to support the economy and contribute to a smaller carbon footprint as part of the company’s commitment to healthy living. “LU-40: Encourage a broad mix of uses within the downtown area. A wide range of consumer-oriented goods and services are compatible within this designation since creating an attractive shopping environment is a primary emphasis. Permitted uses include retail trade, offices, personal services, eating and drinking establishments, financial institutions, governmental offices, and similar uses. Legally established existing uses that do not fit within the range of desired new uses continue to be a valuable part of the downtown economy and character and should be allowed to evolve and operate in a manner that resembles listed permitted uses.” The proposed amendment and rezone will facilitate Auburn Dairy’s evolution in a manner that is compatible with the City’s long range planning goals. “LU-82 A wide range of commercial activities may be allowed to provide increased opportunities for sales tax revenue.” The Auburn Dairy contributes to the wide range of commercial activities in the area, the expansion of which results in opportunities for sales tax revenue. “ED-3 The importance of downtown Auburn as a unique retail environment and subregional center of commerce should be considered in the City’s economic plan.” For 100 years Auburn Dairy has been an integral part of downtown Auburn as a unique retail environment and subregional center of commerce. Overall, the policies listed in the Comprehensive Plan encourage a diverse mix of commercial uses, especially within the downtown area, and encourage the expansion of legally established businesses and uses that are not supported by current regulations. This proposal includes a Contract Rezone to ensure the use of the parcels is compatible with surrounding land uses and zones. When implemented, subsequent development will adhere to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and will further the economic and aesthetic vibrancy of the downtown area. 3. Rezone – Submittal Checklist 4. The availability of municipal services such as water, sewer, roads, fire, and police protection which might be required by reason of the proposed rezone. The subject properties are in the downtown area which has existing municipal facilities. The subsequent development of the properties will include a surface parking lot in phase I and a storage building in phase II, both of which will require incremental increases in municipal services that will be offset through impact fees and the increased tax base. 18.23.030 Uses. A. General Permit Requirements. Table 18.23.030 identifies the uses of land allowed in each commercial and industrial zone and the land use approval process required to establish each use. B. Requirements for Certain Specific Land Uses. Where the last column in Table 18.23.030 (“Standards for Specific Land Uses”) includes a reference to a code section number, the referenced section determines other requirements and standards applicable to the use regardless of whether it is permitted outright or requires an administrative or conditional use permit. C. Uses Affected by the Airport Overlay. Refer to Chapter 18.38 ACC to determine whether uses are separately prohibited by that chapter or will be required to comply with additional regulations that are associated with the airport overlay. Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone, Commercial and Industrial Zones PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 M-2 INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING, WHOLESALING Building contractor, light X X X P X P P Building contractor, heavy X X X X X A P Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – Light intensity X X X P X P P ACC 18.31.180 Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – Medium intensity X X X A X P P ACC 18.31.180 Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – Heavy intensity X X X X X X A ACC 18.31.180 Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 1 of 10 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 2023. Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone, Commercial and Industrial Zones PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 M-2 Marijuana processor X X X X X C C Chapter 18.59 ACC Marijuana producer X X X X X C C Chapter 18.59 ACC Marijuana researcher X X X X X C C Chapter 18.59 ACC Marijuana retailer X X X C X C C Chapter 18.59 ACC Marijuana transporter business X X X X X C C Chapter 18.59 ACC Outdoor storage, incidental to principal permitted use on property X X X P X P P ACC 18.57.020(A) Storage – Personal household storage facility (mini-storage) X P X P X P P ACC 18.57.020(B) Warehousing and distribution X X X X X P C ACC 18.57.020(C) Warehousing and distribution, bonded and located within a designated foreign trade zone X X X P X P P Wholesaling with on-site retail as an incidental use (e.g., coffee, bakery) X X X P X P P RECREATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Commercial recreation facility, indoor X P P P P P A Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 2 of 10 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 2023. Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone, Commercial and Industrial Zones PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 M-2 Commercial recreation facility, outdoor X X X A A P A ACC 18.57.025(A) Conference/convention facility X X A A X A X Library, museum X A A A X A X Meeting facility, public or private A P P P X A A Movie theater, except drive-in X P P P P X X Private school – Specialized education/ training (for profit) A A P P P P P Religious institutions, lot size less than one acre A P P P A A A Religious institutions, lot size more than one acre C P P P A A A Sexually oriented businesses X X X P X P P Chapter 18.74 ACC Sports and entertainment assembly facility X X A A X A A Studio – Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. P P P P P P A RESIDENTIAL Caretaker apartment X P P P X P P Live/work unit X X P P P P X Work/live unit X P P P P P X Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 3 of 10 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 2023. Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone, Commercial and Industrial Zones PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 M-2 Marijuana cooperative X X X X X X X Multiple-family dwellings as part of a mixed-use development2 X X P P P P X ACC 18.57.030 Multiple-family dwellings, stand-alone X X X X X X X Nursing home, assisted living facility X P P P C X X Senior housing2 X X A A X X X RETAIL Building and landscape materials sales X X X P X P P ACC 18.57.035(A) Construction and heavy equipment sales and rental X X X X X A P Convenience store A A P P X P P Drive-through espresso stands A A A P A P A Drive-through facility, including banks and restaurants A A A P P P P ACC 18.52.040 Entertainment, commercial X A P P X A A Groceries, specialty food stores P P P P P P X Nursery X X X P A P P ACC 18.57.035(C) Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 4 of 10 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 2023. Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone, Commercial and Industrial Zones PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 M-2 Outdoor displays and sales associated with a permitted use (auto/ vehicle sales not included in this category) P P P P P P P ACC 18.57.035(D) Restaurant, cafe, coffee shop P P P P P P P Retail Community retail establishment A P P P P P P Neighborhood retail establishment P P P P P P P Regional retail establishment X X X P P P A Tasting room P P P P P P P Tavern P P X P P P A Wine production facility, small craft distillery, small craft brewery A P P P P P P SERVICES Animal daycare (excluding kennels and animal boarding) A A A P A P P ACC 18.57.040(A) Animal sales and services (excluding kennels and veterinary clinics) P P P P P P P ACC 18.57.040(B) Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 5 of 10 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 2023. Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone, Commercial and Industrial Zones PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 M-2 Banking and related financial institutions, excluding drive-through facilities P P P P P P P Catering service P P P P A P P Daycare, including mini daycare, daycare center, preschools or nursery schools A P P P P P X Dry cleaning and laundry service (personal) P P P P P P P Equipment rental and leasing X X X P X P P Kennel, animal boarding X X X A X A A ACC 18.57.040(C) Government facilities; this excludes offices and related uses that are permitted outright A A A A A A A Hospital X P P P X P P Lodging – Hotel or motel X P P P P A A Medical – Dental clinic P P P P P P X Mortuary, funeral home, crematorium A P X P X P X Personal service shops P P P P P P X Pharmacies P P P P P X X Print and copy shop P P P P P P X Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 6 of 10 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 2023. Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone, Commercial and Industrial Zones PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 M-2 Printing and publishing (of books, newspaper and other printed matter) X A P P P P P Professional offices P P P P P P P Repair service – Equipment, appliances X A P P P P P ACC 18.57.040(D) Veterinary clinic, animal hospital A P P P P P X Youth community support facility X P X X X X X ACC 18.57.040(E) TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Ambulance, taxi, and specialized transportation facility X X X A X P P Broadcasting studio X P X P X P P Heliport X X X C X C C Motor freight terminal1 X X X X X X X See Footnote No. 1 Parking facility, public or commercial, surface X P P P P P X Parking facility, public or commercial, structured X P P P P P X Towing storage yard X X X X X A P ACC 18.57.045(A) Utility transmission or distribution line or substation A A A A A A A Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 7 of 10 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 2023. Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone, Commercial and Industrial Zones PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 M-2 Wireless communications facility (WCF) (See ACC 18.04.912(W)) * * * * * * * *See ACC 18.31.100 for use regulations and zoning development standards. Eligible facilities request (EFR) (wireless communications facility) (See ACC 18.04.912(H)) P P P P P P P Small wireless facilities (ACC 18.04.912(Q)) P P P P P P P VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICES Automobile washes (automatic, full or self- service) X A X P P P P ACC 18.57.050(A) Auto parts sales with installation services X A A P P P P Auto/vehicle sales and rental X A X P X P P ACC 18.57.050(B) Fueling station X A A P P P P ACC 18.57.050(C) Mobile home, boat, or RV sales X X X P X P P Vehicle services – Repair/ body work X X A P X P P ACC 18.57.050(D) OTHER Any commercial use abutting a residential zone which has hours of operation outside of the A A A A A A A Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 8 of 10 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 2023. Table 18.23.030. Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone, Commercial and Industrial Zones PERMITTED, ADMINISTRATIVE, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONE P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 M-2 following: Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or Monday – Saturday: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Other uses may be permitted by the planning director or designee if the use is determined to be consistent with the intent of the zone and is of the same general character of the uses permitted. See ACC 18.02.120(C)(6), Unclassified Uses. P P P P P P P 1 Any motor freight terminal, as defined by ACC 18.04.635, in existence as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, is an outright permitted use in the M-1 and M-2 zones. Any maintenance, alterations and additions to an existing motor freight terminal which are consistent with ACC 18.23.040, Development standards, are allowed. 2 Any mixed-use development or senior housing project vested prior to Resolution No. 5187 (December 7, 2015) is an outright permitted use in the C-1 zone. Subsequently, if a nonresidential use within a vested mixed-use development changes, then the nonresidential use shall maintain a minimum of 10 percent of the cumulative building ground floor square footage consisting of the uses permitted outright, administratively, or conditionally, listed under “Recreation, Education, and Public Assembly,” “Retail,” or “Services” of the C-1 zone. (Ord. 6885 § 1 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 6838 § 1 (Exh. A), 2021; Ord. 6799 § 6 (Exh. F), 2020; Ord. 6728 § 3 (Exh. C), 2019; Ord. 6688 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2018; Ord. 6644 § 2, 2017; Ord. 6642 § 9, 2017; Ord. 6508 § 1, 2014; Ord. 6433 § 26, 2012.) Ch. 18.23 Commercial and Industrial Zones | Auburn City Code Page 9 of 10 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 2023. EXHIBIT B - PROPOSED DUC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN STANDARDS – AUBURN DAIRY PARCELS Amendments To DUC Development Standards: The subject property (King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125) shall comply with the City of Auburn Downtown Urban Center development standards as listed in AMC 18.29.060, except the proposed amended standards listed below will replace the existing standards through the contract rezone. Section Standard AMC 18.29.060.D.2 Minimum required FAR is 0.75; basic allowable FAR is 1.0 AMC 18.29.060.F Maximum Building Height. Maximum building height within the DUC zone shall be 75 45 feet. AMC 18.29.060.G Minimum Building Height. The minimum height for any new structure within the DUC zone shall be two stories for the full extent of the building footprint. Amendments To DUC City Of Auburn Design Standards The subject property (King County Parcel Nos. 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125) shall comply with the City of Auburn Downtown Urban Center Architectural and Site Design Standards, adopted 2/12/07 with revision effective 09/20/21 and ACC 18.31.200, ‘Architectural and Site Design Review Standards and Regulations, except the proposed amended standards listed below will replace the existing standards through the contract rezone. Section Standard Guidelines Applicable to Site Design - General 1.A. 1. Parking shall be located over, under, behind, or to the side of principal buildings. Parking structures are strongly encouraged. 4. -- Public Plazas Building Design – Rooftop Equipment Requirements and Screening 8.B. – Access easement to rooftops provided to City which allows the installation of devices for wireless coverage and maintenance of those devices. 8.C. -- Installation of outdoor speaker system and AM receiver. Pedestrian Streets – Land Use 1.A. -- Along Pedestrian I Streets, ground floor uses that face the sidewalk shall be retail, restaurant or personal service uses. human- scale, active uses that create visual interest for pedestrians. Examples include break rooms, lobbies, work areas, etc. Pedestrian Streets – Ground Level Transparency 3.C. -- Along Main Street, doors and windows reflecting the historic Main Street rhythm of 25-foot wide storefronts. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 1 of 17 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for lead agencies Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in “Part B: Environmental Elements” that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 2 of 17 A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Auburn Dairy Products Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Contract Rezone 2. Name of applicant: Auburn Dairy Products, Inc 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Auburn Dairy Products, Inc Attn: Jerry Williams 702 W. Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Consultant: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attn: Jacob Miller 18215 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 4. Date checklist prepared: September 5, 2023 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Auburn 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Contract Rezone: Winter 2023 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. This proposal is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Contract Rezone to allow for the subsequent development of a surface parking lot and storage building. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Heath & Associates dated June 2023. TIA prepared by Heath & Associated dated September 2023. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 3 of 17 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. There are no other applications pending at this time. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Auburn: • SEPA Environmental Review and Determination • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Contract Rezone 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 do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation from Downtown Urban Center (DUC) to Light Industrial (M-1) for six (6) parcels) and to amend the Zoning Map via Contract Rezone from Residential 20 Units Per Acre (R-20) to Light Industrial (M-1) for three (3) parcels, and DUC to M-1 for one (1) parcel. 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 subject parcels are generally located on the western edge of downtown Auburn, northeast of the intersection of G Street SW and 1st Ave SW and are addressed as 16 G St. SW, 22 G St. SW, 632 W Main St, 702 W Main St, and 117 G St. SW. The existing Auburn Dairy facilities are located at 702 W Main St. and 117 G St. SW, and the new properties are located 16 G St. SW, 22 G St. SW, and 632 W Main St. The parcel numbers of the subject properties are 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125, 3915000085, 3915000050, 9315000005. The site is located in the SE ¼ of Section 13, Township 21N, Range 04E. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 4 of 17 B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site: The site is generally flat. Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 1.4%. 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, the site contains the existence of “Urban land” (Ur). Further soils data will be made available upon the completion of a geotechnical report conducted with the subsequent development of the site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. This proposal is a non-project action. No earthwork is proposed. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Not applicable. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Not applicable. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 5 of 17 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. This proposal is a non-project action. No construction is proposed. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Not applicable. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 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. No. 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. 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. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, see FEMA Map 53033C1261G dated 8/19/20. 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. Not applicable. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 6 of 17 b. Ground Water: 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Not applicable. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (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. Not applicable. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): a) 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. b) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. c) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Not applicable. d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any. Not applicable. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 7 of 17 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ☒ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ☐ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ☒ shrubs ☒ grass ☐ pasture ☐ crop or grain ☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ☐ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Not applicable. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered species on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Not applicable. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. There are no known noxious weeds or invasive species known on or near the site. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: • Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: • Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. This site, like all of Western Washington, is located within the Pacific Flyway migration route for birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. No measures to preserve or enhance wildlife is proposed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 8 of 17 e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. No known invasive animal species are known to be on or near the site. 6. Energy and Natural Resources 1. 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. The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. 2. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. 3. 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. No energy conservation features or measures to reduce or control energy impacts are proposed. 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 because of this proposal? If so, describe. The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. The applicant is not aware of any contamination at the site. 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. The applicant is not aware of any existing hazardous chemicals/conditions located on the site or in the vicinity that might affect future project development and design. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. The proposal is not anticipated to require any special emergency services beyond those anticipated for development in an M-1 zone. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Not applicable. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 9 of 17 b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The subject parcels are located in an urban area with typical noise from vehicles and other activities. 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)? Not applicable. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Not applicable. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The most recent use of the site was residential single family homes and a warehouse per the County Assessor. To the east are residential uses, to the south is 1st St SW and an industrial use, to the west is G St SW and the exiting Auburn Dairy plant, and to the north is an alley with vacant land to be developed by the applicant at a future date. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? To our knowledge the site has not been used as working farmlands. 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? There are no known working farms or forest lands in the area so no adverse impacts by are anticipated. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? This proposal does not include demolition of the structures. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification of the site is R-20 and DUC. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 10 of 17 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation of the site is Downtown Urban Center (DUC). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. The project site is located within the City’s critical area known as Type II Aquifer Recharge Areas (Groundwater Protection Zone 4) i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. Not applicable. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The applicant has included a Contract Rezone as part of the proposal that will include provisions to ensure compatibility with existing and projected land uses. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long- term commercial significance, if any. Not applicable. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. The proposed amendment and rezone will allow the future housing on the site. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 11 of 17 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? The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Future development of the site must conform to the City of Auburns development standards. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The site is located in an urban area with typical building and streetlighting. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. The proposal includes a Contract Rezone that will limit the type of uses on the site to those that are compatible with the neighborhood. Future development must meet the City’s development standards. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Interurban Trail is approximately 0.1 miles from the site, the Auburn Environmental Park is approximately 0.4 miles from the site, Centennial Viewpoint Park is approximately 1.2 miles from the site, the Auburn Memorial Stadium/fields is approximately 1.1 miles from the site, and the Auburn Community & Event Center/Les Grove Park is approximately 1.5 miles from the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 12 of 17 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. Registers: According to the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) several listed places have been inventoried near the site including Kampo Cuisine at 739 W Main St., Auburn Personal Growth Center at 731 W Main St., Kouros Cuisine at 721 W Main St., 9 G St NW, 10 G St. SE, 632 W Main St., Ashcraft house at 21 F St. SW, ad several others in the downtown area. National/State Eligibility: There are two locations in the area that have been formally determined eligible; Farmer’s Warehouse at 232 C St. NW, and BNSF Railroad Right of Way at 250 Main St. It is possible that properties in the vicinity built more than 50 years ago could become eligible. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. The applicant is not aware of any known landmarks, features or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation on site or in the near vicinity c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) is Washington State's primary agency with knowledge and expertise in historic preservation. They provide an online search for registered and inventoried properties, known as WISAARD. WISAARD was reviewed for this checklist. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 13 of 17 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by the surrounding public street network. The site is located on G St. SW and is approximately 0.3 miles to the SR-18 interchange which is the major thoroughfare to SR 167, I-90, and I-5. SR-18 is accessed from the site via W Main St and the C St SW interchange. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, the site is approximately 0.6 miles from Auburn Station which is served by Sound Transit, King County Metro, and Pierce Transit, and provides rail and bus transit. c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The project is approximately 0.6 miles from Auburn Station which is served by Sound Transit and provides passenger rail service. The project is also in the immediate vicinity of the UPRR mainline. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? A Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Heath & Associates dated September 29, 2023, is included with this proposal that compares the trip generation characteristics of the R-20, DUC, and the proposed modified M-1 zones for development on the subject parcels. The analysis is derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation, 11th Edition. The scenario used to provide analysis for the northern parcel is described below: The analysis for the northern parcel concludes the rezone could result in 87 total trips for the proposed M-1, a slight net reduction in total vehicular trips per day from the existing DUC zone. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 14 of 17 The scenario used to provide analysis for the southern parcels is described below: The analysis for the southern parcels concludes the rezone could result in 145 total trips for the M-1 zone, which is a net increase in total vehicular trips per day from the existing R-20 zone. Overall, the proposal could result in a net increase of 135 trips per day. Please see the full TIA for details. f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. The proposal is a non-project action. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The proposal is not anticipated to require any special public services beyond those anticipated for development in an M-1 zone. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: 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. The proposal is a non-project action. Not applicable. C. Signature F 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 15 of 17 X Type name of signee: Click or tap here to enter text. Position and agency/organization: Click or tap here to enter text. Date submitted: Click or tap to enter a date. D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions IT IS NOT REQUIRED to use this section 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; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Characteristics of proposed M-1 uses compared to residential uses generally include larger buildings, greater impervious surface, greater truck traffic, greater air emissions, use/storage of toxic substances, and greater noise generating activity. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Measures to avoid or reduce such increases include adherence and enforcement of regulations to limit noise generation, require the construction of adequate road and utility infrastructure, minimize air pollution impacts, require safe storage and use of toxic substances, and require prevention, treatment, and/or control of waste discharge to the environment. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal will allow the redevelopment of existing developed property in an urban area, which is not anticipated to generate significant impact on plants, animals, fish, and/or marine life. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Measures include adherence and enforcement of all critical areas regulations to protect plants, animals, fish, and marine life. SEPA mitigation measures can be Jacob Miller Project Planner, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc September 29, 2023 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 16 of 17 required to protect, buffer, and enhance key critical areas in conjunction with proposed land uses. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? This proposal will not deplete energy or natural resources. The site is located in an urban environment with access to existing energy infrastructure. There are no significant natural resources on or near the site. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Measures to conserve energy include compliance with energy code standards, use of energy efficient materials and equipment, and commissioning equipment for peak performance. Measures to conserve natural resources include compliance with critical areas regulations and installation of modern utility infrastructure.. 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? Proposed land uses will not likely use or affect protected environmental areas provided current regulations for critical areas, wildlife protection, historic/cultural preservation, and floodplain development are applied and enforced. • Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Mitigation measures include future application of current regulations for critical areas, wildlife protection, and historic/cultural preservation. 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? The proposal is unlikely to affect land and shoreline use. The proposal responds to changing economic conditions. City standards include a number of design standards to mitigate impacts of adjacent incompatible uses. The proposal is not in a shoreline zone. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: A Contract Rezone is proposed to ensure land use compatibility with adjacent development and zone. Subsequent development of the site must adhere to the required design and development standards of the City. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The subsequent development that will be allowed through this proposal will require an incremental increase to the demands for transportation, public services, and utilities. The site is in an urbanized area where growth and increased need for public services have been anticipated and planned for. • Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Measures include application of development standards for transportation and utility infrastructure to address and mitigate impacts of a future project proposal. Collection of impact fees, taxes, and other revenue sources will mitigate increased need for public services. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 17 of 17 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 will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment provided all applicable standards and procedures are adhered to for the future use of the land. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (NOH) and DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) 2023 Annual Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and related Contract Rezone SEP23-0020 / CPA23-0002, REZ23-0004 The City of Auburn is issuing a Notice of Application (NOA) using the optional process for Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the following described project. The applications and listed studies may be reviewed at the Auburn Department of Community Development at One E Main St., 2nd Floor, Customer Service Center, Auburn, WA 98001 and by visiting www.auburnwa.gov/landuse. Location: The project site is located south of the T-intersection of W. Main Street and G Street SW within SE ¼ of Section 13 Township 21, Range 4. King County Assessor Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125. Proposal: A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is requested for six contiguous parcels of land and a Site-Specific Rezone, Category 2 is requested for four of the six contiguous parcels of land. The application is a legislative non-project decision and will be processed in accordance with Auburn City Code 14.03.060. Two of the six parcels (parcels nos. 3915000005, 3915000050) are currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial and have an underlying land use designation of Downtown Urban Center. Parcel no. 3915000085 is zoned Downtown Urban Center (DUC) and has an underlying land use designation of Downtown Urban Center, and three parcels (parcel nos. 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125) are zoned R-20, Residential 20 Dwelling Units per acre and have an underlying land use designation of Downtown Urban Center. The proposal would change the land use designation of the six parcels to Light Industrial and the zoning designation to M-1, Light Industrial. Notice of Application: October 2, 2023 Application Complete: June 29, 2023 Permit Application: June 1, 2023 File Nos. SEP23-0020 CPA23-0002 REZ23-0004 Property Owner: Auburn Dairy Products Inc. Applicant’s Representative: Jacob Miller, Project Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Studies/Plans Submitted With Application: • SEPA Environmental Checklist, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, dated June 1, 2023 • Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Heath & Associates Transportation Planning & Engineering, dated September 29, 2023 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SEP23-0020 / CPA23-0002, REZ23-0004 Page 2 of 3 Statement of Consistency and List of Applicable Development Regulations: This proposal is subject to and shall be consistent with the Auburn City Code, Comprehensive Plan, and Public Works Design and Construction Standards. Lead Agency: City of Auburn The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Public Hearing: A public hearing is required for this proposal. The public hearing has been scheduled for October 17, 2023 at 7:00 PM. The public hearing will be held in-person in the City Council Chambers, 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001 and telephonically. To attend the meeting virtually please enter the meeting ID into the ZOOM app or call into the meeting at the phone number listed below. Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85310195862 Meeting ID: 853 1019 5862 Phone: 253-215-8782 - US (Tacoma) Any interested person is invited to appear and express comments or opinions on the proposed project. Written comments may be emailed to the contact person below, mailed attention to the contact person below to 25 W Main St., Auburn WA, 98001, or submitted at the public hearing. 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. For questions regarding this project, please contact Dinah Reed, Senior Planner, at dreed@auburnwa.gov or 253-931-3092. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Jeff Dixon POSITION/TITLE: Planning Services Manager ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 DATE ISSUED: SIGNATURE: ON FILE OCTOBER 2, 2023 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SEP23-0020 / CPA23-0002, REZ23-0004 Page 3 of 3 Note: This determination does not constitute approval of the proposal. Approval of the proposal can only be made by the legislative or administrative body vested with that authority. The proposal is required to meet all applicable regulations. Vicinity Map Project Location AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF LEGAL APPLICATION NOTICE Application Number: SEP23-0020, CPA23-0002, REZ23-0004 Property Owner/Applicant: Auburn Dairy Products 702 W. Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Location: The project site is located south of the T- intersection of W. Main Street. KC Parcel Nos. 3915000005, 3915000050, 3915000085, 3915000115, 3915000120, 3915000125. Closing Date for Public Comments: October 17, 2023 I certify that on or before ___October 2, 2023_____, I did send a Notice of Application for the above referenced application, as required by Auburn City Code 16.06.090 and 14.07.040, to all property owners located within 300 feet of the affected site. Said Notice was mailed pre-paid stamped through the United States Postal Service at least 15 days prior to the closing date for public comments noted above. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Dinah Reed, Senior Planner From: Dinah Reed Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 2:06 PM To: cblansfield@auburn.wednet.edu; mayor@algonawa.gov; brian.davis@cityoffederalway.com; mnewman@ci.pacific.wa.us; sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov; MARI461@ECY.WA.GOV; sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov; jim.chan@kingcounty.gov; hubenbj@dshs.wa.gov; DE@Lakehaven.org; janderson@mbaks.com; jgamble@mbapierce.com; glen.stamant@muckleshoot.nsn.us; healthyenvironments@kingcounty.gov; John.Graves@fema.dhs.gov; tim@futurewise.org; Valerie.Garza@kingcounty.gov; Planning@KentWA.gov; Michael.corelli@kent.k12.wa.us; Kim.Wilbur@kent.k12.wa.us; josh.baldi@kingcounty.gov; Steve.Bleifuhs@kingcounty.gov; tplacethurlow@kingcounty.gov; mbay@kingcounty.gov; KCWTD_otheragencyplanning@kingcounty.gov; McCollD@wsdot.wa.gov; Jim.Ishimaru@kingcounty.gov; jgreene@kingcounty.gov; ktsang@muckleshoot.nsn.us; Rob@muckleshoot.nsn.us; riley.patterson@muckleshoot.nsn.us; laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us; Glen@muckleshoot.nsn.us; NRapin@muckleshoot.nsn.us; martin.fox@muckleshoot.nsn.us; sepa@dahp.wa.gov; stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov; sgaffne@co.pierce.wa.us; vodopichj@ci.bonney- lake.wa.us; kristin.l.mcdermott@usace.army.mil; SEPA@pscleanair.org; perry.weinberg@soundtransit.org; amy.hendershot@usda.gov; reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov; julian.douglas@dfw.wa.gov; mindy@wecprotects.org; SEPA.reviewteam@doh.wa.gov; cindy.flanagan@rainieraudubon.org; garrett@alpineridgeinsurance.com; customerservice@lakemeridianwater.com; development@sooscreek.com Subject: ODNS - Noticing of SEP23-0020 for Auburn Dairy Projects Comprehensive Plan Land Use map amendment and Contract Rezone Good afternoon, Attached is SEP23-0020 for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Contract Rezone for Auburn Dairy Products property located at 702 W Main Street in Auburn, WA. Comments are due on October 17, 2023. Best regards, Dinah Reed, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov Office 253-931-3092 | DReed@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | Application Forms | Zoning Maps Planning or Land Use Questions? Book an online meeting: Virtual Permit Center - City of Auburn (auburnwa.gov) AUBURN DAIRY Auburn, WA TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT (TIA) September 29, 2023 HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 2 AUBURN DAIRY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Prepared by: Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 (253) 770 1401 Heathtraffic.com License: HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 3 AUBURN DAIRY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4 2. Project Description ............................................................................................... 4 3. Study Area and Baseline Conditions ................................................................. 6 4. Trip Generation & Forecast Traffic Demand and Analysis ............................ 16 5. Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 24 TABLES 1. Transportation Improvement Projects ............................................................. 13 2. Collision History Overview ................................................................................ 14 3. Baseline Peak Hour Level of Service ................................................................ 16 4. North Parcel Trip Generation Comparison ..................................................... 17 5. South Parcels Trip Generation Comparison ................................................... 18 6. Potential Rezone Project Trip Generation ....................................................... 19 7. Forecast Peak Hour Level of Service ................................................................ 23 FIGURES 1. Rezone Area .......................................................................................................... 4 2. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................... 5 3. Baseline AM Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................................... 7 4. Baseline PM Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................................... 8 5. AM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes ................................................................... 9 6. AM Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes........................................................................ 10 7. PM Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes .................................................................. 11 8. PM Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes ........................................................................ 12 9. PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution & Assignment............................................... 20 10. Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour Volumes Without Project ............................... 21 11. Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour Volumes With Project ..................................... 22 HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 4 AUBURN DAIRY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Heath & Associates has been retained to assist in a proposed rezone for subject parcels: 3915000-085, -115, -120, & -125, totaling approximately 0.66-acres in area. An initial report, Auburn Dairy Trip Generation Analysis, submitted in June 2023 was reviewed by the City with comments provided in August 2023. It was determined that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was required in support of the rezone. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Auburn Dairy is proposing to rezone four tax parcels across from their existing facility located at 702 W Main Street in the city of Auburn to expand their operations. As part of the rezone application process, a TIA is required to evaluate potential impacts that could occur. The first step is identifying the permitted and allowable uses under the proposed new zoning request and assessing a worst-case scenario in terms of vehicular activity. Parcel 3915000085 Current Zoning  DUC (Downtown Urban Center) Proposed Zoning  M1 (Light Industrial Zone) Parcels 3915000115, -120, & -125 Current Zoning  DUC (Downtown Urban Center) Proposed Zoning  M1 (Light Industrial Zone) Figure 1: Rezone Area N Rezone Parcels HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 5 Figure 2: Vicinity Map N North Parcel South Parcels G St HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 6 STUDY AREA AND BASELINE CONDITIONS Existing Peak Hour Volumes The study area for the Auburn Dairy project includes eight study intersections within the city of Auburn. Where available, counts were obtained from the City’s database. Where unavailable, Heath & Associates collected new turning movement counts. Below summarizes the study intersections and count source. 1. W Main Street & G Street SW (Heath 2023 Data) 2. 1st Street SW & G Street SW (Heath 2023 Data) 3. W Main Street & D Street SW (Heath 2023 Data) 4. W Main Street & C Street SW (City 2022 Data) 5. E/W Main Street & Auburn Ave (City 2022 Data) 6. E Main Street & Auburn Way N/S (City 2022 Data) 7. SR 18 Westbound Ramps/Transit Access & C Street SW (City 2022 Data) 8. SR 18 Eastbound Ramps & C Street SW (City 2022 Data) All counts were conducted between 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. The single hour representing peak volumes for the AM and PM time period is then derived and used for capacity analysis. Figures 3 and 4 highlight AM and PM peak hour volumes at each study intersection. Full count sheets are available in the appendix. Non-Motorist Activity Pedestrian and bicycle activity were monitored during the AM and PM peak hour counts at each study intersection. AM and PM peak hour pedestrian and bicycle activity at each study intersection are shown in Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8. Non-motorist activity generally increased further east within the city center. The vicinity provides complete sidewalk infrastructure and crosswalks for connectivity to transit (Auburn Station) and other amenities. FIGURE 3BASELINE AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMESNAUBURN DAIRYSTUDY INTERSECTIONS567E/W MAIN ST& AUBURN AVEE MAIN ST& AUBURN WAY NSR-18 WB RAMP W/ TRANSIT& C ST SWSR-18 EB RAMP& C ST SW81231ST ST SW& G ST SWW MAIN ST& C ST SW4BASELINE AM DATA12 175128353433276518 300294 265 7393601892045425419871420 4 64422910212122012797 166 10116104943169218225 211 15849308360523122605144 330739661323730 0 0023012704102160W MAIN ST& D ST SWW MAIN ST& G ST SWSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP SITE87123456A ST SEAUBURN WAY SG ST SWD ST NWW MAIN STC ST NW1ST ST SWE MAIN STAUB U R N A V E18 7 FIGURE 4BASELINE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMESNAUBURN DAIRYSTUDY INTERSECTIONS567E/W MAIN ST& AUBURN AVEE MAIN ST& AUBURN WAY NSR-18 WB RAMP W/ TRANSIT& C ST SWSR-18 EB RAMP& C ST SW81231ST ST SW& G ST SWW MAIN ST& C ST SW4BASELINE PM DATA13 6451910754290981377 491041011 696 113786523117942969521252221 13 42126204315125134207 741 132612323715824212328 574 27971715518055991394091 9656561711723100 1 101347702453700W MAIN ST& D ST SWW MAIN ST& G ST SWSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP SITE87123456A ST SEAUBURN WAY SG ST SWD ST NWW MAIN STC ST NW1ST ST SWE MAIN STAUB U R N A V E18 8 FIGURE 5BASELINE AM PEAK HOUR PEDESTRIAN VOLUMESNAUBURN DAIRYSTUDY INTERSECTIONS567E/W MAIN ST& AUBURN AVEE MAIN ST& AUBURN WAY NSR-18 WB RAMP W/ TRANSIT& C ST SWSR-18 EB RAMP& C ST SW81231ST ST SW& G ST SWW MAIN ST& C ST SW4BASELINE AM DATAW MAIN ST& D ST SWW MAIN ST& G ST SWSITE87123456A ST SEAUBURN WAY SG ST SWD ST NWW MAIN STC ST NW1ST ST SWE MAIN STAUB U R N A V E 3000001836145305000015413200431217189 FIGURE 6BASELINE AM PEAK HOUR BICYCLE VOLUMESNAUBURN DAIRYSTUDY INTERSECTIONS567E/W MAIN ST& AUBURN AVEE MAIN ST& AUBURN WAY NSR-18 WB RAMP W/ TRANSIT& C ST SWSR-18 EB RAMP& C ST SW81231ST ST SW& G ST SWW MAIN ST& C ST SW4BASELINE AM DATAW MAIN ST& D ST SWW MAIN ST& G ST SWSITE87123456A ST SEAUBURN WAY SG ST SWD ST NWW MAIN STC ST NW1ST ST SWE MAIN STAUB U R N A V E 400000240151130002000000000001810 FIGURE 7BASELINE PM PEAK HOUR PEDESTRIAN VOLUMESNAUBURN DAIRYSTUDY INTERSECTIONS567E/W MAIN ST& AUBURN AVEE MAIN ST& AUBURN WAY NSR-18 WB RAMP W/ TRANSIT& C ST SWSR-18 EB RAMP& C ST SW81231ST ST SW& G ST SWW MAIN ST& C ST SW4BASELINE PM DATAW MAIN ST& D ST SWW MAIN ST& G ST SWSITE87123456A ST SEAUBURN WAY SG ST SWD ST NWW MAIN STC ST NW1ST ST SWE MAIN STAUB U R N A V E 40010012910127103000093023004510131811 FIGURE 8BASELINE PM PEAK HOUR BICYCLE VOLUMESNAUBURN DAIRYSTUDY INTERSECTIONS567E/W MAIN ST& AUBURN AVEE MAIN ST& AUBURN WAY NSR-18 WB RAMP W/ TRANSIT& C ST SWSR-18 EB RAMP& C ST SW81231ST ST SW& G ST SWW MAIN ST& C ST SW4BASELINE PM DATAW MAIN ST& D ST SWW MAIN ST& G ST SWSITE87123456A ST SEAUBURN WAY SG ST SWD ST NWW MAIN STC ST NW1ST ST SWE MAIN STAUB U R N A V E 100000015060020010133010001411812 HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 13 Roadway Improvements The City of Auburn’s (2024-2029) Transportation Improvement Program and WSDOT’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) (2023-2026) were both reviewed. A total of three improvement projects were noted in the study area. See Table 1 below. Table 1: Transportation Improvement Projects Name Location Improvement Cost CITY OF AUBURN Downtown Infrastructure Improvement Project (ID # I-7) Auburn Ave/Main St This project will replace infrastructure that is at or near the end of its useful service life. The project will replace the existing traffic signal at Main St & Auburn Ave, install decorative overhead street lighting on E Main St and replace sidewalks on E Main St. Construction is estimated to begin in 2024. $1,100,000 A Street NE Phase 2 (ID # R-5) W Main St to 3rd St NW This project will widen A St NW to create a three- lane roadway section between W Main St & 3rd St NW thereby improving the connection between the A St NW Extension (Phase I) and Auburn Station and Central Business District. Construction is estimated to begin in 2026. $3,150,000 WSDOT STIP C St Preservation (ID #: AUB- 67) Main St S to GSA Signal This project will grind and overlay C St SW between Main St and the GSA signal. Also included are upgrades to curb ramps, pedestrian push buttons, and replacement of vehicle detection at the signalized intersection. Construction is estimated to begin in 2024. $2,261,544 No improvement projects were considered under forecast conditions. HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 14 Safety Analysis A list of the recorded 5-year collision history between 2018 through 2022 for the study intersections was requested from the City of Auburn. A summary of the collisions per year at each study intersection is listed in Table 2 below. Table 2: Collision History Overview Intersection AADT1 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Avg/Yr Crash Rate (MEV) W Main St & G St 5,670 0 1 0 0 0 0.2 0.10 W Main St & D St 5,300 2 0 0 1 0 0.6 0.31 W Main St & C St 13,480 4 3 1 4 2 2.8 0.57 E Main St & Auburn Ave 13,760 1 2 2 1 0 1.2 0.24 E Main St & Auburn Way 20,700 4 3 6 5 3 4.2 0.56 C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps 16,450 3 1 0 3 3 2.0 0.33 C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramps 23,650 2 5 4 1 2 2.8 0.32 Out of the 69 collisions in the study area, there were no fatalities, 26 resulting in injuries and 43 as unknown/property damage only. The most common collision types were listed as “enter at angle (20)”, “rear-end (15)”,”from opposite direction (11)”, “from same direction (7)”, “sideswipe (6)”, “struck fixed object (4)”, vehicle strikes pedestrian/cyclist (4)”, “cyclist strikes vehicle (1)”, and “head-on (1)”. All study intersections crash rate per million entering vehicles (MEV) are under 1.0. Pedestrians/Cyclist Collisions: · Main Street & D Street o Collision 1: The first collision (vehicle strikes pedestrian) occurred as a southbound vehicle along D Street turned right onto Main Street striking a pedestrian. The lighting conditions are listed as dark – no street lights with the roadway conditions listed as wet. There was no reported contributing driver circumstance. o Collision 2: The second collision (cyclist strikes vehicle) occurred as an eastbound vehicle along Main Street turned right onto D Street. The lighting conditions were listed as daylight with dry roadway conditions. The contributing driver circumstance was listed as improper turn/did not grant right of way to pedestrian. 1 AADT was estimated from multiplying PM peak hour volumes by 10. HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 15 ·Main Street & Auburn Way: o Collision 1: The first collision (vehicle hits pedestrian) occurred as a southbound vehicle turned left onto Main Street striking a pedestrian. The lighting conditions were listed as daylight with dry roadways. There was no reported driver contributing circumstance. o Collision 2: The second collision (vehicle strikes pedestrian) occurred when a westbound vehicle turned right onto Auburn Way striking a pedestrian. The lighting conditions were listed as dark – with street lights on with dry roadway conditions. The contributing driver circumstance was listed as did not grant right-of-way to pedestrian. o Collision 3: The third collision (vehicle hits cyclist) occurred when a westbound vehicle turned right onto Auburn Way striking a cyclist. The lighting conditions are listed as daylight with wet roadway conditions. The contributing driver circumstance was listed as inattention. Existing Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a measure that quantifies the quality and congestion of the transportation system. The range2 for intersection Level of Service ranges from LOS A (excellent) to LOS F (failure) as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition. LOS was calculated using Synchro 12, a transportation analysis software. For signalized intersections, LOS is determined by overall average delay for all approaches. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the movement with the highest delay. Table 3 on the following page summarizes baseline AM and PM peak hour LOS delays for each study intersection. 2 Signalized Intersections - Level of Service Stop Controlled Intersections – Level of Service Control Delay per Control Delay per Level of Service Vehicle (sec) Level of Service Vehicle (sec) A ≤10 A ≤10 B >10 and ≤20 B >10 and ≤15 C >20 and ≤35 C >15 and ≤25 D >35 and ≤55 D >25 and ≤35 E >55 and ≤80 E >35 and ≤50 F >80 F >50 Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 16 Table 3: Baseline Peak Hour Level of Service Delays Given in Seconds per Vehicle Intersection Control Peak Hour Critical Movement LOS Delay V/C Ratio W Main St & G St SW Two-Way Stop AM SB B 11.5 0.02 PM B 13.9 0.02 1st St SW & G St SW One-Way Stop AM WB A 7.5 0.01 PM A 8.4 0.05 W Main St & D St SW Two-Way Stop AM NB B 12.6 0.01 PM B 12.6 0.08 W Main St & C St SW Signal AM Overall B 14.1 0.81 PM B 16.6 0.68 Main St & Auburn Ave Signal AM Overall A 6.9 0.55 PM A 9.1 0.73 E Main St & Auburn Way N Signal AM Overall B 19.6 0.71 PM C 23.1 0.71 C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps Signal AM Overall C 25.3 0.83 PM C 30.3 0.92 C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramps Signal AM Overall C 32.6 0.95 PM C 30.7 0.91 Existing conditions operate at LOS C or better within the study area. The City LOS standards range between LOS D/E. WSDOT’s standards for SR 18 is LOS D. With the PM peak hour experiencing higher delays, this period will be the focus for the forecast conditions scenario. TRIP GENERATION & FORECAST TRAFFIC DEMAND ANALYSIS To evaluate potential impacts from the proposed rezone, trip generation was examined under a maximum utilization scenario for both existing and proposed zoning. Trip generation estimates were derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation, 11th Edition. HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 17 Northern Parcel: The north parcel is proposed to rezone from DUC to M1 which would overall reduce the development intensity potential. However, under the proposed M1 scenario, some DUC design standards were applied such as no setbacks to remain consistent with adjacent developed sites. The buildout scenario, derived in collaboration with Barghausen Planners, is summarized in the exhibit below. In review, both zoning designations permit similar uses such as retail and residential—typically higher traffic generating uses. Table 4 summarizes the trip generation using the above parameters. ITE’s Land Use Codes (LUC) applied are as follows: LUC 221 – Multifamily Mid-Rise and LUC 822 – Strip Retail. Table 4: North Parcel Trip Generation Comparison Zoning Scenario Buildout Assumption AWDT AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total M-1 (Proposed) 10.72 ksf Retail + 40 Multifamily Mid-Rise units 766 18 22 40 45 42 87 DUC (Current) 10.72 ksf Retail + 53 Multifamily Mid-Rise units 825 20 25 45 48 44 92 Net Potential Change from Rezone -59 -2 -3 -5 -3 -2 -5 In total, a slight trip reduction is estimated from rezoning DUC to M1. HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 18 Southern Parcels: The three southern parcels are proposed to rezone from R-20 to M1 which would overall increase the development intensity potential. Consistent with the northern parcel, the M1 scenario assumed no building setbacks as allowable under DUC. Under current R-20 zoning, 8 single-family attached (townhomes) is the max utilization assumption. Table 5 summarizes the trip generation using the above parameters. ITE’s Land Use Codes (LUC) applied are as follows: LUC 221 – Multifamily Mid-Rise, LUC 822 – Strip Retail, and LUC 215 – Single-Family Attached. Table 5: South Parcels Trip Generation Comparison Zoning Scenario Buildout Assumption AWDT AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total R-20 (Current) 8 Single-Family Attached Units 58 1 3 4 3 2 5 M-1 (Proposed) 18 ksf Retail + 67 Multifamily Mid-Rise units 1284 31 36 67 75 70 145 Net Potential Change from Rezone +1226 +30 +33 +63 +72 +68 +140 In total, the southern parcels rezone has a much greater development potential resulting in significant trip generation increases. HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 19 Combining the north and south parcels’ trip generation Table 6: Potential Rezone Project Trip Generation Parcel AWDT AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Northern Parcel -59 -2 -3 -5 -3 -2 -5 Southern Parcels 1226 30 33 63 72 68 140 Net New Rezone Trips 1167 28 30 58 69 66 135 The combined site is anticipated to generate a net increase of 1,167 average weekday daily trips with 58 net new AM peak hour trips (28 inbound / 30 outbound) and 135 net new PM peak hour trips (69 inbound / 66 outbound). Refer to the appendix for the complete trip generation breakdown. Distribution & Assignment Trip distribution describes the process by which project generated trips are dispersed on the roadway network surrounding the site. Trip distribution percentage are primarily based on existing travel patterns identified from the field counts and on anticipated travel routes. Given the left turn restrictions at Main Street & Auburn Avenue, different inbound and outbound percentages have been assigned. Refer to Figure 9 for the PM peak hour trip distribution & assignment. Future Peak Hour Volumes A five-year horizon of 2028 was used to assess future conditions with the proposed rezone. Forecast 2028 volumes were derived by applying a 2.0 percent compound annual growth rate to the baseline PM peak hour volumes shown in Figure 4. As the city provided data was collected in 2022, study intersections #4-8 received an additional year of growth rate. Forecast 2028 PM peak hour background volumes are illustrated in Figure 10 (without project), while forecast 2028 PM peak hour volumes with the rezone traffic scenario are illustrated in Figure 11. FIGURE 9PM PEAK HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENTNAUBURN DAIRYSTUDY INTERSECTIONS567E/W MAIN ST& AUBURN AVEE MAIN ST& AUBURN WAY NSR-18 WB RAMP W/ TRANSIT& C ST SWSR-18 EB RAMP& C ST SW81231ST ST SW& G ST SWW MAIN ST& C ST SW47 009003120 69410000 0 00200073272 0 00470000021020 8 000002100082 0 00160002931538 0000210 0 00049210202000W MAIN ST& D ST SWW MAIN ST& G ST SWSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP SITE87123456A ST SEAUBURN WAY SG ST SWD ST NWW MAIN STC ST NW1ST ST SWE MAIN STAUB U R N A V E 2.5%2.5%10%5%10%5%10%2.5%2.5%5%30%37.5%30%12.5%30%30%12.5%5%PM PEAK HOUR TRIPSINBOUND: 69 VPHOUTBOUND: 66 VPH1820 FIGURE 10FORECAST 2028 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECTNAUBURN DAIRYSTUDY INTERSECTIONS567E/W MAIN ST& AUBURN AVEE MAIN ST& AUBURN WAY NSR-18 WB RAMP W/ TRANSIT& C ST SWSR-18 EB RAMP& C ST SW81231ST ST SW& G ST SWW MAIN ST& C ST SW4FORECAST 2028 PM DATA15 72621120613271101548 541041112 784 127887326020248378591412523 14 42139224315627738233 834 152714326717827312632 646 30108080622036211115745102 10877391931943490 1 101488802504090W MAIN ST& D ST SWW MAIN ST& G ST SWSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP SITE87123456A ST SEAUBURN WAY SG ST SWD ST NWW MAIN STC ST NW1ST ST SWE MAIN STAUB U R N A V E18 21 FIGURE 11FORECAST 2028 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECTNAUBURN DAIRYSTUDY INTERSECTIONS567E/W MAIN ST& AUBURN AVEE MAIN ST& AUBURN WAY NSR-18 WB RAMP W/ TRANSIT& C ST SWSR-18 EB RAMP& C ST SW81231ST ST SW& G ST SWW MAIN ST& C ST SW4FORECAST 2028 PM DATA22 72621129613271131668 12342041112 784 127887526020248385621433225 14 42186224315629838253 842 152714328817827313434 646 30109680622039111417248110 10877391931943700 1 101485729022704090W MAIN ST& D ST SWW MAIN ST& G ST SWSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP SITE87123456A ST SEAUBURN WAY SG ST SWD ST NWW MAIN STC ST NW1ST ST SWE MAIN STAUB U R N A V E18 22 HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 23 Future Level of Service Level of Service analyses were made of the future conditions without (background) and with rezone related trips added to the study network. Delays for each study intersection under future 2028 PM peak hour conditions are shown below in Table 7. Table 7: Forecast Peak Hour Level of Service Delays Given in Seconds per Vehicle Without Project With Rezone Intersection Control LOS Delay V/C Ratio LOS Delay V/C Ratio W Main St & G St SW Two-Way Stop B 14.8 0.02 C 17.7 0.15 1st St SW & G St SW One-Way Stop A 8.4 0.06 A 8.7 0.13 W Main St & D St SW Two-Way Stop B 13.2 0.10 B 14.0 0.11 W Main St & C St SW Signal B 18.0 0.73 B 18.8 0.75 Main St & Auburn Ave Signal B 10.3 0.77 B 10.7 0.78 E Main St & Auburn Way N Signal C 26.0 0.75 C 26.6 0.76 C St SW & SR 18 WB Ramps Signal C 34.2 0.94 C 33.9 0.94 C St SW & SR 18 EB Ramps Signal D 36.3 0.92 D 38.5 0.93 Forecast 2028 PM peak hour service levels are projected to operate with LOS D conditions or better meeting City and WSDOT LOS standards. With Rezone conditions the LOS does not degrade to substandard levels. Overall, assuming a maximum utilization scenario for the four subject parcels, no significant impact is identified. HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 24 CONCLUSIONS Auburn Dairy seeks to expand its operations by proposing a rezone for four tax parcels: 3915000085 (from DUC to M1) and 3915000115, -120, & -125 (from R-20 to M1). As part of the rezone process, a traffic study documenting and evaluating potential highest traffic generating uses is required. The analysis indicates that, under the proposed rezone, there could be an estimated increase of 135 PM peak hour trips compared to the current zoning's development potential. To assess the impacts, these potential trips have been distributed across eight intersections within the city for evaluation. Baseline traffic counts (2022/2023) were used to model existing Level of Service (LOS) which identified LOS C or better conditions within the study area. A safety analysis was conducted with crash occurrences summarized in Table 2. A five-year horizon (2028) was reevaluated with and without the rezone traffic. Forecast LOS is projected to operated with LOS D or better conditions—meeting City of Auburn and WSDOT (SR 18 Ramps) LOS standards. Overall, the analysis indicates that the potential rezone changes are not projected to create a significant impact to the existing transportation infrastructure and overall Level of Service will remain within acceptable limits. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Aaron Van Aken, P.E., PTOE HeathTraffic.com Auburn Dairy TIA 25 AUBURN DAIRY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Traffic Data File Name : 5161a Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Passenger + - Heavy Driveway Southbound W Main St Westbound G St SW Northbound W Main St Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 40 2 42 1 0 2 3 1 40 0 41 86 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 63 3 66 0 0 1 1 3 46 0 49 116 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 52 1 53 2 0 0 2 4 39 0 43 98 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 56 5 61 0 0 1 1 3 67 0 70 132 Total 0 0 0 0 0 211 11 222 3 0 4 7 11 192 0 203 432 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 59 3 62 5 0 2 7 0 64 0 64 133 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 33 7 40 0 0 1 1 2 55 0 57 98 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 43 2 45 3 0 0 3 1 33 0 34 82 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 28 2 0 1 3 1 49 0 50 81 Total 0 0 0 0 0 162 13 175 10 0 4 14 4 201 0 205 394 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 373 24 397 13 0 8 21 15 393 0 408 826 Apprch %0 0 0 0 94 6 61.9 0 38.1 3.7 96.3 0 Total %0 0 0 0 0 45.2 2.9 48.1 1.6 0 1 2.5 1.8 47.6 0 49.4 Passenger +0 0 0 0 0 353 19 372 12 0 3 15 12 370 0 382 769 % Passenger +0 0 0 0 0 94.6 79.2 93.7 92.3 0 37.5 71.4 80 94.1 0 93.6 93.1 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 20 5 25 1 0 5 6 3 23 0 26 57 % Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 5.4 20.8 6.3 7.7 0 62.5 28.6 20 5.9 0 6.4 6.9 Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 26 File Name : 5161a Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 2 Driveway Southbound W Main St Westbound G St SW Northbound W Main St Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 63 3 66 0 0 1 1 3 46 0 49 116 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 52 1 53 2 0 0 2 4 39 0 43 98 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 56 5 61 0 0 1 1 3 67 0 70 132 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 59 3 62 5 0 2 7 0 64 0 64 133 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 230 12 242 7 0 4 11 10 216 0 226 479 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 95 5 63.6 0 36.4 4.4 95.6 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .913 .600 .917 .350 .000 .500 .393 .625 .806 .000 .807 .900 Passenger +0 0 0 0 0 217 11 228 7 0 2 9 8 206 0 214 451 % Passenger +0 0 0 0 0 94.3 91.7 94.2 100 0 50.0 81.8 80.0 95.4 0 94.7 94.2 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 14 0 0 2 2 2 10 0 12 28 % Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 5.7 8.3 5.8 0 0 50.0 18.2 20.0 4.6 0 5.3 5.8 Driveway W Main St W Main St G St SW Right 0 0 0 Thru 0 0 0 Left 0 0 0 InOut Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right0 0 0 Thru217 13 230 Left11 1 12 OutTotalIn213 228 441 10 14 24 223 465 242 Left 2 2 4 Thru 0 0 0 Right 7 0 7 Out TotalIn 19 9 28 3 2 5 22 33 11 Left0 0 0 Thru206 10 216 Right8 2 10 TotalOutIn219 214 433 15 12 27 234 460 226 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM Passenger + Heavy Peak Hour Data North Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 27 File Name : 5161b Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Passenger + - Heavy Driveway Southbound W Main St Westbound G St SW Northbound W Main St Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 30 1 31 2 0 0 2 0 103 0 103 136 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 33 1 34 0 0 1 1 2 70 0 72 107 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 30 2 32 3 0 0 3 20 98 0 118 153 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 37 3 40 2 0 0 2 3 98 0 101 143 Total 0 0 0 0 0 130 7 137 7 0 1 8 25 369 0 394 539 05:00 PM 0 1 1 2 0 30 1 31 2 0 1 3 21 100 0 121 157 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 37 1 38 0 0 1 1 1 74 0 75 114 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 28 0 0 1 1 0 72 0 72 101 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 36 1 0 1 2 2 76 0 78 116 Total 0 1 1 2 0 130 3 133 3 0 4 7 24 322 0 346 488 Grand Total 0 1 1 2 0 260 10 270 10 0 5 15 49 691 0 740 1027 Apprch %0 50 50 0 96.3 3.7 66.7 0 33.3 6.6 93.4 0 Total %0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 25.3 1 26.3 1 0 0.5 1.5 4.8 67.3 0 72.1 Passenger +0 1 1 2 0 252 10 262 9 0 5 14 49 679 0 728 1006 % Passenger +0 100 100 100 0 96.9 100 97 90 0 100 93.3 100 98.3 0 98.4 98 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 1 0 0 1 0 12 0 12 21 % Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 0 3 10 0 0 6.7 0 1.7 0 1.6 2 Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 28 File Name : 5161b Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 2 Driveway Southbound W Main St Westbound G St SW Northbound W Main St Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 30 2 32 3 0 0 3 20 98 0 118 153 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 37 3 40 2 0 0 2 3 98 0 101 143 05:00 PM 0 1 1 2 0 30 1 31 2 0 1 3 21 100 0 121 157 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 37 1 38 0 0 1 1 1 74 0 75 114 Total Volume 0 1 1 2 0 134 7 141 7 0 2 9 45 370 0 415 567 % App. Total 0 50 50 0 95 5 77.8 0 22.2 10.8 89.2 0 PHF .000 .250 .250 .250 .000 .905 .583 .881 .583 .000 .500 .750 .536 .925 .000 .857 .903 Passenger +0 1 1 2 0 130 7 137 6 0 2 8 45 363 0 408 555 % Passenger +0 100 100 100 0 97.0 100 97.2 85.7 0 100 88.9 100 98.1 0 98.3 97.9 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 7 12 % Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 0 2.8 14.3 0 0 11.1 0 1.9 0 1.7 2.1 Driveway W Main St W Main St G St SW Right 0 0 0 Thru 1 0 1 Left 1 0 1 InOut Total 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 Right0 0 0 Thru130 4 134 Left7 0 7 OutTotalIn370 137 507 8 4 12 378 519 141 Left 2 0 2 Thru 0 0 0 Right 6 1 7 Out TotalIn 53 8 61 0 1 1 53 62 9 Left0 0 0 Thru363 7 370 Right45 0 45 TotalOutIn132 408 540 4 7 11 136 551 415 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Passenger + Heavy Peak Hour Data North Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 29 File Name : 5161f Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Passenger + - Heavy G St SW Southbound 1st St SW Westbound G St SW Northbound Start Time Thru Left App. Total Right Left App. Total Right Thru App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 3 3 1 0 1 1 2 3 7 07:15 AM 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 07:30 AM 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 07:45 AM 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 Total 16 4 20 1 0 1 2 6 8 29 08:00 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 08:15 AM 4 3 7 0 0 0 1 1 2 9 08:30 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 08:45 AM 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 7 Total 11 4 15 0 0 0 1 11 12 27 Grand Total 27 8 35 1 0 1 3 17 20 56 Apprch %77.1 22.9 100 0 15 85 Total %48.2 14.3 62.5 1.8 0 1.8 5.4 30.4 35.7 Passenger +22 5 27 1 0 1 1 12 13 41 % Passenger +81.5 62.5 77.1 100 0 100 33.3 70.6 65 73.2 Heavy 5 3 8 0 0 0 2 5 7 15 % Heavy 18.5 37.5 22.9 0 0 0 66.7 29.4 35 26.8 Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 30 File Name : 5161f Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 2 G St SW Southbound 1st St SW Westbound G St SW Northbound Start Time Thru Left App. Total Right Left App. Total Right Thru App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 07:45 AM 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 08:00 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 7 08:15 AM 4 3 7 0 0 0 1 1 2 9 Total Volume 18 3 21 0 0 0 2 9 11 32 % App. Total 85.7 14.3 0 0 18.2 81.8 PHF .500 .250 .583 .000 .000 .000 .500 .450 .550 .800 Passenger +16 2 18 0 0 0 1 7 8 26 % Passenger +88.9 66.7 85.7 0 0 0 50.0 77.8 72.7 81.3 Heavy 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 % Heavy 11.1 33.3 14.3 0 0 0 50.0 22.2 27.3 18.8 G St SW 1st St SW G St SW Thru 16 2 18 Left 2 1 3 InOut Total 7 18 25 2 3 5 9 30 21 Right0 0 0 Left0 0 0 OutTotalIn3 0 3 2 0 2 5 5 0 Thru 7 2 9 Right 1 1 2 Out TotalIn 16 8 24 2 3 5 18 29 11 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM Passenger + Heavy Peak Hour Data North Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 31 File Name : 5161d Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Passenger + - Heavy G St SW Southbound 1st St SW Westbound G St SW Northbound Start Time Thru Left App. Total Right Left App. Total Right Thru App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 04:15 PM 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 04:30 PM 3 21 24 0 0 0 1 4 5 29 04:45 PM 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 Total 8 27 35 0 0 0 2 9 11 46 05:00 PM 0 24 24 1 0 1 2 3 5 30 05:15 PM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 05:30 PM 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 4 05:45 PM 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 Total 5 24 29 2 0 2 3 7 10 41 Grand Total 13 51 64 2 0 2 5 16 21 87 Apprch %20.3 79.7 100 0 23.8 76.2 Total %14.9 58.6 73.6 2.3 0 2.3 5.7 18.4 24.1 Passenger +13 51 64 2 0 2 5 15 20 86 % Passenger +100 100 100 100 0 100 100 93.8 95.2 98.9 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 % Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.2 4.8 1.1 Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 32 File Name : 5161d Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 2 G St SW Southbound 1st St SW Westbound G St SW Northbound Start Time Thru Left App. Total Right Left App. Total Right Thru App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 04:30 PM 3 21 24 0 0 0 1 4 5 29 04:45 PM 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 05:00 PM 0 24 24 1 0 1 2 3 5 30 Total Volume 7 49 56 1 0 1 4 10 14 71 % App. Total 12.5 87.5 100 0 28.6 71.4 PHF .583 .510 .583 .250 .000 .250 .500 .625 .700 .592 Passenger +7 49 56 1 0 1 4 9 13 70 % Passenger +100 100 100 100 0 100 100 90.0 92.9 98.6 Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 % Heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.0 7.1 1.4 G St SW 1st St SW G St SW Thru 7 0 7 Left 49 0 49 InOut Total 10 56 66 1 0 1 11 67 56 Right1 0 1 Left0 0 0 OutTotalIn53 1 54 0 0 0 53 54 1 Thru 9 1 10 Right 4 0 4 Out TotalIn 7 13 20 0 1 1 7 21 14 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM Passenger + Heavy Peak Hour Data North Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 33 File Name : 5161e Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Passenger + - Heavy D St NW Southbound W Main St Westbound D St SW Northbound W Main St Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 6 0 0 6 12 37 1 50 1 1 0 2 5 27 6 38 96 07:15 AM 3 0 0 3 13 62 1 76 0 0 0 0 3 38 5 46 125 07:30 AM 4 1 3 8 19 43 1 63 1 1 1 3 2 46 6 54 128 07:45 AM 6 1 2 9 11 59 4 74 0 0 0 0 5 61 8 74 157 Total 19 2 5 26 55 201 7 263 2 2 1 5 15 172 25 212 506 08:00 AM 7 2 1 10 1 65 4 70 1 0 1 2 2 56 8 66 148 08:15 AM 5 3 1 9 1 32 5 38 1 2 0 3 5 27 4 36 86 08:30 AM 6 6 1 13 4 40 2 46 0 1 1 2 0 39 4 43 104 08:45 AM 5 1 2 8 6 31 1 38 1 0 0 1 2 48 6 56 103 Total 23 12 5 40 12 168 12 192 3 3 2 8 9 170 22 201 441 Grand Total 42 14 10 66 67 369 19 455 5 5 3 13 24 342 47 413 947 Apprch %63.6 21.2 15.2 14.7 81.1 4.2 38.5 38.5 23.1 5.8 82.8 11.4 Total %4.4 1.5 1.1 7 7.1 39 2 48 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.4 2.5 36.1 5 43.6 Passenger +37 13 6 56 66 353 17 436 3 4 3 10 24 317 45 386 888 % Passenger +88.1 92.9 60 84.8 98.5 95.7 89.5 95.8 60 80 100 76.9 100 92.7 95.7 93.5 93.8 Heavy 5 1 4 10 1 16 2 19 2 1 0 3 0 25 2 27 59 % Heavy 11.9 7.1 40 15.2 1.5 4.3 10.5 4.2 40 20 0 23.1 0 7.3 4.3 6.5 6.2 Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 34 File Name : 5161e Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 2 D St NW Southbound W Main St Westbound D St SW Northbound W Main St Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 3 0 0 3 13 62 1 76 0 0 0 0 3 38 5 46 125 07:30 AM 4 1 3 8 19 43 1 63 1 1 1 3 2 46 6 54 128 07:45 AM 6 1 2 9 11 59 4 74 0 0 0 0 5 61 8 74 157 08:00 AM 7 2 1 10 1 65 4 70 1 0 1 2 2 56 8 66 148 Total Volume 20 4 6 30 44 229 10 283 2 1 2 5 12 201 27 240 558 % App. Total 66.7 13.3 20 15.5 80.9 3.5 40 20 40 5 83.8 11.2 PHF .714 .500 .500 .750 .579 .881 .625 .931 .500 .250 .500 .417 .600 .824 .844 .811 .889 Passenger +18 3 3 24 43 222 10 275 2 1 2 5 12 191 26 229 533 % Passenger +90.0 75.0 50.0 80.0 97.7 96.9 100 97.2 100 100 100 100 100 95.0 96.3 95.4 95.5 Heavy 2 1 3 6 1 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 11 25 % Heavy 10.0 25.0 50.0 20.0 2.3 3.1 0 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 5.0 3.7 4.6 4.5 D St NW W Main St W Main St D St SW Right 18 2 20 Thru 3 1 4 Left 3 3 6 InOut Total 70 24 94 2 6 8 72 102 30 Right43 1 44 Thru222 7 229 Left10 0 10 OutTotalIn196 275 471 13 8 21 209 492 283 Left 2 0 2 Thru 1 0 1 Right 2 0 2 Out TotalIn 25 5 30 1 0 1 26 31 5 Left26 1 27 Thru191 10 201 Right12 0 12 TotalOutIn242 229 471 9 11 20 251 491 240 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM Passenger + Heavy Peak Hour Data North Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 35 File Name : 5161c Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Passenger + - Heavy D St NW Southbound W Main St Westbound D St SW Northbound W Main St Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 8 3 2 13 1 29 5 35 2 1 0 3 24 72 9 105 156 04:15 PM 3 5 1 9 0 36 7 43 1 0 0 1 8 65 2 75 128 04:30 PM 2 5 0 7 0 26 4 30 0 1 1 2 14 54 13 81 120 04:45 PM 8 0 1 9 1 35 4 40 1 1 0 2 5 60 10 75 126 Total 21 13 4 38 2 126 20 148 4 3 1 8 51 251 34 336 530 05:00 PM 5 2 0 7 0 30 7 37 2 0 0 2 4 89 6 99 145 05:15 PM 1 2 2 5 0 36 6 42 1 0 1 2 8 63 5 76 125 05:30 PM 6 0 1 7 2 25 7 34 3 0 0 3 11 52 9 72 116 05:45 PM 4 3 1 8 0 41 2 43 0 0 1 1 11 65 6 82 134 Total 16 7 4 27 2 132 22 156 6 0 2 8 34 269 26 329 520 Grand Total 37 20 8 65 4 258 42 304 10 3 3 16 85 520 60 665 1050 Apprch %56.9 30.8 12.3 1.3 84.9 13.8 62.5 18.8 18.8 12.8 78.2 9 Total %3.5 1.9 0.8 6.2 0.4 24.6 4 29 1 0.3 0.3 1.5 8.1 49.5 5.7 63.3 Passenger +35 20 8 63 4 250 42 296 10 3 3 16 82 508 60 650 1025 % Passenger +94.6 100 100 96.9 100 96.9 100 97.4 100 100 100 100 96.5 97.7 100 97.7 97.6 Heavy 2 0 0 2 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 15 25 % Heavy 5.4 0 0 3.1 0 3.1 0 2.6 0 0 0 0 3.5 2.3 0 2.3 2.4 Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 36 File Name : 5161c Site Code : 00005161 Start Date : 9/14/2023 Page No : 2 D St NW Southbound W Main St Westbound D St SW Northbound W Main St Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 8 3 2 13 1 29 5 35 2 1 0 3 24 72 9 105 156 04:15 PM 3 5 1 9 0 36 7 43 1 0 0 1 8 65 2 75 128 04:30 PM 2 5 0 7 0 26 4 30 0 1 1 2 14 54 13 81 120 04:45 PM 8 0 1 9 1 35 4 40 1 1 0 2 5 60 10 75 126 Total Volume 21 13 4 38 2 126 20 148 4 3 1 8 51 251 34 336 530 % App. Total 55.3 34.2 10.5 1.4 85.1 13.5 50 37.5 12.5 15.2 74.7 10.1 PHF .656 .650 .500 .731 .500 .875 .714 .860 .500 .750 .250 .667 .531 .872 .654 .800 .849 Passenger +19 13 4 36 2 121 20 143 4 3 1 8 48 243 34 325 512 % Passenger +90.5 100 100 94.7 100 96.0 100 96.6 100 100 100 100 94.1 96.8 100 96.7 96.6 Heavy 2 0 0 2 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 11 18 % Heavy 9.5 0 0 5.3 0 4.0 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 5.9 3.2 0 3.3 3.4 D St NW W Main St W Main St D St SW Right 19 2 21 Thru 13 0 13 Left 4 0 4 InOut Total 39 36 75 0 2 2 39 77 38 Right2 0 2 Thru121 5 126 Left20 0 20 OutTotalIn251 143 394 8 5 13 259 407 148 Left 1 0 1 Thru 3 0 3 Right 4 0 4 Out TotalIn 81 8 89 3 0 3 84 92 8 Left34 0 34 Thru243 8 251 Right48 3 51 TotalOutIn141 325 466 7 11 18 148 484 336 Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM Passenger + Heavy Peak Hour Data North Heath & Associates PO Box 397 Puyallup, WA 98371 Auburn Dairy TIA 37 Auburn Dairy TIA 38 Auburn Dairy TIA 39 Auburn Dairy TIA 40 Auburn Dairy TIA 41 Auburn Dairy TIA 42 Auburn Dairy TIA 43 Auburn Dairy TIA 44 Auburn Dairy TIA 45 Auburn Dairy TIA 46 Auburn Dairy TIA 47 HeathTraffic.com AUBURN DAIRY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX ITE Trip Generation Auburn Dairy TIA 48 Auburn Dairy TIA 49 Auburn Dairy TIA 50 Auburn Dairy TIA 51 10/26/21, 8:30 AM https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=822&ivlabel=TQGFQ&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=Genera… https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=822&ivlabel=TQGFQ&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=General Urban/Suburban&co…1/1 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a:Weekday Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:4 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA:19 Directional Distribution:50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 54.45 47.86 - 65.07 7.81 Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = Trip EndsX = 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 42.20(X) + 229.68 R²= 0.96 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 10 20 30 400 500 1,000 1,500 Auburn Dairy TIA 52 10/26/21, 8:31 AM https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=822&ivlabel=TQGFQ&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=General … https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=822&ivlabel=TQGFQ&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=General Urban/Suburban&cou…1/1 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:5 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA:18 Directional Distribution:60% entering, 40% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.36 1.60 - 3.73 0.94 Data Plot and Equation Caution – Small Sample Size T = Trip EndsX = 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 1.84 R²= 0.57 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 10 20 30 400 20 40 60 80 Auburn Dairy TIA 53 10/26/21, 8:32 AM https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=822&ivlabel=TQGFQ&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=General … https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=822&ivlabel=TQGFQ&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=General Urban/Suburban&cou…1/1 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:1000 Sq. Ft. GLA On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:25 Avg. 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA:21 Directional Distribution:50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 6.59 2.81 - 15.20 2.94 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.71 Ln(X) + 2.72 R²= 0.56 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 10 20 30 400 100 200 300 Auburn Dairy TIA 54 10/27/21, 10:11 AM https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=215&ivlabel=UNITS215&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=Gen… https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=215&ivlabel=UNITS215&timeperiod=AWDVTE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=General Urban/Suburban&…1/1 Single-Family Attached Housing (215) Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies: 22 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units: 120 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 7.20 4.70 - 10.97 1.61 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 7.62(X) - 50.48 R²= 0.94 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 100 200 300 400 500 6000 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Auburn Dairy TIA 55 10/27/21, 10:11 AM https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=215&ivlabel=UNITS215&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=Gene… https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=215&ivlabel=UNITS215&timeperiod=TASIDE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=General Urban/Suburban&c…1/1 Single-Family Attached Housing (215) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Dwelling Units On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:46 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units:135 Directional Distribution:31% entering, 69% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.48 0.12 - 0.74 0.14 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.52(X) - 5.70 R²= 0.92 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 6000 100 200 300 400 500 Auburn Dairy TIA 56 10/27/21, 10:11 AM https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=215&ivlabel=UNITS215&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=Gene… https://itetripgen.org/PrintGraph.htm?code=215&ivlabel=UNITS215&timeperiod=TPSIDE&x=&edition=639&locationCode=General Urban/Suburban&c…1/1 Single-Family Attached Housing (215) Vehicle Trip Ends vs:Dwelling Units On a:Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban Number of Studies:51 Avg. Num. of Dwelling Units:136 Directional Distribution:57% entering, 43% exiting Vehicle Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.57 0.17 - 1.25 0.18 Data Plot and Equation T = Trip EndsX = Number of Dwelling Units Study Site Average RateFitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.60(X) - 3.93 R²= 0.91 Trip Gen Manual,11th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 200 400 6000 100 200 300 400 500 Auburn Dairy TIA 57 HeathTraffic.com AUBURN DAIRY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Trip Generation Breakdown Auburn Dairy TIA 58 Heath & Associates Transportation Engineering Project: Auburn Dairy Jurisdiction: Auburn In Out In Out Total % Total % Total In Out Total Totals 0.0 -29.5 -29.5 -59.0 In Out In Out Total % Total % Total In Out Total Totals 0.0 -1.1 -3.7 -4.8 In Out In Out Total % Total % Total In Out Total Totals 0.0 -3.1 -2.0 -5.1 In Out In Out Total % Total % Total In Out Total Totals 0.0 613.3 613.3 1226.7 In Out In Out Total % Total % Total In Out Total Totals 0.0 30.2 33.2 63.4 In Out In Out Total % Total % Total In Out Total Totals 0.0 72.6 67.6 140.2 Average Weekday Trips 00%50%50%54.4510.72KSF822 Pass-by Trips Primary Trips 583.7 Development 0.0 120.3 120.3 240.6Multifamily Mid-Rise Strip Retail Strip Retail 822 KSF 10.72 54.45 221 0%50% 291.9 0% 0% 0.0 583.7291.9 Auburn Dairy - Trip Generation Summary - North Parcel 050%50%4.5453Dwelling Units 120.3 120.3 240.6 0% Rate DistributionValue Internal CaptureTotal Trips 291.9291.9 Land Use LUC Variable 583.7291.9291.9 15.1 19.6 Proposed - M-1 Zoning Strip Retail 822 Development Land Use LUC Variable Value Rate Current - DUC Zoning Strip Retail 822 KSF 10.72 10.1 25.3 0% 0 291.9 221 Dwelling Units 53 0.37 23%Multifamily Mid-Rise 77%15.1 19.6 0% 291.9 583.7 0% 0% 0.0 4.5 50%0.0 2.36 60% 40% 15.2 4.5 0 0% 0.0 Auburn Dairy - Trip Generation Summary - South Parcels 70.6 0.0 15.2 10.1 25.3 0.0 0% 0.0 15.2 10.1 25.3 0% 0.0 35.3 35.3 Development DistributionLand Use LUC Variable Value Rate PM Peak Hour Trips 57.6 Total Trips Internal Capture Pass-by Trips Primary Trips Average Weekday Trips Land Use LUC Variable Value RateDevelopment Distribution Single Family Attached 215 Dwelling Units 8 7.2 50% 50% 28.8 28.8 Proposed - M-1 Zoning 50% 50% 490.1Strip Retail 822 KSF 18 54.45 304.2Multifamily Mid-Rise 221 Dwelling Units 67 4.54 50% 50% 152.1 Rate 152.1 304.2 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 152.1 152.1 Pass-by Trips Primary Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use LUC Variable Value RateDevelopment Distribution Current - DUC Zoning Proposed - M-1 Zoning Multifamily Mid-Rise 221 Dwelling Units 40 4.54 Total Trips Internal Capture Multifamily Mid-Rise 221 Dwelling Units 67 0.37 Current - R-20 Zoning Single Family Attached 215 Dwelling Units 8 0.48 Land Use LUC Variable Value 90.8 90.8 181.6 AM Peak Hour Trips Distribution Total Trips Internal Capture Pass-by Trips Primary Trips 50% 50% 90.8 90.8 181.6 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 KSF 10.72 2.36 60% 40% 15.2 10.1 25.3 0% 11.4 14.8Multifamily Mid-Rise 221 Dwelling Units 40 0.37 23% 77% 3.4 11.4 0% 0 0% 14.8 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 3.4 Dwelling Units 40 0.39 61% 39% 9.5 12.6 8.1 20.7 6.1 15.6 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 9.5 6.1 15.6 Total Trips Internal Capture Pass-by Trips Primary Trips Current - DUC Zoning Strip Retail 822 KSF 10.72 6.59 50% 50% 35.3 35.3 70.6 0% 0 Multifamily Mid-Rise 221 Dwelling Units 53 0.39 61% 39%0.0 12.6 8.1 20.7 Proposed - M-1 Zoning Strip Retail 822 KSF 10.72 6.59 50% 50% 35.3 35.3 70.6 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 35.3 35.3 70.6 Multifamily Mid-Rise 221 0% 0.0 490.1 490.1 980.1 0% 0 0% 0.0 28.8 28.8 57.6 Proposed - M-1 Zoning Strip Retail 822 KSF 18 2.36 60% 40% 25.5 23% 77% 5.7 0.0 0% 0.0 5.7 19.1 24.8 17.0 42.5 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 25.5 17.0 42.5 59% 41% 2.7 1.9 4.6 0% 19.1 24.8 0% Strip Retail 822 KSF 18 6.59 Current - R-20 Zoning Single Family Attached 215 Dwelling Units 8 0.57 0.0 15.9 10.2 26.1Multifamily Mid-Rise 221 Dwelling Units 67 0.39 61% 39% 15.9 Current - R-20 Zoning AM Peak Hour Trips Development Distribution Total Trips Internal Capture Pass-by Trips Primary Trips 25% 75% 1.0 2.9 3.8 0% 0 0% 0.0 1.0 2.9 3.8 490.1 980.1 0% 0.0 0 0% 0.0 2.7 1.9 4.6 Proposed - M-1 Zoning 50% 50% 59.3 59.3 118.6 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 59.3 59.3 118.6 10.2 26.1 0% 0.0 0% Auburn Dairy TIA 59 HeathTraffic.com AUBURN DAIRY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Forecast 2028 Excel Auburn Dairy TIA 60 Heath & Associates, Inc Auburn Dairy TIA 9-27-2023 Annual Growth Rate: 2 % # of Years to Horizon: 5 OR 6 1. Main St & G St SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Baseline 2023 0 1 1 0 134 7 7 0 2 45 370 0 Project Trips 0 0 0 0 0 49 21 0 20 20 0 0 Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Without 0 1 1 0 148 8 8 0 2 50 409 0 With 0 1 1 0 148 57 29 0 22 70 409 0 2. 1st St & G St SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Baseline 2023 0 7 49 1 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 Project Trips 0 0 69 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Without 0 8 54 1 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 With 0 8 123 42 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 3. Main St & D St SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Baseline 2023 21 13 4 2 126 20 4 3 1 51 251 34 Project Trips 2 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Without 23 14 4 2 139 22 4 3 1 56 277 38 With 25 14 4 2 186 22 4 3 1 56 298 38 4. Main St & C St SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Baseline 2022 28 574 27 9 71 71 55 180 55 99 139 40 Project Trips 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 29 3 15 3 Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Without 32 646 30 10 80 80 62 203 62 111 157 45 With 34 646 30 10 96 80 62 203 91 114 172 48 5. Main St & Auburn Ave SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Baseline 2022 13 645 0 19 107 11 54 290 0 98 137 2 Project Trips 7 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Without 15 726 0 21 120 12 61 327 0 110 154 2 With 22 726 0 21 129 12 61 327 0 113 166 2 6. Main St & Auburn Way SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Baseline 2022 11 696 113 78 65 231 179 429 69 52 125 22 Project Trips 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 3 2 7 Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Without 12 784 127 88 73 260 202 483 78 59 141 25 With 12 784 127 88 75 260 202 483 85 62 143 32 7. SR 18 WB Ramps & C St SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Baseline 2022 207 741 13 2 6 12 3 237 158 242 1 23 Project Trips 20 8 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 8 Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Without 233 834 15 2 7 14 3 267 178 273 1 26 With 253 842 15 2 7 14 3 288 178 273 1 34 8. SR 18 EB Ramps & C St SBR SBT SBL WBR WBT WBL NBR NBT NBL EBR EBT EBL Baseline 2022 91 965 0 0 0 0 0 656 171 172 0 310 Project Trips 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Pipeline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Without 102 1,087 0 0 0 0 0 739 193 194 0 349 With 110 1,087 0 0 0 0 0 739 193 194 0 370 2028 PM Peak Hour Forecast Intersection Volumes Auburn Dairy TIA 61 HeathTraffic.com AUBURN DAIRY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX Level of Service Auburn Dairy TIA 62 HCM 7th TWSC Baseline AM Peak Hour 1: G St SW/Driveway & W Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 216 10 12 230 0 4 0 7 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 216 10 12 230 0 4 0 7 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, %1 5 20 8 6 1 50 1 1 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 240 11 13 256 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 256 0 0 254 0 0 534 531 252 525 536 259 Stage 1 ------249 249 -282 282 - Stage 2 ------285 282 -243 254 - Critical Hdwy 4.11 --4.18 --7.6 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.6 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.6 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 --2.272 --3.95 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1315 --1277 --390 455 790 465 452 783 Stage 1 ------660 703 -727 679 - Stage 2 ------629 679 -763 699 - Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1315 --1273 --383 449 785 453 445 780 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------383 449 -453 445 - Stage 1 ------658 701 -727 671 - Stage 2 ------620 671 -753 697 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.39 11.47 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)568 1315 --1273 --- HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 ---0.01 --- HCM Control Delay (s/veh)11.5 0 --7.9 0 -0 HCM Lane LOS B A --A A -A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 0 --0 --- Auburn Dairy TIA 63 HCM 7th TWSC Baseline AM Peak Hour 2: G St SW & 1st St SW Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 9 2 3 18 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 9 2 3 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length ------ Veh in Median Storage, #0 -0 --0 Grade, %0 -0 --0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, %1 1 22 50 33 11 Mvmt Flow 0 0 11 3 4 23 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 43 13 0 0 14 0 Stage 1 13 ----- Stage 2 30 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 --4.43 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 --2.497 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 971 1071 --1424 - Stage 1 1013 ----- Stage 2 995 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 968 1071 --1424 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 968 ----- Stage 1 1013 ----- Stage 2 992 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 1.08 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)---1424 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---0.003 - HCM Control Delay (s/veh)--0 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS --A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---0 - Auburn Dairy TIA 64 HCM 7th TWSC Baseline AM Peak Hour 3: D St SW/D St NW & W Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 201 12 10 229 44 2 1 2 6 4 20 Future Vol, veh/h 27 201 12 10 229 44 2 1 2 6 4 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 0 5 8 0 8 5 0 8 8 0 5 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, %4 5 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 50 25 10 Mvmt Flow 30 226 13 11 257 49 2 1 2 7 4 22 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 315 0 0 247 0 0 588 638 249 608 620 295 Stage 1 ------301 301 -312 312 - Stage 2 ------287 337 -295 308 - Critical Hdwy 4.14 --4.11 --7.11 6.51 6.21 7.6 6.75 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.11 5.51 -6.6 5.75 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.11 5.51 -6.6 5.75 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.236 --2.209 --3.509 4.009 3.309 3.95 4.225 3.39 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1234 --1324 --422 395 793 346 375 726 Stage 1 ------710 667 -607 618 - Stage 2 ------723 643 -621 621 - Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1225 --1314 --383 374 781 326 355 717 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------383 374 -326 355 - Stage 1 ------684 643 -585 607 - Stage 2 ------684 631 -596 598 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.9 0.27 12.62 12.39 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)478 1225 --1314 --521 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 0.025 --0.009 --0.065 HCM Control Delay (s/veh)12.6 8 0 -7.8 0 -12.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A -A A -B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0 0.1 --0 --0.2 Auburn Dairy TIA 65 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Baseline AM Peak Hour 4: C St SW/C St NW & W Main St/E Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)51 60 22 30 49 8 231 605 83 15 211 25 Future Volume (veh/h)51 60 22 30 49 8 231 605 83 15 211 25 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)0.95 0.97 0.97 0.93 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1737 1737 1737 1885 1885 1885 1826 1826 1826 1693 1693 1693 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 59 70 26 35 57 9 269 703 97 17 245 29 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh, %11 11 11 1 1 1 5 5 5 14 14 14 Cap, veh/h 339 186 69 324 220 35 675 866 719 247 1074 126 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.47 0.47 0.02 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1654 1196 444 1795 1571 248 1739 1826 1516 1612 2896 339 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 0 96 35 0 66 269 703 97 17 135 139 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1654 0 1640 1795 0 1819 1739 1826 1516 1612 1608 1628 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 0.0 3.0 0.9 0.0 1.9 5.0 19.0 2.1 0.4 3.3 3.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 3.0 0.9 0.0 1.9 5.0 19.0 2.1 0.4 3.3 3.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 339 0 256 324 0 255 675 866 719 247 596 604 V/C Ratio(X)0.17 0.00 0.38 0.11 0.00 0.26 0.40 0.81 0.13 0.07 0.23 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 466 0 1408 615 0 1688 777 2011 1670 423 1687 1708 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.5 0.0 21.8 19.9 0.0 22.1 7.9 13.0 8.5 12.3 12.5 12.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.5 6.8 0.6 0.1 1.1 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.7 0.0 22.7 20.1 0.0 22.7 8.3 14.9 8.6 12.4 12.6 12.7 LnGrp LOS B C C C A B A B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 155 101 1069 291 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 21.8 12.6 12.6 Approach LOS C C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 31.8 6.6 13.5 11.6 25.9 7.6 12.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 63.5 11.5 49.5 10.5 60.5 7.5 53.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 21.0 2.9 5.0 7.0 5.4 3.7 3.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.6 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.1 HCM 7th LOS B Auburn Dairy TIA 66 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Baseline AM Peak Hour 5: A St SE/Auburn Ave & E Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)9 65 27 9 83 12 4 433 53 0 175 12 Future Volume (veh/h)9 65 27 9 83 12 4 433 53 0 175 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)0.97 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 72 30 10 92 13 4 481 59 0 194 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 147 267 103 148 349 47 123 769 94 0 804 54 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 68 1169 452 70 1527 204 3 1640 200 0 1716 115 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 112 0 0 115 0 0 544 0 0 0 0 207 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1689 0 0 1801 0 0 1843 0 0 0 0 1831 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Prop In Lane 0.09 0.27 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.06 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 518 0 0 543 0 0 986 0 0 0 0 858 V/C Ratio(X)0.22 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1835 0 0 1945 0 0 4479 0 0 0 0 4340 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.5 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 9.7 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 LnGrp LOS A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 112 115 544 207 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 9.6 6.4 4.9 Approach LOS A A A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.4 11.3 18.4 11.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.5 30.5 70.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 3.6 4.0 3.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.5 0.6 1.4 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.9 HCM 7th LOS A Auburn Dairy TIA 67 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Baseline AM Peak Hour 6: Auburn Way S/Auburn Way N & E Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)14 87 19 189 60 93 54 542 204 73 265 4 Future Volume (veh/h)14 87 19 189 60 93 54 542 204 73 265 4 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.93 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.94 0.99 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1826 1826 1826 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1826 1826 1826 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 90 20 195 62 96 56 559 210 75 273 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 Cap, veh/h 27 172 38 323 116 180 503 787 294 305 1141 17 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 197 1264 281 1767 634 982 1781 2478 927 1739 3497 51 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 124 0 0 195 0 158 56 400 369 75 135 142 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 0 0 1767 0 1616 1781 1777 1629 1739 1735 1813 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 5.3 1.2 11.8 11.9 1.7 3.4 3.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 5.3 1.2 11.8 11.9 1.7 3.4 3.4 Prop In Lane 0.11 0.16 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 0 0 323 0 296 503 564 517 305 566 592 V/C Ratio(X)0.52 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.53 0.11 0.71 0.71 0.25 0.24 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1747 0 0 792 0 725 608 1072 983 497 1152 1204 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.8 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.0 21.9 12.3 17.8 17.9 13.4 14.6 14.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.5 0.1 1.7 1.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.0 0.4 4.5 4.1 0.6 1.2 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 25.6 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 23.4 12.4 19.5 19.7 13.8 14.8 14.8 LnGrp LOS C C C B B B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 124 353 825 352 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.6 23.8 19.1 14.6 Approach LOS C C B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.0 23.3 12.6 7.5 23.9 15.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 35.8 59.5 6.5 39.4 26.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 13.9 5.9 3.2 5.4 8.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.0 0.8 0.0 1.6 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.6 HCM 7th LOS B Auburn Dairy TIA 68 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Baseline AM Peak Hour 7: C St SW & SR 18 WB Off Ramp/EB On Ramp/Auburn Transit Parking Lot Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)82 1 92 6 1 1 316 494 10 10 166 97 Future Volume (veh/h)82 1 92 6 1 1 316 494 10 10 166 97 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1660 1660 1660 1617 1617 1617 1674 1674 1674 1617 1617 1617 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 1 98 6 1 1 336 526 11 11 177 103 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %10 10 10 13 13 13 9 9 9 13 13 13 Cap, veh/h 147 2 132 15 7 7 402 2260 47 20 1821 802 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.71 0.71 0.01 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow, veh/h 1563 18 1406 1540 728 728 3092 3185 67 1540 3073 1353 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 0 98 6 0 2 336 262 275 11 177 103 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1581 0 1406 1540 0 1455 1546 1590 1662 1540 1537 1353 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 0.0 7.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 11.0 6.0 6.0 0.7 2.6 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 0.0 7.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 11.0 6.0 6.0 0.7 2.6 3.5 Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 0 132 15 0 14 402 1128 1179 20 1821 802 V/C Ratio(X)0.59 0.00 0.74 0.39 0.00 0.14 0.83 0.23 0.23 0.55 0.10 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 526 0 467 275 0 259 521 1128 1179 111 1821 802 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.1 0.0 45.8 51.1 0.0 50.9 44.1 5.2 5.2 50.9 9.1 9.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 7.9 15.6 0.0 4.3 8.9 0.5 0.5 21.0 0.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 4.6 1.8 1.9 0.4 0.8 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.8 0.0 53.7 66.6 0.0 55.2 53.0 5.7 5.7 71.9 9.3 9.7 LnGrp LOS D D E E D A A E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 186 8 873 291 Approach Delay, s/veh 51.4 63.8 23.9 11.8 Approach LOS D E C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.9 78.2 14.3 18.0 66.0 5.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 71.5 34.5 17.5 61.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 8.0 9.0 13.0 5.5 2.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.8 0.5 1.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 25.3 HCM 7th LOS C Auburn Dairy TIA 69 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Baseline AM Peak Hour 8: C St SW & SR 18 EB On/Off Ramps Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)373 132 66 739 330 44 Future Volume (veh/h)373 132 66 739 330 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1660 1660 1702 1702 1660 1660 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 414 147 73 821 367 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %10 10 7 7 10 10 Cap, veh/h 438 389 91 2139 1608 213 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.66 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow, veh/h 1581 1406 1621 3318 2882 371 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 414 147 73 821 206 210 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1581 1406 1621 1617 1577 1593 Q Serve(g_s), s 37.4 12.3 6.5 16.8 9.3 9.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 37.4 12.3 6.5 16.8 9.3 9.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 438 389 91 2139 906 915 V/C Ratio(X)0.95 0.38 0.80 0.38 0.23 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 482 429 294 2139 906 915 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.7 42.6 68.1 11.2 15.2 15.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.8 0.6 14.9 0.5 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 18.0 10.3 3.1 6.0 3.5 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 78.4 43.2 83.0 11.7 15.8 15.8 LnGrp LOS E D F B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 561 894 416 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.2 17.5 15.8 Approach LOS E B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 101.0 44.9 12.7 88.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 96.5 44.5 26.5 65.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.8 39.4 8.5 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.9 0.9 0.1 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 32.6 HCM 7th LOS C Auburn Dairy TIA 70 HCM 7th TWSC Baseline PM Peak Hour 1: G St SW/Driveway & W Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 370 45 7 134 0 2 0 7 1 1 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 370 45 7 134 0 2 0 7 1 1 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 411 50 8 149 0 2 0 8 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 149 0 0 465 0 0 609 605 444 580 630 153 Stage 1 - - - - - - 440 440 - 164 164 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 169 164 - 415 465 - Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - 4.11 - - 7.11 6.51 6.34 7.11 6.51 6.21 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - 2.209 - - 3.509 4.009 3.426 3.509 4.009 3.309 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1439 - - 1102 - - 409 414 589 427 400 896 Stage 1 - - - - - - 598 579 - 840 764 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 835 764 - 617 565 - Platoon blocked, %- -- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1439 - - 1097 - - 401 409 585 417 396 892 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 401 409 - 417 396 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 596 577 - 840 758 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 824 758 - 606 562 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.41 11.91 13.92 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)531 1439 - - 1097 - - 406 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - - - 0.007 - - 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.9 0 - - 8.3 0 - 13.9 HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0 Auburn Dairy TIA 71 HCM 7th TWSC 2: G St SW & 1st St SW Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 10 4 49 7 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 10 4 49 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 1 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, %0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 59 59 59 59 59 59 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 10 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 2 17 7 83 12 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 200 21 0 0 25 0 Stage 1 21 - - - - - Stage 2 179 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 - - 4.11 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 - - 2.209 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 791 1059 - - 1596 - Stage 1 1004 - - - - - Stage 2 854 - - - - - Platoon blocked, %- -- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 748 1058 - - 1595 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 748 - - - - - Stage 1 1003 - - - - - Stage 2 809 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.41 0 6.46 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)- - 1058 1595 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.002 0.052 - HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 8.4 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS - - A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0.2 - Baseline PM Peak Hour Auburn Dairy TIA 72 HCM 7th TWSC 3: D St SW/D St NW & W Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 34 251 51 20 126 2 1 3 4 4 13 21 Future Vol, veh/h 34 251 51 20 126 2 1 3 4 4 13 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 7 8 0 4 7 0 8 4 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 3 6 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Mvmt Flow 40 295 60 24 148 2 1 4 5 5 15 25 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 155 0 0 363 0 0 623 615 341 586 644 160 Stage 1 - - - - - - 413 413 - 200 200 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 210 202 - 385 443 - Critical Hdwy 4.11 - - 4.11 - - 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 - - 2.209 - - 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.39 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1432 - - 1201 - - 400 408 703 424 393 864 Stage 1 - - - - - - 618 595 - 804 737 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 794 736 - 640 577 - Platoon blocked, %- -- - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1426 - - 1192 - - 347 381 693 389 367 855 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 347 381 - 389 367 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 592 570 - 772 719 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 734 718 - 605 553 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.77 1.09 12.59 12.26 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)484 1426 - - 1192 - - 540 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0.028 - - 0.02 - - 0.083 HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.6 7.6 0 - 8.1 0 - 12.3 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.3 Baseline PM Peak Hour Auburn Dairy TIA 73 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 4: C St SW/C St NW & W Main St/E Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 139 99 71 71 9 55 180 55 27 574 28 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 139 99 71 71 9 55 180 55 27 574 28 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1811 1811 1811 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 160 114 82 82 10 63 207 63 31 660 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 2 2 2 6 6 6 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 490 235 167 351 415 51 331 591 480 454 1031 50 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.03 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 995 709 1781 1625 198 1725 1811 1470 1753 3389 164 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 0 274 82 0 92 63 207 63 31 340 352 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1705 1781 0 1823 1725 1811 1470 1753 1749 1805 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 0.0 7.8 1.8 0.0 2.1 1.3 4.6 1.6 0.6 9.0 9.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 0.0 7.8 1.8 0.0 2.1 1.3 4.6 1.6 0.6 9.0 9.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 490 0 402 351 0 466 331 591 480 454 532 549 V/C Ratio(X)0.09 0.00 0.68 0.23 0.00 0.20 0.19 0.35 0.13 0.07 0.64 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 657 0 1581 617 0 1827 573 2154 1748 639 1982 2045 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.1 0.0 18.6 14.3 0.0 15.6 12.1 13.7 12.7 12.0 16.1 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.7 0.5 0.2 3.3 3.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 14.2 0.0 20.6 14.6 0.0 15.8 12.4 14.0 12.8 12.1 17.3 17.3 LnGrp LOS B C B B B B B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 320 174 333 723 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.7 15.2 13.5 17.1 Approach LOS B B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 21.9 8.0 17.1 7.5 20.7 7.0 18.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 63.5 11.5 49.5 10.5 60.5 7.5 53.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 6.6 3.8 9.8 3.3 11.0 3.0 4.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.1 1.9 0.1 5.0 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 16.6 HCM 7th LOS B Baseline PM Peak Hour Auburn Dairy TIA 74 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary 5: A St SE/Auburn Ave & E Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 137 98 11 107 19 0 290 54 0 645 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 137 98 11 107 19 0 290 54 0 645 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.93 0.98 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 144 103 12 113 20 0 305 57 0 679 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 94 263 186 115 393 65 0 773 144 0 926 19 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 4 991 702 58 1480 246 0 1535 287 0 1838 38 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 249 0 0 145 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 693 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 0 0 1784 0 0 0 0 1822 0 0 1876 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 11.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 11.3 Prop In Lane 0.01 0.41 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 544 0 0 574 0 0 0 0 918 0 0 945 V/C Ratio(X)0.46 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1417 0 0 1465 0 0 0 0 3291 0 0 3390 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.3 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 12.9 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 8.7 LnGrp LOS B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 249 145 362 693 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.9 11.7 6.3 8.7 Approach LOS B B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.2 14.9 24.2 14.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.5 30.5 70.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 6.9 13.3 4.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.7 1.6 6.3 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 9.1 HCM 7th LOS A Baseline PM Peak Hour Auburn Dairy TIA 75 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Baseline PM Peak Hour 6: Auburn Way S/Auburn Way N & E Main St Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)22 125 52 231 65 78 69 429 179 113 696 11 Future Volume (veh/h)22 125 52 231 65 78 69 429 179 113 696 11 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.94 0.99 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 132 55 243 68 82 73 452 188 119 733 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 35 202 84 352 149 179 285 656 270 317 1031 17 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 193 1107 461 1781 751 906 1781 2405 989 1795 3602 59 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 210 0 0 243 0 150 73 333 307 119 364 381 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1762 0 0 1781 0 1658 1781 1777 1617 1795 1791 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.2 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 5.2 1.9 10.9 11.1 3.0 11.8 11.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.2 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 5.2 1.9 10.9 11.1 3.0 11.8 11.8 Prop In Lane 0.11 0.26 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 321 0 0 352 0 328 285 485 441 317 513 535 V/C Ratio(X)0.65 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.46 0.26 0.69 0.70 0.38 0.71 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1616 0 0 730 0 680 363 981 892 471 1088 1136 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.6 0.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 22.9 16.3 21.1 21.2 16.1 20.7 20.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.7 2.0 0.7 1.8 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.0 0.7 4.3 4.0 1.2 4.7 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 26.9 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 23.9 16.7 22.8 23.2 16.9 22.6 22.5 LnGrp LOS C C C B C C B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 210 393 713 864 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.9 25.6 22.4 21.8 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 22.2 16.3 8.2 23.1 17.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 35.8 59.5 6.5 39.4 26.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 13.1 9.2 3.9 13.8 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.0 1.5 0.0 4.7 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 23.1 HCM 7th LOS C Auburn Dairy TIA 76 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Baseline PM Peak Hour 7: C St SW & SR 18 WB Off Ramp/EB On Ramp/Auburn Transit Parking Lot Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)23 1 242 12 6 2 158 237 3 13 741 207 Future Volume (veh/h)23 1 242 12 6 2 158 237 3 13 741 207 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1617 1617 1617 1786 1786 1786 1702 1702 1702 1744 1744 1744 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 1 278 14 7 2 182 272 3 15 852 238 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %13 13 13 1 1 1 7 7 7 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 332 13 302 38 30 8 239 1932 21 27 1756 774 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.59 0.59 0.02 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 1486 57 1353 1701 1336 382 3144 3276 36 1661 3313 1459 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 0 278 14 0 9 182 134 141 15 852 238 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1543 0 1353 1701 0 1717 1572 1617 1695 1661 1657 1459 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 0.0 24.4 1.0 0.0 0.6 6.9 4.5 4.5 1.1 19.7 11.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 0.0 24.4 1.0 0.0 0.6 6.9 4.5 4.5 1.1 19.7 11.1 Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 344 0 302 38 0 38 239 953 1000 27 1756 774 V/C Ratio(X)0.08 0.00 0.92 0.37 0.00 0.24 0.76 0.14 0.14 0.55 0.49 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 439 0 385 260 0 262 454 953 1000 103 1756 774 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.2 0.0 46.0 58.4 0.0 58.3 54.9 11.1 11.1 59.2 18.0 16.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 23.5 5.9 0.0 3.1 5.0 0.3 0.3 16.3 1.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 10.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 2.9 1.6 1.7 0.6 7.5 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 37.3 0.0 69.6 64.4 0.0 61.4 59.9 11.4 11.4 75.5 19.0 17.0 LnGrp LOS D E E E E B B E B B Approach Vol, veh/h 305 23 457 1105 Approach Delay, s/veh 66.7 63.2 30.7 19.3 Approach LOS E E C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.5 76.0 31.6 13.7 68.8 7.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 71.5 34.5 17.5 61.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 6.5 26.4 8.9 21.7 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.4 8.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 30.3 HCM 7th LOS C Auburn Dairy TIA 77 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Baseline PM Peak Hour 8: C St SW & SR 18 EB On/Off Ramps Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)310 172 171 656 965 91 Future Volume (veh/h)310 172 171 656 965 91 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1702 1702 1758 1758 1702 1702 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 333 185 184 705 1038 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %7 7 3 3 7 7 Cap, veh/h 366 326 209 2365 1643 155 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.71 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 1621 1442 1674 3428 3071 282 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 333 185 184 705 562 574 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1621 1442 1674 1670 1617 1651 Q Serve(g_s), s 27.3 15.5 14.7 10.6 32.7 32.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.3 15.5 14.7 10.6 32.7 32.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 366 326 209 2365 889 908 V/C Ratio(X)0.91 0.57 0.88 0.30 0.63 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 529 471 326 2365 889 908 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.4 46.8 58.6 7.4 21.1 21.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.1 1.6 15.5 0.3 3.4 3.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.5 12.6 7.1 3.7 12.8 13.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 66.5 48.4 74.1 7.7 24.5 24.5 LnGrp LOS E D E A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 518 889 1136 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.1 21.4 24.5 Approach LOS E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 101.0 35.3 21.5 79.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 96.5 44.5 26.5 65.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.6 29.3 16.7 34.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.6 1.5 0.3 8.9 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 30.7 HCM 7th LOS C Auburn Dairy TIA 78 HCM 7th TWSC Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 1: G St SW/Driveway & W Main St Without Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 409 50 8 148 0 2 0 8 1 1 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 409 50 8 148 0 2 0 8 1 1 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, %1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 454 56 9 164 0 2 0 9 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 164 0 0 514 0 0 673 668 490 641 696 168 Stage 1 ------486 486 -182 182 - Stage 2 ------187 182 -458 514 - Critical Hdwy 4.11 --4.11 --7.11 6.51 6.34 7.11 6.51 6.21 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.11 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.11 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 --2.209 --3.509 4.009 3.426 3.509 4.009 3.309 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1420 --1057 --370 380 555 389 366 878 Stage 1 ------564 553 -822 751 - Stage 2 ------817 751 -584 537 - Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1420 --1053 --363 375 550 378 362 875 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------363 375 -378 362 - Stage 1 ------562 550 -822 744 - Stage 2 ------805 744 -573 535 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.43 12.38 14.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)499 1420 --1053 --370 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 ---0.008 --0.006 HCM Control Delay (s/veh)12.4 0 --8.4 0 -14.8 HCM Lane LOS B A --A A -B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 0 --0 --0 Auburn Dairy TIA 79 HCM 7th TWSC Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 2: G St SW & 1st St SW Without Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 11 4 54 8 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 11 4 54 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 1 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length ------ Veh in Median Storage, #0 -0 --0 Grade, %0 -0 --0 Peak Hour Factor 59 59 59 59 59 59 Heavy Vehicles, %1 1 10 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 2 19 7 92 14 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 221 23 0 0 26 0 Stage 1 23 ----- Stage 2 198 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 --4.11 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 --2.209 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 770 1057 --1594 - Stage 1 1002 ----- Stage 2 838 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 724 1056 --1593 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 724 ----- Stage 1 1001 ----- Stage 2 789 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.42 0 6.44 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)--1056 1593 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio --0.002 0.057 - HCM Control Delay (s/veh)--8.4 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS --A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--0 0.2 - Auburn Dairy TIA 80 HCM 7th TWSC Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 3: D St SW/D St NW & W Main St Without Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 277 56 22 139 2 1 3 4 4 14 23 Future Vol, veh/h 38 277 56 22 139 2 1 3 4 4 14 23 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 7 8 0 4 7 0 8 4 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, %1 3 6 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Mvmt Flow 45 326 66 26 164 2 1 4 5 5 16 27 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 170 0 0 400 0 0 687 678 375 646 710 176 Stage 1 ------456 456 -220 220 - Stage 2 ------231 222 -425 489 - Critical Hdwy 4.11 --4.11 --7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.11 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.11 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 --2.209 --3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.39 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1414 --1164 --363 375 674 386 360 847 Stage 1 ------586 570 -784 723 - Stage 2 ------775 722 -609 551 - Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1408 --1155 --308 347 663 351 333 838 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------308 347 -351 333 - Stage 1 ------558 542 -749 702 - Stage 2 ------709 701 -572 524 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.78 1.1 13.23 12.85 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)447 1408 --1155 --507 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 0.032 --0.022 --0.095 HCM Control Delay (s/veh)13.2 7.6 0 -8.2 0 -12.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A -A A -B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 0.1 --0.1 --0.3 Auburn Dairy TIA 81 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 4: C St SW/C St NW & W Main St/E Main St Without Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)45 157 111 80 80 10 62 203 62 30 646 32 Future Volume (veh/h)45 157 111 80 80 10 62 203 62 30 646 32 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)0.98 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1811 1811 1811 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 180 128 92 92 11 71 233 71 34 743 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 3 3 2 2 2 6 6 6 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 485 246 175 326 431 52 312 625 508 446 1094 54 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 997 709 1781 1629 195 1725 1811 1472 1753 3384 168 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 0 308 92 0 103 71 233 71 34 384 396 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1705 1781 0 1824 1725 1811 1472 1753 1749 1804 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 9.8 2.2 0.0 2.6 1.6 5.7 2.0 0.7 11.2 11.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 9.8 2.2 0.0 2.6 1.6 5.7 2.0 0.7 11.2 11.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 485 0 422 326 0 483 312 625 508 446 565 583 V/C Ratio(X)0.11 0.00 0.73 0.28 0.00 0.21 0.23 0.37 0.14 0.08 0.68 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 624 0 1431 556 0 1655 518 1950 1584 605 1794 1851 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.1 0.0 20.4 15.6 0.0 16.9 13.0 14.5 13.3 12.5 17.3 17.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.4 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 3.8 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.6 2.2 0.6 0.3 4.3 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 15.2 0.0 22.8 16.0 0.0 17.1 13.3 14.9 13.4 12.6 18.7 18.7 LnGrp LOS B C B B B B B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 360 195 375 814 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.7 16.6 14.3 18.5 Approach LOS C B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 24.9 8.4 19.1 7.9 23.6 7.4 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 63.5 11.5 49.5 10.5 60.5 7.5 53.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.7 7.7 4.2 11.8 3.6 13.2 3.3 4.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.1 2.1 0.1 5.8 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.0 HCM 7th LOS B Auburn Dairy TIA 82 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 5: A St SE/Auburn Ave & E Main St Without Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)2 154 110 12 120 21 0 327 61 0 726 15 Future Volume (veh/h)2 154 110 12 120 21 0 327 61 0 726 15 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)0.98 0.93 0.98 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 162 116 13 126 22 0 344 64 0 764 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 80 263 187 100 394 65 0 827 154 0 989 21 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 3 991 703 57 1483 244 0 1536 286 0 1838 38 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 280 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 408 0 0 780 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 0 0 1783 0 0 0 0 1822 0 0 1876 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 15.1 Prop In Lane 0.01 0.41 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 530 0 0 558 0 0 0 0 981 0 0 1010 V/C Ratio(X)0.53 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1203 0 0 1245 0 0 0 0 2796 0 0 2879 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.8 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 4.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 15.7 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 9.7 LnGrp LOS B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 280 161 408 780 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.7 13.9 6.6 9.7 Approach LOS B B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.2 16.7 29.2 16.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.5 30.5 70.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 8.7 17.1 5.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.1 1.8 7.6 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.3 HCM 7th LOS B Auburn Dairy TIA 83 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 6: Auburn Way S/Auburn Way N & E Main St Without Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)25 141 59 260 73 88 78 483 202 127 784 12 Future Volume (veh/h)25 141 59 260 73 88 78 483 202 127 784 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.94 0.99 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 148 62 274 77 93 82 508 213 134 825 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 37 209 87 364 154 186 262 685 285 301 1101 17 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 194 1105 463 1781 751 907 1781 2396 998 1795 3605 57 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 236 0 0 274 0 170 82 376 345 134 410 428 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1762 0 0 1781 0 1659 1781 1777 1617 1795 1791 1871 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.2 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 6.7 2.3 14.0 14.2 3.8 15.1 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.2 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.0 6.7 2.3 14.0 14.2 3.8 15.1 15.1 Prop In Lane 0.11 0.26 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 333 0 0 364 0 339 262 508 462 301 547 571 V/C Ratio(X)0.71 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.50 0.31 0.74 0.75 0.45 0.75 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1431 0 0 647 0 602 321 868 790 413 963 1006 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.8 0.0 0.0 27.4 0.0 25.8 18.1 23.7 23.8 17.9 22.9 22.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 2.1 2.4 1.0 2.1 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 2.7 0.9 5.8 5.3 1.5 6.2 6.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 30.6 0.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 27.0 18.8 25.8 26.2 18.9 25.0 24.9 LnGrp LOS C C C B C C B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 236 444 803 972 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 29.2 25.3 24.1 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 25.4 18.3 8.6 26.9 19.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 35.8 59.5 6.5 39.4 26.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 16.2 11.2 4.3 17.1 12.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.4 1.7 0.0 5.3 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 26.0 HCM 7th LOS C Auburn Dairy TIA 84 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 7: C St SW & SR 18 WB Off Ramp/EB On Ramp/Auburn Transit Parking Lot Without Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)26 1 273 14 7 2 178 267 3 15 834 233 Future Volume (veh/h)26 1 273 14 7 2 178 267 3 15 834 233 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1617 1617 1617 1786 1786 1786 1702 1702 1702 1744 1744 1744 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 1 314 16 8 2 205 307 3 17 959 268 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %13 13 13 1 1 1 7 7 7 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 369 12 335 40 33 8 260 1864 18 30 1667 734 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.57 0.57 0.02 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 1493 50 1353 1701 1379 345 3144 3281 32 1661 3313 1459 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 31 0 314 16 0 10 205 151 159 17 959 268 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1543 0 1353 1701 0 1724 1572 1617 1696 1661 1657 1459 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 0.0 28.6 1.2 0.0 0.7 8.1 5.6 5.6 1.3 25.5 14.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 0.0 28.6 1.2 0.0 0.7 8.1 5.6 5.6 1.3 25.5 14.1 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 381 0 335 40 0 41 260 919 964 30 1667 734 V/C Ratio(X)0.08 0.00 0.94 0.40 0.00 0.24 0.79 0.16 0.16 0.58 0.58 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 423 0 371 250 0 253 437 919 964 99 1667 734 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.4 0.0 46.4 60.5 0.0 60.3 56.6 12.9 12.9 61.3 21.9 19.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 30.0 6.2 0.0 3.1 5.3 0.4 0.4 16.4 1.5 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 12.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 3.4 2.1 2.2 0.7 10.0 5.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 36.5 0.0 76.4 66.7 0.0 63.4 61.9 13.3 13.3 77.7 23.3 20.4 LnGrp LOS D E E E E B B E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 345 26 515 1244 Approach Delay, s/veh 72.8 65.4 32.6 23.4 Approach LOS E E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 76.0 35.6 14.9 67.8 7.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 71.5 34.5 17.5 61.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 7.6 30.6 10.1 27.5 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.5 0.4 9.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 34.2 HCM 7th LOS C Auburn Dairy TIA 85 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 8: C St SW & SR 18 EB On/Off Ramps Without Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)349 194 193 739 1087 102 Future Volume (veh/h)349 194 193 739 1087 102 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1702 1702 1758 1758 1702 1702 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 375 209 208 795 1169 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %7 7 3 3 7 7 Cap, veh/h 406 361 232 2290 1538 144 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.69 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1621 1442 1674 3428 3072 281 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 375 209 208 795 632 647 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1621 1442 1674 1670 1617 1651 Q Serve(g_s), s 31.8 17.9 17.2 13.8 43.8 44.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.8 17.9 17.2 13.8 43.8 44.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 406 361 232 2290 832 850 V/C Ratio(X)0.92 0.58 0.90 0.35 0.76 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 512 456 315 2290 832 850 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.4 46.2 59.6 9.1 27.2 27.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.7 1.5 21.4 0.4 6.4 6.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.0 14.4 8.6 4.9 17.9 18.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 71.2 47.7 81.0 9.6 33.6 33.6 LnGrp LOS E D F A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 584 1003 1279 Approach Delay, s/veh 62.8 24.4 33.6 Approach LOS E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 101.0 39.8 24.0 77.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 96.5 44.5 26.5 65.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.8 33.8 19.2 46.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.5 1.5 0.3 8.7 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 36.3 HCM 7th LOS D Auburn Dairy TIA 86 HCM 7th TWSC Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 1: G St SW/Driveway & W Main St With Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 409 70 57 148 0 22 0 29 1 1 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 409 70 57 148 0 22 0 29 1 1 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, %1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 454 78 63 164 0 24 0 32 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 164 0 0 536 0 0 793 788 501 750 827 168 Stage 1 ------497 497 -291 291 - Stage 2 ------296 291 -458 536 - Critical Hdwy 4.11 --4.11 --7.11 6.51 6.34 7.11 6.51 6.21 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.11 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.11 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 --2.209 --3.509 4.009 3.426 3.509 4.009 3.309 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1420 --1037 --308 324 546 329 308 878 Stage 1 ------557 546 -719 673 - Stage 2 ------715 673 -584 525 - Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1420 --1033 --284 301 542 287 286 875 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------284 301 -287 286 - Stage 1 ------554 544 -719 628 - Stage 2 ------663 628 -547 523 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 2.42 15.82 17.65 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)389 1420 --1033 --287 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.146 ---0.061 --0.008 HCM Control Delay (s/veh)15.8 0 --8.7 0 -17.7 HCM Lane LOS C A --A A -C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.5 0 --0.2 --0 Auburn Dairy TIA 87 HCM 7th TWSC Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 2: G St SW & 1st St SW With Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.9 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 42 11 4 123 8 Future Vol, veh/h 0 42 11 4 123 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 1 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length ------ Veh in Median Storage, #0 -0 --0 Grade, %0 -0 --0 Peak Hour Factor 59 59 59 59 59 59 Heavy Vehicles, %1 1 10 1 1 1 Mvmt Flow 0 71 19 7 208 14 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 455 23 0 0 26 0 Stage 1 23 ----- Stage 2 432 ----- Critical Hdwy 6.41 6.21 --4.11 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.41 ----- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.41 ----- Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 3.309 --2.209 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 565 1057 --1594 - Stage 1 1002 ----- Stage 2 657 ----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 490 1056 --1593 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 490 ----- Stage 1 1001 ----- Stage 2 570 ----- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.66 0 7.14 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h)--1056 1593 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio --0.067 0.131 - HCM Control Delay (s/veh)--8.7 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS --A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--0.2 0.5 - Auburn Dairy TIA 88 HCM 7th TWSC Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 3: D St SW/D St NW & W Main St With Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 298 56 22 186 2 1 3 4 4 14 25 Future Vol, veh/h 38 298 56 22 186 2 1 3 4 4 14 25 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 7 8 0 4 7 0 8 4 0 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized --None --None --None --None Storage Length ------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0 --0 --0 --0 - Grade, %-0 --0 --0 --0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, %1 3 6 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Mvmt Flow 45 351 66 26 219 2 1 4 5 5 16 29 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 225 0 0 424 0 0 767 758 400 726 790 231 Stage 1 ------481 481 -276 276 - Stage 2 ------286 277 -450 514 - Critical Hdwy 4.11 --4.11 --7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.3 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.11 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.11 5.51 -6.11 5.51 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.209 --2.209 --3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.39 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1349 --1140 --320 338 653 341 324 789 Stage 1 ------568 556 -733 684 - Stage 2 ------724 683 -591 537 - Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1344 --1132 --268 311 643 309 298 780 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------268 311 -309 298 - Stage 1 ------539 527 -698 663 - Stage 2 ------657 663 -553 510 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.75 0.86 14.03 13.63 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)408 1344 --1132 --468 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 0.033 --0.023 --0.108 HCM Control Delay (s/veh)14 7.8 0 -8.3 0 -13.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A -A A -B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 0.1 --0.1 --0.4 Auburn Dairy TIA 89 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 4: C St SW/C St NW & W Main St/E Main St With Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)48 172 114 80 96 10 91 203 62 30 646 34 Future Volume (veh/h)48 172 114 80 96 10 91 203 62 30 646 34 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)0.98 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1811 1811 1811 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 55 198 131 92 110 11 105 233 71 34 743 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %3 3 3 2 2 2 6 6 6 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 475 263 174 313 449 45 320 637 518 448 1079 57 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1030 682 1781 1665 166 1725 1811 1472 1753 3374 177 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 55 0 329 92 0 121 105 233 71 34 385 397 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1712 1781 0 1831 1725 1811 1472 1753 1749 1802 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 10.9 2.3 0.0 3.2 2.4 5.9 2.0 0.8 11.8 11.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 10.9 2.3 0.0 3.2 2.4 5.9 2.0 0.8 11.8 11.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 475 0 436 313 0 494 320 637 518 448 559 577 V/C Ratio(X)0.12 0.00 0.75 0.29 0.00 0.24 0.33 0.37 0.14 0.08 0.69 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 603 0 1379 532 0 1594 497 1871 1521 599 1722 1774 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.4 0.0 21.1 16.1 0.0 17.5 13.6 14.8 13.6 13.1 18.2 18.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 4.3 0.9 0.0 1.3 0.9 2.2 0.6 0.3 4.5 4.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 15.5 0.0 23.8 16.6 0.0 17.8 14.2 15.2 13.7 13.2 19.7 19.7 LnGrp LOS B C B B B B B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 384 213 409 816 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.6 17.3 14.7 19.4 Approach LOS C B B B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 26.1 8.5 20.2 8.7 24.2 7.5 21.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 63.5 11.5 49.5 10.5 60.5 7.5 53.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 7.9 4.3 12.9 4.4 13.8 3.4 5.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 0.1 2.3 0.1 5.9 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.8 HCM 7th LOS B Auburn Dairy TIA 90 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 5: A St SE/Auburn Ave & E Main St With Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)2 166 113 12 129 21 0 327 61 0 726 22 Future Volume (veh/h)2 166 113 12 129 21 0 327 61 0 726 22 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)0.98 0.93 0.98 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 175 119 13 136 22 0 344 64 0 764 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 77 274 185 96 407 62 0 829 154 0 981 30 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 3 1015 684 53 1505 230 0 1536 286 0 1818 55 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 296 0 0 171 0 0 0 0 408 0 0 787 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1702 0 0 1788 0 0 0 0 1822 0 0 1872 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 15.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 15.8 Prop In Lane 0.01 0.40 0.08 0.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 537 0 0 565 0 0 0 0 984 0 0 1011 V/C Ratio(X)0.55 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1170 0 0 1211 0 0 0 0 2710 0 0 2785 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.3 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 8.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 16.2 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 10.0 LnGrp LOS B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 296 171 408 787 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 14.2 6.7 10.0 Approach LOS B B A A Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.1 17.3 30.1 17.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 70.5 30.5 70.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 9.3 17.8 5.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.1 1.9 7.8 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.7 HCM 7th LOS B Auburn Dairy TIA 91 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 6: Auburn Way S/Auburn Way N & E Main St With Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)32 143 62 260 75 88 85 483 202 127 784 12 Future Volume (veh/h)32 143 62 260 75 88 85 483 202 127 784 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94 0.99 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 151 65 274 79 93 89 508 213 134 825 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 47 208 89 362 155 183 261 684 285 298 1095 17 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 240 1064 458 1781 763 898 1781 2396 998 1795 3605 57 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 250 0 0 274 0 172 89 376 345 134 410 428 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1762 0 0 1781 0 1661 1781 1777 1617 1795 1791 1871 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 6.9 2.6 14.3 14.5 3.8 15.4 15.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 6.9 2.6 14.3 14.5 3.8 15.4 15.4 Prop In Lane 0.14 0.26 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 344 0 0 362 0 338 261 507 461 298 544 568 V/C Ratio(X)0.73 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.51 0.34 0.74 0.75 0.45 0.75 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1405 0 0 635 0 592 315 853 776 407 946 988 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.2 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 26.4 18.5 24.2 24.2 18.2 23.4 23.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.2 0.8 2.2 2.4 1.1 2.1 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 2.8 1.0 5.9 5.5 1.6 6.3 6.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 31.1 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 27.6 19.3 26.3 26.7 19.3 25.6 25.5 LnGrp LOS C C C B C C B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 250 446 810 972 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.1 29.8 25.7 24.7 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 25.8 19.0 8.7 27.2 19.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 35.8 59.5 6.5 39.4 26.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 16.5 11.9 4.6 17.4 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.4 1.8 0.0 5.3 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 26.6 HCM 7th LOS C Auburn Dairy TIA 92 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 7: C St SW & SR 18 WB Off Ramp/EB On Ramp/Auburn Transit Parking Lot With Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)34 1 273 14 7 2 178 288 3 15 842 253 Future Volume (veh/h)34 1 273 14 7 2 178 288 3 15 842 253 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1617 1617 1617 1786 1786 1786 1702 1702 1702 1744 1744 1744 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 1 314 16 8 2 205 331 3 17 968 291 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %13 13 13 1 1 1 7 7 7 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 372 10 335 40 33 8 260 1865 17 30 1667 734 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.57 0.57 0.02 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 1504 39 1353 1701 1379 345 3144 3283 30 1661 3313 1459 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 0 314 16 0 10 205 163 171 17 968 291 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1542 0 1353 1701 0 1724 1572 1617 1696 1661 1657 1459 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 28.6 1.2 0.0 0.7 8.1 6.1 6.1 1.3 25.8 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 28.6 1.2 0.0 0.7 8.1 6.1 6.1 1.3 25.8 15.6 Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 382 0 335 40 0 41 260 918 964 30 1667 734 V/C Ratio(X)0.10 0.00 0.94 0.40 0.00 0.24 0.79 0.18 0.18 0.58 0.58 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 423 0 371 250 0 253 437 918 964 99 1667 734 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.6 0.0 46.4 60.5 0.0 60.3 56.6 13.1 13.1 61.3 22.0 19.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 29.9 6.2 0.0 3.1 5.3 0.4 0.4 16.4 1.5 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 12.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 3.4 2.3 2.4 0.7 10.1 5.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 36.7 0.0 76.3 66.7 0.0 63.4 61.9 13.5 13.5 77.7 23.4 21.0 LnGrp LOS D E E E E B B E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 354 26 539 1276 Approach Delay, s/veh 71.8 65.5 31.9 23.6 Approach LOS E E C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 76.0 35.6 14.9 67.8 7.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 71.5 34.5 17.5 61.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 8.1 30.6 10.1 27.8 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.4 9.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 33.9 HCM 7th LOS C Auburn Dairy TIA 93 HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Forecast 2028 PM Peak Hour 8: C St SW & SR 18 EB On/Off Ramps With Project Synchro 12 Light Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)370 194 193 739 1087 110 Future Volume (veh/h)370 194 193 739 1087 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1702 1702 1758 1758 1702 1702 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 398 209 208 795 1169 118 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %7 7 3 3 7 7 Cap, veh/h 427 380 232 2250 1495 151 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.67 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 1621 1442 1674 3428 3051 299 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 398 209 208 795 636 651 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1621 1442 1674 1670 1617 1648 Q Serve(g_s), s 34.3 17.9 17.5 14.6 46.1 46.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 34.3 17.9 17.5 14.6 46.1 46.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 427 380 232 2250 815 831 V/C Ratio(X)0.93 0.55 0.90 0.35 0.78 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 504 448 310 2250 815 831 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 45.4 60.7 10.0 29.1 29.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.4 1.2 22.3 0.4 7.3 7.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.5 0.1 8.8 5.3 19.1 19.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 74.0 46.7 83.0 10.4 36.4 36.4 LnGrp LOS E D F B D D Approach Vol, veh/h 607 1003 1287 Approach Delay, s/veh 64.6 25.5 36.4 Approach LOS E C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 101.0 42.2 24.3 76.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 96.5 44.5 26.5 65.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.6 36.3 19.5 48.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.5 1.4 0.3 8.2 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 38.5 HCM 7th LOS D Auburn Dairy TIA 94 James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 June 21, 2023 Mr. Jeff Dixon City of Auburn 25 W. Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Re: Multi-Family Residence Impact Fee Increase Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2023 to 2029 Dear Mr. Dixon, The Auburn School District Board of Directors has approved the 2023-2029 Capital Facilities Plan which includes documentation and calculation of Impact Fees. This year’s Impact Fees are calculated using the following formula and amounts: Single Family Multi-Family Site Costs $0.00 $0.00 Permanent Facility Const. Costs $22,654.41 $25,550.09 Temporary Facility Costs $293.14 $388.21 State Match Credit ($2,289.66) ($2,582.34) Tax Credit ($8,743.84) ($4,128.67) Fee without Discount $11,914.04 $19,227.29 50% Discount ($5,957.02) ($9,913.64) Fee with Discount $5,957.02 $9,913.64 Auburn School District respectfully requests that the Multi-Family Residence Impact Fee be increased from $9,912.82 to $9,913.64. Our Single Family Impact Fees for the past few years have been: 2024 (proposed) $5,957.02 2023 $7,962.61 2022 $3,652.19 2021 $6,456.31 Multi-Family Residence Impact Fee Increase Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan for 2023 to 2029 Page 2 James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 Our Multi-Family Impact Fees for the past few years have been: 2024 (proposed) $9,913.64 2023 $9,912.82 2022 $8,938.23 2021 $6,325.80 to $16,325.80 Your consideration and approval of our request will be appreciated. Sincerely, Bob Kenworthy Asst. Director, Capital Projects Cc: C. Blansfield Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2023 through 2029 Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors June 12, 2023. 915 Fourth Street SE Auburn,Washington 98002 (253)931-4900 Serving Students in: City of Auburn City of Algona City of Kent City of Pacific City of Black Diamond Unincorporated King County Board of Directors Tracy Arnold Valerie Gonzales Arlista Holman Sheilia McLaughlin Laura Theimer Dr.Alan Spicciati,Superintendent Capital Facilities Plan \ TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I Executive Summary Page 3 SECTION II Enrollment Projections and Student Generation Factors Page 8 SECTION III Standard of Service Page 17 SECTION IV Inventory of Facilities Page 24 SECTION V Student Capacity Page 28 SECTION VI Capital Construction Plan Page 31 SECTION VII Impact Fees Page 33 Auburn School District No. 408 2 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This six-year Capital Facilities Plan (the “Plan”) has been prepared by the Auburn School District (the “District”) as the District’s principal planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington’s Growth Management Act and the adopted ordinances of the counties and cities served by the District. This Plan was prepared using data available in the spring of 2023. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District. However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the District’s needs. The District may prepare interim and periodic long-range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time period; other factors and trends in the use of facilities; and other needs of the District as may be required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this six-year Capital Facilities Plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the unincorporated areas of King County and within the Cities of Auburn, Black Diamond and Kent; the King County Council, the City of Auburn, the City of Black Diamond, and the City of Kent will adopt this Plan by reference as part of each jurisdiction’s respective comprehensive plan. To enable the collection of impact fees in the Cities of Algona and Pacific, these municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the local ordinances, this Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly. The Plan establishes the District’s “Standard of Service” in order to ascertain the District’s current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District’s specific needs. Auburn School District No. 408 3 In general, the District’s current standard provides that class size for grades K-3 should not exceed 17 students and class size for grades 4-5 should not exceed 27 students. When averaged over the six elementary school grades, this computes to 20.33 students per classroom. Class size for grade 6 should not exceed 27 students and class size for grades 7 and 8 should not exceed 28.53 students. When averaged over the three middle school grades, this computes to 28.02 students per classroom. Class size for 9-12 should not exceed 28.74 students, with some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers. Decisions by current legislative actions may create the need for additional classrooms. (See Section III Standard of Service for more specific information.) The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this Standard of Service and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District’s 2022-23 permanent capacity was 18,796. The actual number of individual students was 17,059 as of October 1, 2022. (See Section V for more specific information.) In the spring of 2016, the Board determined to move forward with the replacement of six schools and the construction of two new elementary schools. The project was placed before the voters in November 2016 and the bond passed at 62.83%. The first of the projects, the replacement of Olympic Middle School, started construction in May 2018 and opened in Fall 2019. The district’s new elementary, Bowman Creek Elementary, started construction in May 2019 and opened in August 2020. Construction for replacement of Dick Scobee Elementary School started in June 2019 and the school opened in August 2020. Construction of Willow Crest Elementary School and construction of the replacement Pioneer Elementary School started May 2020 and both opened in August 2021. For the 2021-22 school year, Willow Crest Elementary served as the temporary home for Lea Hill Elementary School which started the replacement construction process in May 2021 and opened as its own school in August 2022. Construction for replacement of Chinook Elementary School started in May 2021 and the new school opened in August 2022 as well. Construction for replacement of Terminal Park Elementary School began in May 2022 and is scheduled to open in August 2023. Auburn School District No. 408 4 Capital Facilities Plan Capital Facilities Plan \ The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn, City of Black Diamond and City of Kent provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal impacts incurred by a district experiencing growth and development. Section VII sets forth the proposed school impact fees for single family and multi-family dwelling units. The student generation factors have been developed using the students who actually attend school in the Auburn School District from single family and multi-family developments constructed in the last five years. The method of collecting the data is with the use of GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS, data from Davis Demographics and integration of the mapping with student data from the District’s student data system. This method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for identified developments. Auburn School District No. 408 5 \ Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2022 Capital Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2023 Plan. The changes are noted by Section for ease of reference. SECTION I Executive Summary A.Updated to reflect new information within the Plan. B. Summary level list of changes from previous year. SECTION II Enrollment Projections and Student Generation Factors A. Updated projections. SECTION III Standard of Service A. Updated to reflect the current number of classrooms allocated to non-standard classroom uses. SECTION IV Inventory of Facilities A. Move 2 portables from Arthur Jacobsen Elementary and 2 portables from Ilalko Elementary to Auburn High School. B. Move 1 portable from Arthur Jacobsen Elementary and 3 portables from Ilalko Elementary to Auburn Mountainview High School. C. Move 1 portable from Arthur Jacobsen Elementary to Auburn Riverside High School. D. Move 1 portable from Gildo Rey Elementary and 2 portables from Lake View Elementary to Cascade Middle School. E. Add 1 portable to Cascade Middle School. Section V Student Capacity A.The 12 portables to be relocated and one new portable to be added in July 2024 are needed to accommodate enrollment increases at our middle and high schools. Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 6 Capital Facilities Plan \ CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DATA ELEMENTS 2022 TO 2023 DATA ELEMENTS CFP 2022 CFP 2023 EXPLANATION Student Generation Factors Single Family Elementary Middle School High School Multi-Family Elementary Middle School High School 0.3010 0.1460 0.1550 0.3920 0.1350 0.1530 0.303 0.133 0.151 0.440 0.150 0.172 Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621, Student Generation Factors are calculated by the school district based on district records of average actual student generation rates for new developments constructed over the last five years. School Construction Costs Middle School $134,320,000 $143,000,000 From new school construction cost estimates in April 2023. Site Acquisition Costs Cost per Acre $489,248 $513,509 Updated estimate based on 10% annual inflation. Area Cost Allowance Boeckh Index $246.83 $246.83 Updated to current OSPI schedule. (May 2023) Match % - State 63.83%64.58%Updated to current OSPI schedule (May 2023) Match % - District 36.17%35.42%Computed District Average Assessed Valuation Single Family Multi-Family $458,409 $223,737 $573,704 $270,892 Updated from March 2023 King County Dept. of Assessments data. Updated from March 2023 King County Dept. of Assessments data using average assessed valuation for apartments and condominiums. Debt Serv Tax Rate $2.13 $1.84 Current Fiscal Year General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 2.45%3.58%Current Rate - February 2023 (Bond Buyers 20 Index 3-14) Auburn School District No. 408 7 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION II – ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Student Enrollment Projections Projection techniques give consideration to historical and current data as a basis for forecasting the future. In addition, certain assumptions must be made about the variables in the data being used. Forecasting can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future or from the known to the unknown. The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological, psychological, economic, and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection. An example of this is with the COVID-19 pandemic. The logic embraces the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the past are present today and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular factors by averaging data over time. The basis of enrollment projections in the Auburn School District has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group of students in a grade level as it progresses through time. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. If all students in one grade level progress to the next, the cohort number would be 1.00. If fewer students from the group progress the number will be less than 1. The district has used this method with varying years of history (3 years, 6 years, 10 years and 13 years) as well as weighted factors to study several projections. Additionally, the District contracted with Davis Demographics to develop and analyze demographic data relevant to the District’s facility planning efforts. The report created by Davis Demographics identifies and informs the District of the trends occurring in the community, how these trends may affect future student populations, and assists in illustrating facility adjustments that may be necessary to accommodate the potential student population shifts. Davis’ Ten-Year Forecast Methodology uses factors including the calculation of Auburn School District No. 408 8 Capital Facilities Plan \ incoming kindergarten classes, additional students from new housing, the effects of student mobility and a detailed review of planned residential development within the District. The data from the report is a snapshot of the current and potential student populations based on the data gathered in fall 2022. Population demographics change, development plans change, funding opportunities can change, and District priorities can change. The degree to which the actuals deviate from the projections can only be measured after the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and creditably of the projections derived by these techniques. Auburn School District No. 408 9 Overview of 2022-23 Enrollment Projections Table 1 shows historical enrollment for the October 1 count in the Auburn School District over the past 20 years. The data shows overall average growth over the recent 10 years is 1.69%. It is important to note this average includes a 4.22% decrease in October 2020 enrollment due to the COVID pandemic. TABLE 1 Historical Enrollment1: October 1 Actuals, K-12 (No RS, OD, GA) Source: OSPI 1251H GRADE 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21*21-22*22-23 KDG 921 892 955 940 995 998 1,032 1,010 1,029 1,098 1,170 1,232 1,198 1,237 1,261 1,271 1,291 1,038 1,227 1,341 1 982 960 963 1,012 995 1,014 1,033 1,066 1,068 1,089 1,188 1,219 1,279 1,210 1,276 1,290 1,314 1,236 1,185 1,304 2 909 992 963 1,001 1,019 1,024 998 1,016 1,097 1,083 1,124 1,196 1,289 1,300 1,251 1,311 1,295 1,243 1,249 1,241 3 996 918 1,002 1,031 997 1,048 993 1,013 996 1,111 1,125 1,136 1,232 1,317 1,328 1,275 1,320 1,243 1,264 1,324 4 947 1,016 939 1,049 1,057 1,045 1,073 1,024 1,022 1,038 1,123 1,156 1,170 1,237 1,328 1,378 1,316 1,257 1,255 1,322 5 1,018 956 1,065 998 1,077 1,070 1,030 1,079 1,017 1,070 1,075 1,122 1,172 1,199 1,269 1,345 1,361 1,294 1,251 1,296 6 1,111 1,020 1,004 1,061 1,008 1,096 1,040 1,041 1,063 1,041 1,076 1,059 1,116 1,152 1,207 1,275 1,337 1,306 1,233 1,227 7 1,131 1,124 1,028 1,014 1,057 1,034 1,125 1,060 1,032 1,086 1,072 1,091 1,099 1,132 1,194 1,232 1,295 1,319 1,304 1,267 8 1,052 1,130 1,137 1,069 1,033 1,076 1,031 1,112 1,046 1,018 1,116 1,088 1,136 1,108 1,183 1,213 1,236 1,264 1,312 1,315 9 1,464 1,459 1,379 1,372 1,337 1,257 1,245 1,221 1,273 1,200 1,159 1,275 1,229 1,261 1,257 1,372 1,399 1,351 1,386 1,455 10 1,246 1,260 1,383 1,400 1,367 1,341 1,277 1,238 1,168 1,278 1,229 1,169 1,316 1,248 1,300 1,313 1,410 1,376 1,388 1,416 11 991 1,019 1,153 1,294 1,305 1,304 1,269 1,212 1,177 1,116 1,187 1,169 1,111 1,248 1,188 1,198 1,218 1,174 1,299 1,300 12 841 833 989 1,068 1,176 1,259 1,319 1,251 1,220 1,231 1,186 1,218 1,175 1,104 1,266 1,126 1,113 1,089 1,248 1,251 TOTALS 13,609 13,579 13,960 14,309 14,423 14,566 14,465 14,343 14,208 14,459 14,830 15,130 15,522 15,753 16,308 16,599 16,905 16,190 16,601 17,059 Student Gain/Loss 351 349 114 143 -101 -122 -135 251 371 300 392 231 555 291 306 -715 411 458 Percent Gain/Loss 2.58%2.50%0.80%0.99%-0.69%-0.84%-0.94%1.77%2.57%2.02%2.59%1.49%3.52%1.78%1.84%-4.23%2.54%2.76% Average Student Gain/Loss for Recent 10 years 260 *COVID Pandemic Average Percent Gain/Loss for Recent 10 years 1.69% Auburn School District No. 408 10 Capital Facilities Plan Capital Facilities Plan \ Some of the assumptions made in calculating projections for the 2023-24 school year are: 1. Local birth data is collected and incorporated into forecasting future kindergarten students. Births trended upward from 2019 to 2021. It is estimated that the pattern shown in recent area births will be reflected in future kindergarten classes between 2023-24 to 2026-27. 2. Student retention as they progress through the grades is the most impactful factor when calculating future student populations. Over 50% of the total grade transitions are above 1.0 meaning students continue their education from grade to grade and there is an increased number of students as well. 3. Approximately 69 new single-family detached units are planned to be built within the District in the next ten years. It is estimated that the planned units may generate 37 K-12 students. 4. The number of out-of-District students (students who do not reside within the district boundaries) has been incorporated into the forecasts by calculating their current overall percentage of student enrollment, then applying the ratio to future years, and adding it to the resident forecasts. The data calculated from the factors above indicate an overall increase over the next ten years. Assuming the out-of-district student proportion of the overall enrollment stays at its current level, total K-12 enrollment is forecasted to increase by approximately 9% to about 18,637 students by the 2032-33 school year. Table 2 below shows the District Forecast Summary for the next 5 years. Auburn School District No. 408 11 Capital Facilities Plan \ Table 2: Student Enrollment Projections 2023-2027 GRADE 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 In-District Students KDG 1,388 1,251 1,289 1,339 1,315 1,315 1 1,366 1,453 1,309 1,348 1,402 1,376 2 1,257 1,364 1,450 1,306 1,345 1,398 3 1,220 1,278 1,387 1,475 1,329 1,368 4 1,290 1,228 1,285 1,397 1,485 1,337 5 1,288 1,299 1,238 1,292 1,403 1,491 6 1,236 1,266 1,276 1,218 1,272 1,381 7 1,211 1,245 1,275 1,287 1,225 1,283 8 1,232 1,210 1,242 1,272 1,281 1,220 9 1,320 1,268 1,245 1,277 1,308 1,321 10 1,355 1,335 1,282 1,260 1,293 1,325 11 1,188 1,246 1,229 1,179 1,156 1,190 12 1,135 1,149 1,207 1,189 1,140 1,118 SUBTOTAL 16,486 16,592 16,714 16,839 16,954 17,124 Out-of-District Students K-5 271 274 276 283 288 288 6-8 89 90 92 91 92 94 9-12 498 498 495 489 488 494 SUBTOTAL 858 862 863 863 868 876 TOTAL STUDENTS K-5 8,080 8,147 8,234 8,440 8,567 8,573 6-8 3,768 3,811 3,885 3,868 3,870 3,978 9-12 5,496 5,496 5,458 5,394 5,385 5,448 GRAND TOTAL K-12 17,344 17,454 17,577 17,702 17,822 17,999 Auburn School District No. 408 12 Capital Facilities Plan \ Student Generation Factors Planned residential development data is collected to determine the number of new residential units that may be built in the future. The projected number of units will have the appropriate Student Generation Factor applied to estimate the number of new students that planned residential development might yield. Planned residential development data was obtained through discussions with city agencies, counties, and major developers within the district boundaries. The student population by residence includes all approved and tentative tract maps in addition to any planned or proposed development that possibly will occur within the project timeframe. The planned residential development information and phasing estimates are a snapshot of the District as of this time. The information may change and is updated annually. Closely related to the planned residential development units are Student Generation Factors. When applied to planned residential development units, the Student Generation Factors determine how many additional students may be generated from new construction within the District. Two sets of data are used to calculate Student Generation Factors: current student enrollment and current housing data. This information associates each student with a housing unit. Two general housing categories are analyzed: Single Family and Multi-Family. Data showing the number of students generated from previous single- and multi-family developments generates the Student Generation Factor to be applied to future developments. The tables on the next two pages show the information for both single-and multi-family developments. The components include: ●“Development Name” is a list of developments in various stages of occupancy. ●“Year of Full Occupancy” is important because fully-occupied developments stay on the list for five years contributing to the Student Generation Factor. Once the five years is up, the development is removed from the list. Auburn School District No. 408 13 Capital Facilities Plan \ ●Also included for each development listed is the number of units, the amount of current units occupancy and the remaining units to be occupied. ●“Feeder Pattern” shows the elementary school associated with each development. ●“Actual Students” is the data of actual students generated from the units already occupied. ●“Student Generation Factors” is the calculation of actual students divided by the number of occupied units. ●“Single Family--2023 and beyond” lists the developments that are in process, but have not yet started to occupy units. This definition also applies to future Multi-family units. ●The units for these developments are multiplied by the Student Generation Factor for each to determine the “Estimated Students Based on Student Generation Factors” Below are the Student Generation Factors for 2023. 2023 Single-Family Multi-Family Elementary 0.303 0.440 Middle 0.133 0.150 High 0.151 0.172 Total 0.587 0.762 SINGLE DEVELOPMENT MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Auburn School District No. 408 14 Auburn School District Development Growth Including the Previous 5 Years March 2023 (Based on Current Year Enrollment) SINGLE FAMILY Development Name Year of Full Occupancy Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Feeder Elementary Actual Students Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Anthem 2018 13 13 0 Ilalko 9 2 2 13 0.692 0.154 0.154 1.000 Bridges 2021 380 380 0 Aurthur Jacobsen 106 40 47 193 0.279 0.105 0.124 0.508 Canyon Creek 2018 151 151 0 Evergreen Hts. 32 16 15 63 0.212 0.106 0.099 0.417 Dulcinea 2018 6 6 0 Lea Hill 6 1 2 9 1.000 0.167 0.333 1.500 Forest Glen at Lakland 2021 30 30 0 Gildo Rey 8 4 1 13 0.267 0.133 0.033 0.433 Greenvale 17 12 5 Hazelwood 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greenview Estates (Knudson)17 6 11 Arthur Jacobsen 1 1 0 2 0.167 0.167 0.000 0.333 Hastings 2020 10 10 0 Evergreen Hts. 4 1 2 7 0.400 0.100 0.200 0.700 Hazel View 2018 22 22 0 Lea Hill 9 4 4 17 0.409 0.182 0.182 0.773 Lakeland: Pinnacle Estates 2018 99 99 0 Bowman Creek 41 28 24 93 0.414 0.283 0.242 0.939 Lozier Ranch 18 7 11 Chinook 1 0 0 1 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.143 Mountain View 2018 55 55 0 Evergreen Hts. 14 4 8 26 0.255 0.073 0.145 0.473 Palisades (Omni Homes)16 14 2 Alpac 3 2 5 10 0.214 0.143 0.357 0.714 River Rock 14 6 8 Aurthur Jacobsen 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Seremounte 2019 30 30 0 Aurthur Jacobsen 23 11 17 51 0.767 0.367 0.567 1.700 Vasiliy 2021 8 8 0 Terminal Park 2 0 0 2 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 Willow Place 2021 11 11 0 Lea Hill 2 0 3 5 0.182 0.000 0.273 0.455 Totals 897 860 37 261 114 130 505 0.303 0.133 0.151 0.587 SINGLE FAMILY--2023 and Beyond Development Name Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total Allens Acres 20-Lot Prelim Plat 20 0 20 6 3 3 12 Ashton Park 20-Lot Prelim Plat 20 0 20 6 3 3 12 Canyon Ridge Estates 26 0 26 8 3 4 15 Carbon Trails 44 0 44 13 6 7 26 River Glen 12-Lot Plat 12 0 12 4 2 2 7 Robbins Prelim Plat 31-Lot SFR Lots 31 0 31 9 4 5 18 Summit at Kendall Ridge Plat 17 0 17 5 2 3 10 The Alicias 56-Lot Plat 56 0 56 17 7 8 33 "To Be Occcupied" above 37 0 37 11 5 6 22 243 243 Totals 66 29 33 127 Auburn School District No. 408 1414 15 Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District Development Growth Including the Previous 5 Years March 2023 (Based on Current Year Enrollment) MULTI FAMILY Development Name Year of Full Occupancy Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Feeder Elementary Actual Students Student Generation Factors Elem Middle HS Total Elem Middle HS Total Promenade Apts 2018 294 294 0 Lea Hill 205 100 104 409 0.697 0.340 0.354 1.391 The Villas at Auburn 2018 295 295 0 Washington 59 14 27 100 0.200 0.047 0.092 0.339 Copper Gate Apartments 2021 500 500 0 Evergreen Hts. 308 81 94 483 0.616 0.162 0.188 0.966 The Verge Auburn 2022 226 226 0 Terminal Park 7 2 1 10 0.031 0.009 0.004 0.044 Totals 1315 1315 0 579 197 226 1002 0.440)0.150)0.172)0.762) MULTI FAMILY -- 2023 and beyond Units/ Parcels Current Occupancy To Be Occupied Estimated Students Based on Student Generation Factors Lexi 1 190 0 190 84 28 33 145 "To be Occupied" above 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 190 84 28 33 145 Auburn School District No. 408 16 Capital Facilities Plan Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION III - STANDARD OF SERVICE The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, the City of Auburn, City of Black Diamond and the City of Kent indicate that each school district must establish a “Standard of Service” in order to ascertain the overall capacity to house its projected student population. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage “capacity” guidelines for computing state funding support. The fundamental purpose of the OSPI guidelines is to provide a vehicle to equitably distribute state matching funds for school construction projects. By default these guidelines have been used to benchmark the district’s capacity to house its student population. The OSPI guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations, emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student’s educational program. The Auburn School District Standard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in excess of the OSPI guidelines. The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation pattern. Conditions that may result in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without accompanying computations. OVERVIEW As reflected in enrollment numbers for the 2022-23 school year, the Auburn School District operates 16 elementary schools housing 8,280 students in grades K through 5 including Early Childhood Education program. The four middle schools house 3,731 students in grades 6 through 8. The District operates three comprehensive senior high schools and one alternate high school, housing 5,285 students in grades 9 through 12. (Source: October 1, 2022 Enrollment) Auburn School District No. 408 17 Capital Facilities Plan CLASS SIZE The number of students per classroom determines the number of classrooms required to house the student population. Specialists create additional space Auburn School District No. 408 18 needs. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining agreements. Changes to class size agreements can have significant impact on available space. The current student/teacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 20.33 students per teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 20.33 students per room at grades K - 5. At grades 6 - 8 the limit is set at 28.02 students per room. At grades 9 - 12 the limit is set at 28.74 students per room. The OSPI space allocation for each grade articulation level, less the computed reduction for the Auburn School District Standard of Service, determines the District’s capacity to house projected student populations. These reductions are shown in the following documents by grade articulation level. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STANDARD OF SERVICE MIDDLE SCHOOL STANDARD OF SERVICE HIGH SCHOOL STANDARD OF SERVICE STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARNING FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a structured learning program for students with moderate to severe disabilities at the elementary school level which currently uses 19 classrooms to provide for 151 students. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. No loss of capacity is expected unless population with disabilities grows at a disproportionate rate compared to total elementary population. PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates an adaptive behavior program for students with behavior disabilities at the elementary school level. The program uses two classrooms to provide for 10 students. The housing requirements for this program exceed the OSPI space allocations. (Two classrooms @ 20.33 - 8 = 12.33) Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 12.33 each =(25) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 12.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(25) SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disabilities. Twenty-one standard classrooms are required to house this program. Continued loss of capacity is expected as growth in program is larger than the total elementary population. Loss of Permanent Capacity 17 (20-3) rooms @ 20.33 each =(346) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(346) STUDENT TEACHER ENRICHMENT PROGRAM (STEP) The Auburn School District operates an elementary program for highly capable and high achieving students at Grade 4 and Grade 5. This program is housed in two classrooms at Terminal Park Elementary School and two classrooms at Willow Crest Elementary School. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms @ 20.33 each =(81) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @20.33 each =0 Total Capacity Loss =(81) EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a pre-school program for young children below age five with disabilities. This program is housed at fifteen different elementary schools and currently uses 15 standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 20.33 each =(305) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(305) READING LABS The Auburn School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if available in each elementary school. Five elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms available, thus they are housed in a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 20.33 each =(102) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(102) Auburn School District No. 408 19 MUSIC ROOMS The Auburn School District elementary music programs require one acoustically-modified classroom at each school for music instruction. The housing requirements are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 20.33 each =(305) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(305) MULTI-LINGUAL LEARNER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates pullout programs at the elementary school level for multi-lingual learner students. This program requires 33 standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 33 rooms @ 20.33 each =(671) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(671) SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for eight highly-impacted elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade level and do not receive other services. This program requires eight standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 20.33 each =(163) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(163) ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM The Auburn School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for first and second graders. This program model was originally created from the I-728 funds and currently has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into designated classrooms. The district is utilizing classrooms at all fifteen elementary schools. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 20.33 each =(305) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(305) EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (ECEAP) The Auburn School District operates an ECEAP program for 246 pre-school aged children in twelve sections of half-day length and one full-day program. The program is housed at seven elementary schools and utilizes ten standard elementary classrooms and one additional classroom space and seven auxiliary office spaces. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 20.33 each =(203) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 20.33 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss =(203) Auburn School District No. 408 20 MIDDLE SCHOOLS SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the middle school level. This is to accommodate special education students needing remedial instruction to address their specific disabilities. Eleven classrooms are required at the middle school level to provide for approximately 330 students. The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior disabilities. The program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses two classrooms. One of the two classrooms for this program are provided for in the OSPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 rooms @ 28.02 each =(28) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (28) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates seven structured learning classrooms at the middle school level for students with moderate to severe disabilities. Two of the seven classrooms for this program are provided for in the OSPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 rooms @ 28.02 each =(140) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (140) MULTI-LINGUAL LEARNER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for multi-lingual learner students. This program requires 12 standard classrooms that are not provide for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 rooms @ 28.02 each =(336) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (336) ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive middle school program that includes elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 28.02 each =(224) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.02 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (224) Auburn School District No. 408 21 HIGH SCHOOLS NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Auburn School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the high school level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity 1 room @ 28.74 each =(29) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (29) MULTI-LINGUAL LEARNER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at three comprehensive high schools for multi- lingual learner students. This program requires 15 standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms @ 28.74 each =(431) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (431) PATHWAYS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District offers a self-contained program for students with moderate to severe behavior diabilities. The program is housed at one of the high schools and uses two classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the OSPI space allocations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 2 rooms @ 28.74 each =(57) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (57) STRUCTURED LEARNING CENTER PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates twelve structured learning center classrooms for students with moderate to severe disabilities. This program is housed at three high schools requiring standard classrooms that are not provided for in the OSPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 rooms @ 28.74 each =(345) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (345) SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific learning disabilities. The current high school program requires 15 classrooms to provide program to meet educational needs of the students. The OSPI space guidelines provide for one of the 15 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 rooms @ 28.74 each =(402) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (402) PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center. The OSPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was not intended for, nor is it usable for, classroom instruction. It was constructed to provide a community center for the performing arts. Using OSPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feet computes to 208 unhoused students or 7.25 classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 7.25 rooms @ 28.74 each =(208) ROOM UTILIZATION The Auburn School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. There are 185 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 10 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 10 rooms @ 28.74 each =(287) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 28.74 each =(0) Total Capacity Loss (287) Auburn School District No. 408 22 STANDARD OF SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY Loss of Permanent Capacity (2,505) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (2,505) MIDDLE SCHOOL Loss of Permanent Capacity (729) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (729) SENIOR HIGH Loss of Permanent Capacity (1,760) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (1,760) TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity (4,994) Loss of Temporary Capacity (0) Total Capacity Loss (4,994) Auburn School District No. 408 23 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION IV - INVENTORY OF FACILITIES Table IV.1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their OSPI-rated capacities. Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each portable by school. The district uses portable facilities to: 1. provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting, 2. make space available for changing program requirements and offerings determined by unique students needs, and 3. provide housing to cover district needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. Portable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place undesirable stress on existing physical plants. Core facilities (i.e. gymnasiums, restrooms, kitchens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased school population served by adding portable classrooms. TABLE IV.1 PERMANENT FACILITIES INVENTORY TABLE IV.2 PORTABLE FACILITIES INVENTORY DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES MAP Auburn School District No. 408 24 TABLE IV.1 PERMANENT FACILITY INVENTORY BUILDING CAPACITY ACRES ADDRESS Elementary Schools Alpac Elementary 503 10.68 310 Milwaukee bopulevard North, Pacific, WA 98047 Arthur Jacobsen Elementary 618 10.02 29205 132nd Street SE, Auburn, WA 98092 Bowman Creek Elementary 812 22.03 5701 Kersey Way SE, Auburn, WA 98092 Chinook Elementary 806 12.37 3502 Auburn Way South, Auburn, WA 98092 Dick Scobee Elementary 804 8.90 1031 104th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002 Evergreen Heights Elementary 451 10.10 5602 South 316th, Auburn, WA 98001 Gildo Rey Elementary 516 10.05 1005 37th Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Hazelwood Elementary 580 13.08 11815 Southeast 304th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 Ilalko Elementary 578 14.23 301 Oravetz Place Sourtheast, Auburn, WA 98092 Lake View Elementary 566 16.48 16401 Southeast 318th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 Lakeland Hills Elementary 580 12.00 1020 Evergreen Way SE, Auburn, WA, 98092 Lea Hill Elementary 798 20.24 30908 124th Avenue SE, Auburn, WA 98092 Pioneer Elementary 816 11.50 2301 M Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 *Terminal Park Elementary on K Street 393 17.40 1825 K Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Washington Elementary 501 5.33 20 E Street Northeast, Auburn, WA 98002 Willow Crest Elementary 812 10.60 13002 SE 304th Street, Auburn, WA 98092 ELEMENTARY CAPACITY 10,134 *Terminal Park Elementary is being rebuilt students being housed at interim site for the 2022-23 school year. Reopens in September 2023. Middle Schools Cascade Middle School 823 16.94 1015 24th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002 Mt. Baker Middle School 829 30 620 37th Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Olympic Middle School 989 17.45 839 21st Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 Rainier Middle School 830 25.54 30620 116th Ave SE, Auburn, WA 98092 MIDDLE SCHOOL CAPACITY 3,471 High Schools Auburn High School 2,137 23.74 711 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 Auburn Riverside High School 1,384 35.32 501 Oravetz Road, Auburn, WA 98092 Auburn Mountainview High School 1,437 39.42 28900 124th Ave SE, Auburn, WA 98092 West Auburn High School 233 5.26 401 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY 5,191 TOTAL CAPACITY 18,796 Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 25 INVENTORY OF FACILITIES TABLE IV. 2 PORTABLE FACILITES INVENTORY Elementary Schools 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Middle Schools Alpac 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Arthur Jacobsen 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bowman Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dick Scobee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Evergreen Heights 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Gildo Rey 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Hazelwood 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ilalko 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 Lake View 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lakeland Hills 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lea Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pioneer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terminal Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Washington 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Willow Crest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cascade 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 Mt. Baker 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Olympic 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Rainier 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Auburn High School 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 Auburn High School - *TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Auburn Mountainview 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 Auburn Riverside 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 West Auburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL UNITS 43 31 31 31 31 31 31 TOTAL CAPACITY 874 630 630 630 630 630 630 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 TOTAL UNITS 35 39 39 39 39 39 39 TOTAL CAPACITY 981 1,093 1,093 1,093 1,093 1,093 1,093 High Schools 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 TOTAL UNITS 30 39 39 39 39 39 39 TOTAL CAPACITY 862 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121 COMBINED TOTAL UNITS 108 109 109 109 109 109 109 COMBINED TOTAL CAPACITY 2,717 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 *TAP - Transition Assistance Program for 18-21 year old students with special needs. Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 26 nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmknmAdministration BuildingAlpac ESArthur Jacobsen ESAuburn HSAuburn Mountainview HSAuburn Riverside HSBowman Creek ESChinook ESDick Scobee ESWillow Crest ESEvergreen Heights ESGildo Rey ESCascade MSIlalko ESLake View ESLakeland Hills ESLea Hill ESMt Baker MSOlympic MSPioneer ESRainier MSTerminal Park ESWashington ESWest Auburn HSS T AT E R O U T E 1 6 7AUBURN WAY NAUBURN WAY SA U B U R N -E N U M C LA W R D S E SR 167SR 167SR 18SR 18Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User CommunityAUrban Growth BoundarySSEnmnmnmnmHazelwood ES Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION V - STUDENT CAPACITY While the Auburn School District uses the OSPI inventory of permanent facilities as the data from which to determine space needs, the District’s educational program requires more space than that provided for under the formula. This additional square footage is converted to numbers of students in Section III, Standard of Service. The District’s capacity is adjusted to reflect the need for additional space to house its programs. Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new funded facilities. The combined effect of these adjustments is shown on Line B in Tables V.1 and V.2. Table V.1 shows the District’s capacity with portable units included and Table V.2 without these units. Table V.1 Capacity with Portables Table V.2 Capacity without Portables Auburn School District No. 408 28 Table V.1 Student Capacity with Portables 2022.23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 A. OSPI Capacity 18,796 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 A.1 OSPI Capacity - New Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.2 OSPI Capacity - Replacements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.3 OSPI Capacity - New Middle School 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 B. Capacity Adjustments B1. Portables 2,717 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 2,844 B2. Exclude Standard of Service (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) C. Net Capacity 16,519 17,074 17,074 17,074 17,874 17,074 17,074 D. ASD Enrollment 17,059 17,344 17,454 17,577 17,702 17,822 18,000 E. ASD Surplus/Deficit -540 -270 -380 -503 172 -748 -926 Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 29 Table V.2 Student Capacity without Portables 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 A. OSPI Capacity 18,796 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 19,224 A.1 OSPI Capacity - New Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.2 OSPI Capacity - Replacements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A.3 OSPI Capacity - New Middle School 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 B. Capacity Adjustments B1. Exclude Standard of Service (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) (4,994) C. Net Capacity 13,802 14,230 14,230 14,230 15,030 14,230 14,230 D. ASD Enrollment 17,059 17,344 17,454 17,577 17,702 17,822 18,000 E. ASD Surplus/Deficit -3,257 -3,114 -3,224 -3,347 -2,672 -3,592 -3,770 Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 30 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION VI - CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN The formal process used by the Auburn School Board to address current and future facility needs began almost 50 years ago in 1974. The process includes a formation of a community-wide citizen’s committee and throughout the years, these Ad Hoc Committees have conducted work and made recommendations for improvements to the District’s programs and facilities. In October of 2008, after two years of review and study, a Steering Committee made recommendations to the Board regarding the capital improvements program to modernize or replace facilities as recommended by the 2004-05 Citizen’s Ad Hoc Committee. These recommendations, based on specific criteria, led to the Board placing a school improvement bond and capital improvements levy on the ballot in March 2009. Voters did not approve either measure that would have updated 24 facilities and replaced three aging schools. The Board decided to place only a six-year Capital Levy on the ballot in November of 2009, which passed at 55.17%. The levy funded $46.4 million of needed improvement projects at 24 sites over the following seven school years. Planning for the replacement of aging schools was started with educational specifications and schematic design process for the replacement of Auburn High School. The District acquired a site for a future high school in 2008 and a second site for a future middle school in 2009. The District also continued efforts to acquire property around Auburn High School. The Special Education Transitional Assistance Program (TAP) opened in February of 2010. This facility is designed for students with disabilities that are 18 to 21 years old. In the November 2012 election, the community supported the $110 million bond issue for the Auburn High School Modernization and Reconstruction Project at 62%. Construction began in February 2013. The entire new building was occupied by Auburn High School students and staff in the fall of 2015, with site improvements being completed during the 2015-16 school year. In January 2015, a citizen’s ad hoc committee was convened by direction of the Board to address growth and facilities. The major recommendations were to construct two new elementary schools in the next four years and to acquire 3 new elementary school sites as soon as possible. Auburn School District No. 408 31 Capital Facilities Plan \ In the November 2016 election, the community supported the $456 million bond issue for the replacement of six schools and the construction of two new elementary schools at 62.83%. Construction for the replacement of Olympic Middle School began in May 2018 and was completed in Fall 2019. Construction for Bowman Creek Elementary School began in May 2019 and was completed in Fall 2020. Construction for the replacement of Dick Scobee Elementary School began in June 2019 and was completed in Fall 2020. Construction for Willow Crest Elementary School and replacement of Pioneer Elementary School began in May 2020 and was completed in Fall 2021. Construction for replacement of Chinook and Lea HIll Elementary Schools began in June 2021 and was completed in Fall of 2022. Construction for replacement of Terminal Park Elementary School began in June 2022 and will be completed in Fall of 2023. The District anticipates running a Capital Bond Measure in 2024. Funds will be used to construct a new middle school on property currently owned by the District, and may include funds to replace one or more existing schools. The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population. 2023-29 Capital Construction Plan (May 2023) Project Funded Projected Cost Fund Source 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 Portable Relocation1 Yes $2,400,000 Impact Fees ✔ Middle School #5 1 Yes $112,000,000 Bond ✔ plan ✔ plan ✔ const ✔ const ✔ open 1 Funds may be secured through a combination of a bond issue, impact fees, and/or state matching funds Auburn School District No. 408 32 Capital Facilities Plan \ SECTION VII - IMPACT FEES IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (SPRING 2023) TABLES VII.1-VII.4 TABLES VII.5 & VII.6 IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Auburn School District No. 408 33 IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2023) Table VII.1 SITE COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre)/Facility Capacity)) x Student Factor Site Cost per Facility Student Generation Factor Cost per Cost per Acreage Acre Capacity Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elementary (K - 5)15 650 0.3030 0.4400 Middle (6 - 8)25 $0)800 0.1330 0.1500 $0)$0) High (9 - 12)40 $0)1500 0.1510 0.1720 $0)$0) $0) $0) Table VII.2 PERMANENT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Student Capacity) x Student Factor)) x (Permanent-to-Total Square Footage Percentage) Facility Student % Perm Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost per Cost per Cost Capacity Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elementary (K - 5)$0)650 0.9529 0.3030 0.4400 $0 $0 Middle (6 - 8)$143,000,000)800 0.9529 0.1330 0.1500 $22,654 $25,550 High (9 - 12)$0)1500 0.9529 0.1510 0.1720 $0 $0 $22,654 $25,550 Table VII.3 PORTABLES CONSTRUCTION COST PER RESIDENCE Formula: ((Facility Cost/Student Capacity) x Student Factor)) x (Portable-to-Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Student % Port Sq Ft/ Student Generation Factor Cost per Cost per Cost Capacity Total Sq Ft Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elementary (K - 5)$250,000)20.33 0.0471 0.3030 0.4400 $175)$255) Middle (6 - 8)$250,000)28.02 0.0471 0.1330 0.1500 $56)$63) High (9 - 12)$250,000)28.74 0.0471 0.1510 0.1720 $62)$70) $293)$388) Table VII.4 STATE MATCH CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: (Boeckh Index x SPI Footage x District Match x Student Factor) Boeckh OSPI State Student Generation Factor Cost per Cost per Index Footage Match Single Family Multi Family Single Family Multi Family Elementary (K - 5)90 64.58% 0.3030 0.4400 $0)$0) Middle (6 - 8)$246.83)108 64.58% 0.1330 0.1500 $2,290)$2,582) High (9 - 12)130 64.58% 0.1510 0.1720 $0)$0) $2,290)$2,582) V. TAX CREDIT PER RESIDENCE Formula: Expressed as the present value of an annuity Tax Credit = Present Value (interest rate, discount period, average assessed value x tax rate) Average Residential Assessed Value Current Debt Service Tax Rate Bond Buyer Index Annual Interest Rate Number of Years Tax Credit Single Family $573,704)$1.84)3.58%10 $8,744) Multi Family $270,892 $1.84)3.58%10 $4,129) VI. DEVELOPER PROVIDED FACILITY CREDIT Formula: (Value of Site or Facility/Number of dwelling units) Value No. of Units Facility Credit Single Family $0.00)1 $0.00) Multi Family $0.00)1 $0.00) Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 34 $0)$0)$0) Site Cost Projections Recent Property Acquisitions Acreage Purchase Year Purchase Price Purchase Cost per Acre Adjusted Present Day Projected Annual Inflation Factor Elementary #16 Parcel 1 1.26 2019 $480,000 $380,952 $508,200 2019 2020 2021 2022 $2,023 Elementary #16 Parcel 2 8.19 2019 $2,959,561 $361,363 $482,066 10%5%10%10%5% Elementary #16 Parcel 3 0.80 2018 $460,000 $575,000 $843,771 Totals 10.25 Average Cost per Acre $513,509 IMPACT FEE COMPUTATION (Spring 2023) FEE RECAP SUMMARY Single Multiple Family Family Site Costs $0.00)$0.00) Permanent Facility Construction Costs $22,654.41)$25,550.09) Portable Facility Costs $293.14)$388.21) State Match Credit ($2,289.66) ($2,582.34) Tax Credit ($8,743.84)($4,128.67) FEE (No Discount)$11,914.04)$19,227.29) FEE (50% Discount)$5,957.02)$9,613.64) Less ASD Discount $0.00)$0.00) Facility Credit $0.00)$0.00) Net Fee Obligation $5,957.02)$9,913.64) Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 35 SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMILY IMPACT FEE ELEMENTS Elementary Middle High Elementary Middle High K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 K - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 0.303 0.133 0.151 0.440 0.150 0.172 650 800 1500 650 800 1500 $143,000,000)$143,000,000) 20.33 28.02 28.74 20.33 28.02 28.74 $250,000)$250,000)$250,000)$250,000)$250,000)$250,000) 15 25 40 15 25 40 $2,023 $2,023 $2,023 $2,023 $2,023 $2,023 958,340 378,631 677,976 958,340 378,631 677,976 38,292 30,912 28,561 38,292 30,912 28,561 996,632 409,543 706,537 996,632 409,543 706,537 96.16%92.45%95.96%96.16%92.45%96.16% 3.84%7.55%4.04%3.84%7.55%4.04% 90 108 130 90 108 130 $246.83)$246.83)$246.83)$246.83)$246.83)$246.83) 64.58% 64.58% 64.58% 64.58% 64.58% 64.58% 35.42% 35.42% 35.42% 35.42% 35.42% 35.42% $573,704)$573,704)$573,704)$222,095)$222,095)$222,095) 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 Student Generation Factor New Facility Capacity New Facility Cost - Middle School Cost Estimate May 2023 Classroom Capacity - Grades K - 5 @ 20.33, 6 - 8 @ 28.02, & 9 - 12 @ 28.74 Portable Costs - including site work, set up, and furnishing Site Acreage - ASD Standard or SPI Minimum Site Cost per Acre - table above Permanent Square Footage - 16 Elementary, 4 Middle, and 4 High Schools Portable Facility Square Footage - 24 x 864 SF + 83 x 896 SF + TAP 2661 Total Square Footage - Permanent + Portable Percent of Total - Permanent Facilities Percent of Total - PortableFacilities OSPI Square Footage Per Student - WAC 392-343-035 Boeckh Index - July 2022 (2023 Amount Pending Legislature Budget Adoption) OSPI State Match Percent - 2022 District Match Percent - May 2023 (computed) District Average Assessed Value - King County May 2023 Debt Service Tax Rate - Current Fiscal Year General Obligation Bonds Interest Rate - Bond Buyer 20 Index Current Fiscal Year 3.58%3.58% 3.58% 3.58% 3.58% 3.58% Capital Facilities Plan Auburn School District No. 408 36 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 1 of 25 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for lead agencies Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in “Part B: Environmental Elements” that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 2 of 25 A. Background Find help answering background questions 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of the Auburn School District's (the “District”) 2023 Capital Facilities Plan ("CFP") for the purposes of planning for the District's educational facilities needs. Adoption of the CFP is a nonproject proposal. The District prepares annual updates to the CFP in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act, and the codes of King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The CFP is a nonproject planning document, covers a six-year planning period, and includes: · Future enrollment forecasts for each grade span (elementary, middle and high school). · An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the locations and capacities of those facilities · A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and the proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. · A six-year plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding capacities which identifies sources of public money for such purposes. · A calculation of school impact fees to be assessed pursuant to RCW 82.02 The District prepares the CFP primarily as a basis for seeking, where eligible, school impact fees to help address school capacity impacts related to residential growth. The District’s Board of Directors will review and consider approval and adoption of the 2023 CFP. If approved and adopted, the District will send the CFP to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into their respective Comprehensive Plans. A copy of the District's draft Capital Facilities Plan is available for review in the District's office. 2. Name of applicant: Auburn School District No. 408 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 915 4th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 Bob Kenworthy, Assistant Director, Capital Projects (253) 931-4826 4. Date checklist prepared: May 19, 2023 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 3 of 25 5. Agency requesting checklist: Auburn School District No. 408, acting as the lead agency for environmental review and SEPA compliance for this nonproject proposal. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The District’s 2023 CFP is scheduled to be considered for adoption by the District School Board on or about June 12, 2023. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2023 CFP, it will be sent to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into the Capital Facilities Element of their respective Comprehensive Plans. The potential projects referenced in the CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a nonproject planning action and addresses educational planning for the entirety of the Auburn School District. The 2023 CFP includes required six-year enrollment projections and related school capacities to determine whether additional school capacity may be needed to accommodate enrollment growth from new development. During the six-year planning period, the District plans to construct a new middle school to address student capacity needs. Portables may also be added at existing school sites within the next six years. The District will complete construction of a replacement Terminal Park Elementary School by the fall of 2023. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. All potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed and require threshold determinations will undergo environmental review at the time of formal proposal and process when full details of the projects are known and able to be analyzed. The following environmental information relates to recently completed projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan for which environmental review is complete: A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for Terminal Elementary School Replacement Project on November 24, 2021, with the Environmental Checklist for that proposal referencing additional environmental information therein. Information included in this environmental checklist is from the Capital Facilities Plan 2023, which is incorporated into this review. 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. This is a nonproject action and addresses educational planning for the entirety of the Auburn School District. There are no known applications covering the entire District or any of the sites for which a specific development project is identified. The District is planning to acquire SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 4 of 25 additional property for a future Elementary School project but is unaware at the present time of the specific location. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. As a non-project planning document, the 2023 CFP itself does not require permitting. The District anticipates that, following any Board approval and adoption of the CFP, its jurisdictions will consider incorporation of the 2023 CFP by reference in the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan to inform student enrollment capacity planning related to existing and planned residential development. Any specific projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed for action, will be subject to project-level permitting and 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 do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non-project planning document, addresses educational planning for the entirety of the Auburn School District, and involves the adoption of a six-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) by the Auburn School District to comply with the Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070) and the codes of King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The purpose of the CFP is to provide these jurisdictions with a description of enrollment projections and school capacities over the required six-year planning period 2023-2028 to determine whether future school capacity/facilities may be needed to accommodate student enrollment growth as a result of new residential development. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2023 CFP, it will be sent to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into the Capital Facilities Element of their respective Comprehensive Plan. Potential projects referenced in the CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review at the time of formal proposal and process when full details of the projects are known and able to be analyzed. The District updates the Capital Facilities Plan on an annual basis and carefully monitors enrollment projections against capacity needs. If legally supportable, the District requests its local jurisdictions to collect impact fees on behalf of the District to provide for growth-related student capacity needs, with the CFP providing a basis for such collection. The impact fees requested in this year’s Capital Facilities Plan are based on the growth related middle school construction project. A copy of the 2023 CFP is available for review upon request to the District. 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 5 of 25 The 2023 CFP applies to educational planning within the Auburn School District boundaries. The District boundaries include an area of approximately 62 square miles. Portions of unincorporated King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific fall within the District’s boundaries. The District’s CFP contains a map of the District’s boundaries. A detailed map of the District’s boundaries can be viewed at the District’s offices. B. Environmental Elements Applicant/Agency Added Note: The Proposal is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. WAC 197-11- 960 provides, in part, that “For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). The lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.” In order to provide as much information as possible about the proposal, the District has completed Part B even though it is not required. See Part D, Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1. Earth Find help answering earth questions a. General description of the site: Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: This is a non-project action. The geographic area comprising the Auburn School District includes a variety of topographic land forms and gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP are located will be identified during project-level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? There are a variety of slopes with differing level of steepness on properties located throughout the geographic area of the District. Any projects referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action would include an evaluation of project/site-specific slopes during project review. 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. There are a variety of soil types on properties located throughout the geographic area of the District. Any projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed for action, would include an evaluation of project/site- specific soils during project review. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the geographic area comprising the District. Specific soil limitations on SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 6 of 25 individual sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may include filing, excavation, and grading. Details of any such actions will be assessed and identified during project-level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The proposal as a nonproject planning action does not include filling, excavation, or grading components. nor approve of any project for that purpose Individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will assess this component during project-level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The proposal as a nonproject planning action does not include clearing, construction, or specific use in itself (nor does it approve any such use). It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction of projects referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action. The erosion impacts of the individual projects will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposal as a nonproject planning action doesn’t include plans for impervious surface nor approve of any project for that purpose. Individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, will be on sites with impervious surface coverage anticipated, the details of which will be assessed during project- level environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. This is a non-project action. The erosion potential of any project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action, as well as any appropriate control measures, will be addressed during project- specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project specifics are known and able to be analyzed. Individual projects will be subject to all local approval processes. Without limitation, relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. 2. Air Find help answering air questions a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The proposal as a nonproject planning action doesn’t in itself include the potential for emissions nor approve of any project for that purpose. Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for action. The air-quality impacts of each potential project will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review at the SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 7 of 25 appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Non-Project Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action. Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. This is a non-project action. The individual potential projects in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed and will be subject to local approval processes. Proposed measures will be identified at that time. The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. 3. Water Find help answering water questions a. Surface Water: Find help answering surface water questions 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal includes the entire geographic area of the Auburn School District, and there is a network of surface water bodies in the geographic area comprising District. The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects. 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. This is a non-project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may require work near the surface waters located within the District and analysis of such will be included during project- specific environmental review during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Applicable local and/or state approval requirements will be satisfied. 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in fill or dredging activities nor approve of any project for that purpose. Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a component of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be provided during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 8 of 25 formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a non-project action. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal includes the entire geographic area of the Auburn School District, and the geographic area comprising the District includes 100-year floodplain areas. Review of potential projects within a 100-year floodplain referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in discharge of waste materials to surface waters nor approve of any project for that purpose. Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be provided during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Ground Water: Find help answering ground water questions 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a non-project action. Individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, may impact groundwater resources. Those impacts will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local and/or state regulations. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in discharge of waste materials into the ground nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. The discharge of waste material that may take place in connection with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 9 of 25 c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): a) 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. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in runoff nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. Individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may have stormwater runoff consequences. Specific information regarding the stormwater impacts of each project will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local and/or state stormwater regulations. b) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each potential project on ground and surface waters will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. c) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. This is a non-project action and will not in itself alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. The specific impacts of any project referenced in the CFP on drainage patterns will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any. Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to regulations related to altering or diverting drainage patterns. 4. Plants Find help answering plants questions a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ☐ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ☐ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ☐ shrubs ☐ grass ☐ pasture ☐ crop or grain ☐ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 10 of 25 ☐ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ☐ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ☐ other types of vegetation This is a non-project planning document and includes educational planning for the Auburn School District. A variety of vegetative zones are located within the District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be developed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This is a non-project action and will not in itself alter or remove vegetation nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. Some of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects referenced in the CFP will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include threatened and endangered species. An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be developed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Investigation will include use of the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Specifies on the Web database. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. This is a non-project action. Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. This is a non-project action and does not involve a specific site (or a specific project). Noxious weeds and invasive species observed on or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 5. Animals Find help answering animal questions a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 11 of 25 Examples include: · Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: · Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: · Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: This is a non-project planning document and includes educational planning for the Auburn School District. An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be developed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include threatened and endangered species. Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be developed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Investigation will include use of the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Priority Habitats and Specifies on the Web database. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include migration routes. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP on migration routes will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. This is a non-project action. Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife will be determined during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District and is not specific to a project on any particular site. The geographic area comprising the District may include invasive animal species. Invasive animal species observed on or near the sites of potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions 1. 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. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 12 of 25 This is a non-project action and will not in itself use energy nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project referenced therein. The State’s Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction requires the completion of a life-cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed. The energy needs of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning at the appropriate time when project details are known. 2. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action and will not in itself affect use of solar energy on adjacent properties nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP on the solar potential of adjacent properties will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. 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. This is a non-project action. Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be considered during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 7. Environmental Health Find help with answering environmental health questions a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. This is a non-project planning document and includes educational planning for the Auburn School District. Individual projects identified in the CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local and/or state approval at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. At that time, environmental health hazards, if any, would be identified and addressed. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District may include areas of known or possible contamination from present or past uses. Individual projects identified in the CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local and/or state approval at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. At that time, known or possible contamination, if any, would be identified and addressed. . 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 13 of 25 This is a non-project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will comply with all current codes, standards, rules and regulations. Individual projects will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local and/or state approval at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. As a nonproject planning action, the proposal itself will not result in storage, use, or production of toxic or hazardous chemicals nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. Toxic and hazardous chemicals that may be stored or produced by the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Such projects will comply with all current codes, standards, rules and regulations related to hazardous materials. 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. This is a non-project action. The need for special emergency services for the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Educational facilities in themselves may require special emergency services and any such services would be identified at project-level environmental review of individual projects identified in the CFP when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. While this nonproject planning action does not itself identify environmental health hazards, individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be subject to project-specific environmental review impacts for related environmental health hazards at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District contains a variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial and industrial uses. The specific noise sources that may affect the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 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)? This is a non-project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP may create typical construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis. The projects could increase construction-related SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 14 of 25 traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Because the projects will increase the capacity of the District’s school facilities, the projects may increase traffic-related or operations-related noise on a longer-term basis once the new facilities are constructed and opened. Specifics of noise level changes will be evaluated during project-specific review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. The projected noise impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be evaluated and mitigated during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Each project will be subject to applicable local and/or state regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use Find help answering land and shoreline use questions a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District includes a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts from potential projects referenced within the CFP to nearby or adjacent properties will be evaluated as part of the project- specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? This is a non-project action and not specific to a particular site. Identification of the use of sites intended for any potential projects referenced in the CFP as working farmlands or working forest land will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Potential projects referenced within the 2023 CFP do not involve sites used for working farmlands or working forest lands. 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? This is a non-project action and will not itself affect or be affected by working farms/forestland, nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project for that purpose. Any possible affects to surrounding farms or forest lands will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review for any project referenced in the CFP, if proposed, at the appropriate during when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. Describe any structures on the site. This is a non-project action and not specific to a site. Any structures located on the proposed sites of the SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 15 of 25 potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? This is a non-project action. Any structures that will be demolished as a result of any project referenced in the CFP, if proposed, has been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site, and the CFP proposed here will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use . There are a variety of zoning classifications throughout the District. Projects referenced in the 2023 Capital Facilities Plan are zoned under applicable zoning codes and identification of the potential projects or sites does not in itself direct land uses or serve as a basis for project-specific approvals. Rather, site-specific zoning information and requirements for projects that may be proposed for project activity in the 2023 CFP will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. To the extent any of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP are proposed for sites not currently zoned for the intended educational purpose or to the extent a site within the District’s inventory is proposed in the future for a project not currently permitted within the zoning district, the local jurisdiction with zoning authority would need to evaluate and process any necessary zoning changes and conduct all required public notice and environmental review. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site, and the CFP proposed here will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. District boundaries span multiple jurisdictions and the District owns facilities or properties in the unincorporated areas of King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific. The sites for the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for project activity are located among these jurisdictions and subject to the respective codes and comprehensive plans. To the extent any of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP are proposed for sites not currently designated in the relevant comprehensive plan for the intended educational purpose or to the extent a site within the District’s inventory is proposed in the future for a project not currently permitted by the underlying comprehensive plan designation, the local jurisdiction with land use authority would need to evaluate and process any necessary comprehensive plan amendments and conduct all required public notice and environmental review. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? This is a non-project action. Shoreline master program designations of the sites for the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 16 of 25 This is a non-project action and does not involve a particular site for the educational planning purpose of the proposal. Any environmentally sensitive areas located on the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be identified during project-specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? As a nonproject educational planning action, the proposal is not specific to a particular project. The current Auburn School District student enrollment for the 2022-23 school year is 17,059. Enrollment is expected to increase to approximately 17,999 by the 2028-2029 school year. The District employs approximately 1,700 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? This is a non-project action and will not itself result in displacement of people. It is not anticipated that any of the referenced projects in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed will displace any people as a result of any project moving forward/. Final determination of any displacement caused by any potential project will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time when project details are known and able to be analyzed. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. It is not anticipated that any of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed will displace any people from the sites. Individual projects referenced in this CFP, if proposed for action, will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures will be determined at that time, if necessary. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. This is a non-project educational planning document. The purpose of a school district Capital Facilities Plan is to provide local jurisdictions with a six-year projection of enrollment and identification of school capacity to determine the need for new school facilities to accommodate growth from new residential development that the local jurisdiction may permit, and to provide a basis for the assessment of school impact fees, if appropriate. The 2023 CFP has been developed consistent with RCW 36.70A and RCW 82.02.020. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2023 CFP it will be sent to King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific for consideration of inclusion into the Capital Facilities Element of their respective Comprehensive Plan. Individual projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for action will be evaluated for compatibility with existing land uses and plans during project-specific environmental and permit review. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any. This is a non-project action. Any referenced projects in the Capital Facilities Plan that may be proposed for development will be evaluated for compatibility with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long- SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 17 of 25 term commercial significance has been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 9. Housing Find help answering housing questions a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. The nonproject educational planning action does not propose any new housing units, and the potential school facility projects referenced in the 2023 CFP would not involve the provision of new housing units. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. This nonproject educational planning action would not in itself eliminate any units nor would it serve as the basis for approval of any project that would do so. It is not anticipated that the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, will eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed, on existing housing will be evaluated during project- specific environmental review at the appropriate time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time. The CFP itself serves as a basis for a local jurisdiction to determine housing impacts to needed school capacity and serve as a basis for assessing school impact fees. 10. Aesthetics Find help answering aesthetics questions a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site. Structural heights associated with any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review, when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site. Views associated with the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review, when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be determined on a project-specific basis, when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 18 of 25 11. Light and Glare Find help answering light and glare questions a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? This is a non-project educational planning action and not specific to any site or building/structure. The light or glare impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. In general, school facilities operate during the day with some post-school hour operations for extracurricular activities and include site safety lighting depending on the particular site location and design. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? This is a non-project action. The light or glare impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? This is a non-project action. Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. Proposed measures to mitigate the light or glare impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This is a non-project action and addresses educational planning throughout the geographic boundaries of the Auburn School District. There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the District boundaries. These include both District-owned facilities and other public and private recreational facilities. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. This is a non-project action and will not itself displace existing recreational uses nor will it serve as a basis for any future project to do so. Any proposed new school facilities and modernizations to existing school facilities may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. Specific recreational impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known and able to be analyzed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 19 of 25 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. This is a non-project action. Adverse recreational impacts of any referenced project in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be subject to mitigation during project-specific environmental review. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of playfields and gymnasiums that may be used outside of school hours. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. This is a non-project action and addresses educational planning throughout the geographic boundaries of the Auburn School District. There may be sites eligible for register listing located throughout the geographic area. The District will evaluate, when a school site is located for potential development, whether there are known places or objects listed on, or proposed for, such registers which may be proposed for development. The existence of historic and cultural resources on or next to the sites will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. This is a non-project action. The geographic area comprising the District may include landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation. An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be developed during project-specific environmental review. At a minimum, research will be conducted on the web using the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) resource. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. This is a non-project action. Any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation, or material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance, on or near sites intended for any projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Appropriate methods will be proposed on a project-specific basis. At a minimum, research will be conducted on the web using the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) resource. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 20 of 25 d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. This is a non-project action. The impact on cultural or historic resources of the individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when project details are known. 14. Transportation Find help with answering transportation questions a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This is a non-project educational planning proposal affecting the entirety of the Auburn School District. The geographic area comprising the District contains a variety of roads, streets, and highways. The impact on public streets and highways of the individual, potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP, if proposed for action, will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? This is a non-project action. The relationship between public transit and individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. District schools are regularly served by District transportation service (yellow bus). c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). This is a non-project action and the educational planning purpose of the CFP will not in itself require any transportation improvements. The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads associated with individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action and does not in itself involve a proposed use nor does it serve as a basis for such use. Use of water, rail or air transportation associated with individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 21 of 25 This is a non-project action and will not in itself generate vehicular trips nor serve as a basis for approval of a project that would. The traffic impacts of individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. Approved data models will be used to evaluate trips generated by individual projects. f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action and will neither itself nor serve as a basis for approval of any project that would be affected by movement of agricultural or forest projects on roads/streets.. The traffic impacts of individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. This is a non-project action. The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with individual potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP that may be proposed for development will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 15. Public Services Find help answering public service questions a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the CFP that may be proposed for development or the CFP itself will significantly increase the need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. This is a non-project action. Any potential new school facilities that are referenced in the CFP and may be proposed for development will be code compliant and constructed with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems consistent with local and/or state requirements. 16. Utilities Find help answering utilities questions a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: This is a non-project action and does not involve a particular site or project, nor does it serve as the basis for approval of any particular project referenced in the CFP. Storm, power, and water are currently available to the sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP. Other utilities are either available or the District will apply for approval of alternative sewage disposal systems/procedures. The SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 23 of 25 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Find help for the nonproject actions worksheet IT IS NOT REQUIRED to use this section 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. APPLICANT/AGENCY ADDED NOTE: The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed, some of these environmental impacts may be more likely. However, neither approval of the CFP itself nor its inclusion as a part of any jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element serves as the basis for approval of any potential project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action, nor does it direct a land use approval of any site referenced in the CFP. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any of particular use. To the extent the CFP makes it likely that school facilities may be considered for action, there may be increased discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, access roads, and sidewalks could increase stormwater runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, with the possible exception of noise production due to short-term construction activities or the presences of additional students/school operations on a site. Construction impacts related to noise and air would be short term and are not anticipated to be significant. · Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed for any potential project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Stormwater detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. Noise impacts will evaluated under local and state standards once when project details are known and able to be analyzed, and impacts will be mitigated appropriately. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 24 of 25 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use. The potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP are not likely to generate severe impacts on fish or marine life. As needed, specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish will be identified during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any of particular use. Should the potential projects referenced in the 2023 CFP be proposed and constructed, they will require the consumption of energy. · Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The potential projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed, will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards and requirements, and proposed measures needed to protect or conserve energy and natural resources have been or will be addressed during project-level environmental review when appropriate. 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 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any of particular use and, as such, will not have an impact on these elements itself. Environmentally sensitive areas will be identified during project-specific environmental review of any project referenced in the CFP and proposed for action and will be consistently addressed with local and/or state requirements. · Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Updates of the CFP will be coordinated with King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific, with at least one of the above jurisdictions being the lead permitting agency for any project referenced in the CFP that may be proposed for action. Appropriate measures as identified in collaboration with regulatory agencies will be proposed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time of formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. 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? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use and, as such, does not in itself dictate certain shoreline and land uses. Any projects referenced within the CFP and subsequently proposed for project-specific review and permitting will be reviewed for compliance with existing plans and would be subject to the relevant jurisdiction’s land use process and approval requirements. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 25 of 25 · Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: This 2023 CFP is a non-project planning document and does not in itself dictate certain shoreline and land uses. Any projects referenced within the CFP and subsequently proposed for project-specific review and permitting will be reviewed and conditioned appropriately to avoid or reduce land use impacts. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use and, as such, does not itself create substantial new demands for transportation. The potential projects referenced in the CFP, if proposed, may create an increase in traffic near District facilities during the school year and during school start/end times. Impacts on transportation, public services, and utilities related to the potential projects referenced in the CFP will be addressed during project-specific environmental review at the appropriate time during formal proposal when project details are known and able to be analyzed. · Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: This 2023 CFP is a non-project planning document and, as such, does not itself create substantial new demands for transportation, public services, or utilities. Therefore, no measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. Any proposed measures to reduce demands on transportation, public services or utilities have been or would be done at the project-specific level of any project referenced in the CFP if proposed for action. Requirements of the permitting jurisdiction, as well as any additional measures identified during project-level environmental review, would be complied with as a part of the project. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The 2023 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval of any particular use and does not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Specific projects referenced in the Capital Facilities Plan, if proposed, have been or will be reviewed under project-level environmental review requirements. The Washington Growth Management Act (the GMA) outlines 13 broad goals, including adequate provision of necessary public facilities and services. Schools are among these necessary facilities and services. The Capital Facilities Plan satisfies the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070, identifies additional school facilities necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations anticipated in the District, and informs local jurisdictions regarding the impacts of new residential development on public school capacity. DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Issued with a 14-day comment period Description of Proposal: This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single course of action: 1. The adoption of the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 by the Auburn School District No. 408 for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District; 2. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of King County and the cities of Auburn, Black Diamond, and Kent to include the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan; and 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the cities of Algona and Pacific to include the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 as part of the Capital Facilities Element of each jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Auburn School District No. 408 Location of the Proposal: The Auburn School District includes an area of approximately 62 square miles. Portions of unincorporated King County and County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Kent, and Pacific fall within the District's boundaries. Lead Agency: Auburn School District No. 408 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on June 9, 2023. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Dr. Alan Spicciati Superintendent Auburn School District No. 408 Address: Auburn School District 915 4th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Issued with a 14-day comment period Questions may be directed and comments may be submitted by 4:30 p.m., June 9, 2023, to: Bob Kenworthy, Assistant Director, Capital Projects, Auburn School District No. 408, 915 4th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002. Date of Issue: May 23, 2023 Date Published: May 26, 2023 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2023-2029 DRAFT Board Approval scheduled on June 20, 2023 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 1320-178th A venue East Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 (253)862-2537 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Megan Bearor Mike Skagen Greg Johnson Scott Reisnouer Chelsea Steiner Michael Farmer, Superintendent DieringerEducating every child forConfidence today andContribution tomorrow Dieringer School District No. 343 d An Overview Established in 1890, Dieringer School District consolidated with Lake Tapps School District in 1936. The District's three schools, Lake Tapps Elementary School, Dieringer Heights Elementary School and North Tapps Middle School, provide K through 8th grade education, and serve as hubs for community activities as well. Dieringer School District #343 is located in unincorporated Pierce County, bounded on the east by the White River, on the west by the Stuck River, on the north by the city of Auburn, and on the south by the cities of Bonney Lake and Sumner. The District surrounds the northern two-thirds of Lake Tapps and covers approximately 5.5 square miles. The current student enrollment is approximately 1,418 students in grades kindergarten through eight. Students in grades first through third are housed at Lake Tapps Elementary, constructed in 2005 as a replacement project. Construction was complete on an addition in the September 2017. Dieringer Heights Elementary opened in the fall of 2000 and is home to students in kindergarten, fourth and fifth grade. Dieringer Heights Elementary also houses two inclusion preschool classrooms. Originally constructed in 1992 and added on to in 1998 and 2009, North Tapps Middle School houses students in grades sixth-eighth. The district supports an additional 560 high school students who may select to attend any public high school. The majority chose to attend Auburn Riverside, Sumner and Bonney Lake High Schools. The district has a long standing history of providing high quality education for all our students. Our goal is for our students to gain the skills that will allow them to become successful, confident, contributing members of society. Dieringer is composed of students who come to school well prepared and eager to learn. Parents are concerned with student success and provide outstanding support for their children and the Dieringer School District. The PTA and many volunteers contribute countless hours and resources to our schools and students. The community supports the schools through the passage of funding issues to support bus acquisition, student access to current technology and the construction of school facilities. Impact fees, including interest, are held in reserve until used to meet District identified needs for site acquisition, additional facilities and improvements an/or technology capital expenditures. DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2023 Current Facilities Inventory of Public Schools NAME CAPACITY LOCATION Lake Tapps Elementary 357 1320-178th Ave E., Lake Tapps Dieringer Heights Elementary 508 21727 -34 th St. E., Lake Tapps North Tapps Middle School 536 20029-12th St., E., Lake Tapps High School 0 TOTAL 1,401 r.1ZH luz:ff11'q?=rW?ll?an?'Wilzaz1-lZRI)11.J:"l.,l:ll $1!l?11lr-?01%(r'if!1aa!Ifflii il?i ll101lIiIi l=k991iil zelili li t'-j.'6/'? ' .'il."J4,Ill-Al'fml mci:Ia0W##'7'?ntoB@ Dieringer School District Proposed Housing Potential Enrollment Increase June 2020 Proposed Housing Units: *Single Family-224 x .381 generation factor = 85.3 students K-8 Enrollment Impact: 85 .3 students K-8 Estimated 17.1 students a year over the period 2021-2026 Potential enrollment increase = 5.6% (based on 1,523 enrollment 4/20) Increase per grade level = 9.5 students (based on 9 grade bands) Approximately students per school: 28.4 **District enrollment based on 4/19 and potential growth =1,608.3 / 1654.3 District program capacity = 1,401 students *Generation factor based on an average of2019 Sumner .429 and Auburn .333 **Numbers are without and with preschool students, respectively Enrollment ProjectionsThe Dieringer School District is located in an area that continues to experience gromh.This growth can be noted by reviewing the following indicators: enrollment trend data,proposed housing development, and the mitigation impact fees received for newconstruction.The District continues to experience steady growth in student enrollment. This hasslightly exceeded the Pierce County and Puget Sound Educational Service District(PSESD) enrollment growth over the same period. A review of proposed constructionwithin the borders of the Dieringer School District indicates that the growth trend can beexpected to continue over the next four years and beyond. The growth this year has beenhigher than anticipated. There are 224 single family residents slated for constructionwithin the next five years. These projects, together with individual lots and general in-migration, are anticipated to generate an additional 85.3 students in kindergarten througheighth grade.To partially address this growth, the District passed a 2006 bond issue to construct anadditional five classrooms at Dieringer Heights Elementary. Those classrooms werecompleted and occupied in 2009. The bond issue also provided for the addition of anauxiliary gym, health and fitness classroom, and four science rooms at North TappsMiddle School. Those projects were completed in 2009 and the new instructional spacesare in use. At Lake Tapps Elementary School the constmction of 3 new classrooms wascompleted in September 2017. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT/POTENTIAL ENROLLMENT INCREASE#1 Fairweather Cove Estates (18)28 lots total8 lots sold (Lived in) (1 on 2 lots combined)18 active lot listings2 active construction2011 permit for PSE replacing 3 power poles1600-2000 block of 16th st. @ the 17500-17800 block of Sumner-Tapps Hwy.#2 Rainier Plateau (10)10 lots totalPermit approvedBehind DHESNo active buildingEnd of 34'h St.#3 Tapps Meadows (6)lOLots4 completedAcross from Snag Island#4 Country Creek Estates (1)9 out 10 lots builtRemaining lot filed for Plat Alteration 2007Off 15th near Edwards Road#5 Forest Canyon Estates (124)l year extension approved (Applied 3/2018)Owner Kenneth Atkinson124 lots; Behind Al Lago/off Forest Canyon Rd.#6 The Ridge at Lake Tapps (45)No active permits45 Single Family Lots -32XX Sumner Tapps Hwy. E./next to al Lago#7 Maryanski Plat (4)Short Plat (4 or less. Usually 6-month completion time)- 4 Single Family Lots; 40"l St. E and 230"l Ave E- No active buildingToward Wildview Ridge#8 Franklin Northlake (16)-Active site; pre-build-16 Single Family Lots-off Lake Tapps PkwySingle Family Units to be built: 224 Standard of ServiceThe Dieringer School District houses children in elementary schools serving studentspreschool through fifth grade and a middle school that houses grades six through eighth.High school students, grades nine through twelve, attend adjacent high schools, primarilyin the Auburn and Sumner School Districts.Dieringer School District follows a traditional school calendar beginning in earlySeptember and completing in mid June. The daily school schedules begin between 7:49and 8:45 a.m. and end between 2:17 and 3:15 p.m.The Dieringer School District standard of service is based on class size and programdecisions adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors. Based on thelegislative funding regarding class size, the targeted number of students per classroomkindergarten through third grade 17, fourth through fifth and sixth grade 27 and seventhrough eighth grade 28. These class sizes have an impact on facilities and the permanentcapacity of each school reflects these class sizes.In the District, rooms designated and assigned for special use are not counted as capacityclassrooms. At the elementary level students are provided music instruction and physicaleducation in non-capacity classrooms. Special education and intervention programs areprovided as pullout programs and do not provide capacity. At the middle school level,instruction is organized around a six period day; classrooms are calculated as providing5/6 capacity to accommodate teacher planning time in the instuctional space. DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2023 Dieringer School District Service Standards Public School Facilities (Square Feet Per Student) Elementary School 139 Middle School 148 Junior High NA High School NA Dieringer School District Individual Capacity Projects (2022-2027) Elementary School #3 Middle School Classroom Addition 400 112 Name Lake Tapps Elementary Dieringer Heights Elem. Elementary #3 North Tapps MS TOTALS DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Current Capacity 357 508 536 1401 PERMANENT CAPACITY PROJECTS MASTER SCHEDULE June,2022 6 -Year Total Capacity Capacity 2022 2023 357 508 400 400 536 433 1834 2024 400 2025 2026 2027 112 112 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, June 2023 CFP Projects and Financing Plan Sources and Uses of Funds Sources of Funds Existing Revenue: Reserve New Revenue: (x $1,000) Bonds, Levies, Fees, State Matching Funds, Dedications, Mitigation Payments TOTAL SOURCES Uses of Funds Elementary #3 Non-Capacity Projects: School Site, Tech nology Upgrades, And Board Approved Projects TOTAL USES BALANCE $7,481,000 $37,057,761 $44,538,761 (8,237,365) ($44,538,761) NTMS Classroom Addition 0 ($32,978,807) ($3,322,589) Permanent Capacity Projects School Site Elem. No. 3 Total Capacity Projects Non-Capacity Projects School Site Elem. No. 3 Technology Improvements Total Non-Capacity Projects TOT AL PROJECTS Estimated Cost 29,945,896 29,945,896 6,355,500 8,237,365 14,592,865 44,538,761 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 FINANCE PLAN 2023-2029 June 2023 Unsecured Source of Funds Estimated Amt Levy, Bond 29,632,896 29,632,896 5,604,079 3,528,892 8,040,827 38,765,867 Estimated Unrestricted 4,000 4,000 0 10,000 10,000 14,000 Secured Source of Funds Impact Levy, Bond & Unrestr Fees Amount Amount 9,000 0 0 9,000 0 0 0 0 751,421 0 4,708,473 0 0 4,708,473 751,421 9,000 4,708,473 751,421 Impact Fees 300,000 300,000 0 0 0 300,000 Time Period 2020 Actual 2021-2026 Growth Elementary Schools $57,639 DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 343 Capital Facilities Plan Update, 2023 Capital Facilities Requirements to 2029 Student Population 1523.0 85.3 Student Capacity 1401 433 Net Reserve Or (Deficiency) (122) 347.7 Dieringer School District Cost Per Student Middle Schools $64,467 (2020 Dollars) Junior High Schools NA High Schools NA School Impact Fee Calculation 6/22 DISTRICT Dieringer School District School Site Acquisition Cost: (AcresxCost per Acre /Facility Capacity)x Student Generation Factor Student Student Facility Cost/ Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary #3 12 $529,625 400 0.322 0.172 $5,116 $2,733 Middle 0.13 0.07 TOTAL $5,116 $2,733 School Construction Cost: ( Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor)x(permanent/Total Sq Ft) Facility Cost  Facility Capacity Student Student Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary #3 $2,6623,307 400 0.322 0.172 $21,432 $11,448 0.13 0.07 NTMS Classroom Addition $3,322,589 112 0.322 0.172 0.13 0.07 $3,857 $2,077 TOTAL $25,288 $13,525 Temporary Facility Cost: ( Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)xStudent Generation Factor)x(Temporary/Total Square Feet) Student Student Cost/Cost/ %Temp/ Facility Facility Factor Factor SFR MFR Total Sq.F Cost Size SFR MFR Elementary 0 0.322 0.172 Middle 0 0.13 0.07 TOTAL $0 $0 State Matching Credit: Boeckh Index X SPI Square Footage X District Match % X Student Factor Student Student Boeckh SPI District Factor Factor Cost/cost/ Index Footage Match % SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary Middle TOTAL $0 $0 Tax Payment Credit:SFR MFR Average Assessed Value 2021 $937,043 $619,841 Capital Bond Interest Rate (est 5/20 0.40%0.40% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $9,164,187 $6,061,983 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate 2023 $1.56 $1.56 Present Value of Revenue Stream $14,296 $9,457 Fee Sumary:Single Multiple Family Family Site Acquistion Costs $5,116.18 $2,732.87 Permanent Facility $25,288 $13,525 Temporary Facility Cost $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit $0.00 $0.00 Tax Payment Credit ($14,296.13 ($9,457) FEE $16,108 $6,801 FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50%$8,054 FEE WITH DISCOUNT OF 50%$3400 ENVIRONMENTAL CHFCKI ISTWAC 197-11-960 Environmental Checklist.Purpose of Checklist:The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires allgovernmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before makingdecisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals withprobable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklistis to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and toreduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whetheran EIS is required.Instructions for Applicants:This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about yourproposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impactsof your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, withthe most precise information known, or give the best description you can.You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. Inmost cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project planswithout the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not applyto your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions nowmay avoid unnecessary delays later.Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, andlandmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmentalagencies can assist you.The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over aperiod of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describeyour proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may askyou to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining ifthere may be significant adverse impact.Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered"does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for nonproject actions (part D).For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and"property or site" should be read as "proposal," "prepares," and "affected geographic area,"respectively. A.BACKGROUND 1.Name of proposed project, if applicable The adoption of a ten-year Capital Facilities Plan by the Dieringer School District. The Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner have been and/or will be amended to include the Dieringer School District 2022 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element of each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. A copy of the District's Plan is available for review in the District Office. 2.Name of applicant: Dieringer School District No. 343 3.Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Dieringer School District No. 343 1320 178th Ave E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Contact Person: Michael Farmer, Superintendent Telephone: (253) 862-2537 4.Date checklist prepared: June 2, 2023. 5.Agency requesting checklist: Dieringer School District No. 343 6.Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The 2023 Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan was adopted on June 20, 2023 and forwarded to Pierce County, Cities of Auburn and Sumner for possible inclusion in each jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan will be updated annually. Site-specific projects have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 7.Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan reviews the purchase of additional property and the construction of a new elementary school and additional classroom space at the middle school. 8.List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The above-referenced projects will undergo environmental review at the time of formal proposal. 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. 10.List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner will review and approve the Capital Facilities Plan for the purposes of impact fee ordinances and will need to adopt the Plan as an amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of Pierce County and Cities of Auburn and Sumner. 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 do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non-project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Dieringer School District 2023 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the facilities needs of the District and for inclusion in the Capital Facilities Plan element and possible amendment of the Comprehensive Plans for Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner. A copy of the Capital Facilities Plan may be viewed at the Dieringer School District Office. 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 2023 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Dieringer School District. The District includes an area of approximately 5.5 square miles. Portions of the City of Auburn and the City of Sumner, and parts of unincorporated Pierce County, fall within the District's boundaries. B.ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1.Earth a.General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, and more than 2/3 of Lake Tapps. The Dieringer School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients, including all of those listed. Specific topographic characteristics will identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. b.What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. 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.· Specific soil types will be identified during the planning and permit process for each capital project. d.Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific soil limi tations on individual project sites will be identified at the time of environmental review. e.Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of fill materials will be identified as appropriate to each project. f.Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. Individual projects and their erosion impacts will be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Individual projects will be subject to environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings?) Percentage of impervious cover with vary with each capital facilities project and will be addressed during project-specific environmental review.h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, ifany:Erosion potential on individual project sites will be addressed during project-specificenvironmental review. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will bemet.2.Aira. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (ie., dust,automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the projectis completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from individual projects.Air-quality impacts will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?If so, generally describe.Off-site sources and necessary mitigation will be addressed during project-specificenvironmental review.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:Plans for individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or willbe subject to environmental review and relevant local approval processes, includingobtaining of any necessary air quality permits, at the time individual projects areformally proposed. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.3.Watera. Surface:1) Isthereanysurfacewaterbodyonorintheimmediatevicinityofthesite (including year-round and seasonal streams, Iakes, ponds, wetlands)? Ifyes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream orriver it flows into.There is a network of surface water bodies within the Dieringer SchoolDistrict. The surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will beresearched and incorporated in the design of each individual project2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach availableplans.Some projects may require work near these described waters. Individualprojects in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to environmental reviewand Iocal approval requirements at the time the project is formally proposed. 3) Estimatetheamountoffillanddredgematerialthatbeplacedinorremoved from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site thatwould be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.Information with respect to placement or removal of fill or dredge materialwill be addressed at the time of project-specific environmental review.Applicable Iocal regulations have been or will be satisfied.4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.Any surface water withdrawals or diversions have been or will be addressedduring project-specific environmental review.5) Doestheproposalliewithinal00-yearfloodplain?lfso,notelocationon the site plan.Each capital facilities project, if located in a floodplain area, will be required tomeet applicable local regulations for flood areas.6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials tosurface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume ofdischarge.Specific information regarding discharges of waste materials, if any, will beaddressed during project-specific environmental review. Please see theSupplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.b.Ground:1) Willgroundwaterbewithdrawn,orwillwaterbedischargedtogroundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities ifknown.Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater resources. Each project will be evaluated during project-specificenvironmental review. Applicable Iocal regulations have been or will besatisfied. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground fromseptic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage?industrial, containing the following chemicals. .; agricultural; etc.). Describethe general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number ofhouses to served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans thesystem(s) are expected to serve.Impacts of discharged waste material, if any, have been or will be addressedduring site-specific, project-level environmental review. C.Water Runoff (including storm water):1) Describethesourceofrunoff(includingstormlvater)andmethodofcollection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will thiswater flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have varyingstorm water runoff consequences. Each project will be subject toenvironmental review and applicable Iocal regulations.2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally describe.Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will have varyingenvironmental impacts and will be subject to appropriate review and localregulations prior to construction. Information regarding waste materials willbe presented at the time of such review. Please see the Supplemental Sheetfor Nonproject Actions.d. Proposedmeasurestoreduceorcontrolsurface,ground,andrunoffwaterimpacts, if any:Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts have been or will be developedon a project-specific basis in cooperation with the appropriate jurisdiction.4.Plants:a.Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other.? evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, othershrubs? grasspasturecrop or grainwet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage. Otherother water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, otherother types of vegetationThere are various vegetative zones within the Dieringer School District. An inventoryof species has been or will be produced as part of project-specific environmentalrevievv.b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?Impacts on vegetation will be determined at the time of project-specific environmentalreview at the time the project is formally proposed. Please see the SupplementalSheet for Nonproject Actions.C.List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Specific impacts to these species from individual projects has been or be determinedat the time of project proposal and will be addressed during site-specific, project-levelenvironmental review.d. Proposed Iandscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve orenhance vegetation on the site, if any:Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject toenvironmental review and local approval at the time of project proposal.s.Animals:a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site orare known to be on or near the site:birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:fish: bass, salmon, trout, perch, crappies, tiger muskies other:An inventory of species observed on or near sites has been or will be developedduring project-specific environmental review.b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.Specific impacts to these species from individual projects will be determined at thetime of project proposal and will be reviewed in cooperation with the affectedjurisdictions.C.Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.Impacts on migration routes, if any, will addressed during site-specific, project-levelenvironmental review.d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will bedetermined at the time of site-specific, project-level environmental review.6.Energy and Natural Resources:a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will bemeet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used forheating, manufacturing, etc.The State Board of Education requires a Iife-cycle cost analysis of all heating, Iighting, and insulating systems prior to allowing specific projects to proceed. Energyneeds will be decided at the time of specific engineering and site design planning.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacentproperties? If so, generally describe:Individual projects of this Capital Facilities Plan will be evaluated as to their impacton the solar potential of adjacent projects during environmental review.C.What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of thisproposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:Energy conservation measures will be considered at the project-specific designphase and environmental review.7.Environmental Healtha.Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxicchemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as aresult of this proposal? If so, describe.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.1) Describespecialemergencyservicesthatmightrequired.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental healthhazards, if any:Proposed projects will comply with all current codes, standards, and rulesand regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject toenvironmental review and local approval at the time of formal submittal.Noise:1) Whattypesofnoiseexistintheareawhichmayaffectyourproject(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?A variety of noises exist within the Dieringer School District. Specific noisesources have been or will be identified during project-specific environmentalreview.2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associatedwith the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come fromthe site.Normal construction noises would exist on a short-term basis during schoolconstruction. There could be an increase in traffic or operations-related noiseb. which would be addressed during project specific environmental review.Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions.3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:Project noise impacts have been or will be evaluated and mitigated duringthe project-specific environmental review. Each project is or will be subject toapplicable Iocal regulations.8.Land and Shoreline Use:a. Whatisthecurrentuseofthesiteandadjacentproperties?There are a variety of Iand uses within the Dieringer School District, includingresidential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, agricultural, forestry, openspace, recreational, etc.b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.This question will be addressed during site-specific, project-Ievel environmentalreview.c. Describe any structures on the site.Structures Iocated on proposed sites have been or will be identified and describedduring project-specific environmental review when appropriate.d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?Structures to be demolished, if any, will be identified as part of the project-specificenvironmental review process.e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?There are a variety of zoning classifications within the Dieringer School District. Sitespecific zoning information has been or will be identified during project-specificenvironmental review.f.What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?An inventory of comprehensive plan designations has been or will be completedduring project-specific environmental reviewg. lfapplicable,whatisthecurrentshorelinemasterprogramdesignationofthesite?Any shoreline master program designations have been or will be identified duringproject-specific environmental review.h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.Environmentally sensitive areas, if any, will be identified during project-specificenvironmental revievv.I.Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completedproject?This information has been or will be provided at the time of project-specificenvironmental review.j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?It is not anticipated that proposed projects will displace any people. Displacement ofpeople, if any, will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review.k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to projectspecific environmental review and Iocal approval at the time the project is formallyproposed.1.Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing andprojected land uses and plans, if any:Compatibility of the proposal and specific projects with existing uses and plans havebeen or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and duringproject-specific environmental review.9.Housinga. Approximately how many units would be provided if any? Indicate whetherhigh, middle, or Iow-income housing.No housing units would be provided.b. Approximatelyhowmanyunits,ifany,wouldbeeliminated?lndicatewhetherhigh, middle, or Iow-income housing.Any impact of project proposals on existing housing have been or would beevaluated during project-specific environmental review procedures.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts have been or will be addressedduring site-specific, project-Ievel environmental review. 10. Aesthetics:a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not includingantennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific,project-Ievel environmental review.b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?Aesthetic impacts have been or will be determined at the time of site-specific,project-Ievel environmental review.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:Appropriate measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts have been or will bedetermined at the time of project-specific environmental review.11 . Light and Glare:a. What type of Iight or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day wouldit mainly occur?Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of project-specificenvironmental review.b. Could Iight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interferewith views?Light or glare impacts have been or will be determined at the time of the project-specific environmental review.c. What existing off-site sources of Iight or glare may affect your proposal?Off-site sources of Iight or glare have been or will be evaluated at the time of projectspecific environmental review.d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:Mitigation of Iight and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during projectspecific environmental review.12.Recreation:a.What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediatevicinity?There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the DieringerSchool District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,describe.Recreational impacts have been or will be addressed during project specificenvironmental review. Projects in the Capital Facilities Plan may enhancerecreational opportunities and uses.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, includingrecreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:Any adverse effects on recreation stemming from individual project proposals havebeen or will be subject to mitigation during the environmental review procedure. Aschool site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form ofadditional play fields and gymnasiums.13. HistoricandCulturalPreservation:a. Are there any places or objects Iisted on, or proposed for, national, state, orlocal preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generallydescribe.The existence of historic and cultural resources will be determined at the time ofproject-specific environmental review.b. Generally describe any Iandmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.An inventory of historical sites has been or will be conducted as part of projectspecific environmental review.C.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project-specific basis.14.Transportation:a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposedaccess to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.Impact on public streets and highways has been or will be assessed during projectspecific environmental review.b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximatedistance to the nearest transit stop?The relationship between specific projects and public transit has been or will beassessed during project-specific environmental review. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How manywould the project eliminate?An inventory of parking spaces and the impacts of specific projects on parkingspaces has been or will be conducted during project-specific environmental review.d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements toexisting roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicatewhether public or private).The development of new schools may require new access roads or streets. Thisissue will be fully addressed during project-specific environmental review.e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or airtransportation? If so, generally describe.Use of water, rail or air transportation has been or will be addressed during sitespecific, project-Ievel environmental review.f.How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completedproject? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.Each project proposal has been or will be separately evaluated as to traffic impacts.g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:Mitigation of impacts on transportation has been or will be addressed during projectspecific environmental review.15.Public Services:a.Would the project result in an increased need for public services (forexample: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so,generally describe.The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital FacilitiesPlan will substantially increase the need for other public services. Impacts have beenor will be evaluated on a project-specific basis.b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, ifany.Schools are built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heatsensors and sprinkler systems.16.Utilities a.Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Utilities available at project sites have been or will be identified during project specific environmental review. 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. Utility revisions and construction needs will be identified during project-specific environmental review. 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 , ;;� Michael Farmer Date Submitted: June 2, 2023 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 withthe Iist of the elements of the environment.When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types ofactivities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at afaster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.1.How would the proposal be Iikely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production ofnoise?To the extent this Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed,and/or renovated or remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be moreIikely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking Iots, sidewalks,access roads and playgrounds will increase storm water runoff, which could entersurface or ground water. Emissions to air could result from heating systems,emergency generators and other equipment, and from additional car and bus trips toand from the school for students and faculty. Any emissions resulting from this Planshould not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardoussubstances, with the possible exception of storage of diesel fuel or gasoline foremergency generating equipment. Noise may result from additional traffic and fromconcentrating several hundred children at a new facility, especially before and afferschool and during recesses.To the extent this proposal allows additional residential development to occur, theseimpacts would also increase somewhat, but it is not possible to quantify thoseimpacts at this time. The impacts would depend on the type, Iocation and distributionof housing, for example, whether single or multiple family and the location of theschool.Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:Facilities implementing the Plan have been or will be evaluated at the project specificlevel and impacts will be mitigated accordingly. Storm water detention and runoff willmeet applicable County and/or City requirements and, depending on the date ofactual construction, may be subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will be minimal, andwill meet any applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution ControlAuthority. Fuel oil will be stored according to local and state requirements.2.How would the proposal be Iikely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?The Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. Dependingon the particular site, construction of facilities may require clearing sites of plants andloss of animal habitat. To the extent residential development is allowed, additionalarea may be cleared and eliminated as habitat for animals. There are not likely to beany impacts on fish or marine life, although some water quality degradation instreams and rivers could occur due to increased residential development. Theseimpacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specificenvironmental review when appropriate.Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:Individual projects will be evaluated and mitigated appropriately on a project-specificbasis, but specific mitigation proposals cannot be identified at this time.3.How would the proposal be Iikely to deplete energy or natural resources?Any actual projects resulting from this Plan would consume heating fuel andelectrical energy. Increased traffic resulting from the construction of additionalfacilities would consume petroleum based fuels. Reduced traffic resulting fromconstruction of another neighborhood school may also reduce amounts of fuelconsumed, but it is not possible to quantify such reduction in consumption at thistime. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate.Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:Facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiencystandards.4.How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas orareas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such asparks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?The Plan and facilities constructed pursuant to the Plan should have no impact onthese resources. It is not possible to predict whether other development madepossible by this Plan would affect sensitive areas.Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:No specific measures are being proposed at this time. Appropriate measures havebeen or will be proposed during project-specific review. Annual updates of this Plan will be coordinated with Pierce County, City of Auburn and City of Sumner as part ofthe Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protectenvironmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the School District's facilities planningprocess is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resourcesare more Iikely to be protected.s. How would the proposal be Iikely to affect land and shoreline use, including whetherit would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?The Plan will not have any impact on Iand or shoreline use that is incompatibleexisting comprehensive plans, Iand use codes, or shoreline management plans.Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:None are proposed at this time. Actual facilities constructed to implement the Planwill be sited and constructed to avoid or reduce land use impacts.6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or publicservices and utilities?This proposal should not create substantial new demands for transportation. Theprojects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create an increase in traffic nearnew District facilities but also reduce traffic by creating the opportunity for morestudents to walk to a closer school. The construction of the facilities included in theCapital Facilities Plan may result in minor increases in the demand for publicservices and utilities, such as fire and police protection, and water, sewer, andelectric utilities. None of these impacts are Iikely to be significant. The impacts ontransportation and public services and utilities of the projects included in the CapitalFacilities Plan will be addressed during project-Ievel review when appropriate.Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time.7.Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federallaws or requirements for the protection of the environment.The Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws orrequirements for the protection of the environment. DRAFT - DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE for Dieringer School District No. 343 2023 Capital Facilities Plan Issued with a 14-day comment and appeal period Description of Proposal: This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1.The adoption of the Dieringer School District Amended 2023 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan by the Dieringer School District for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2.The amendment of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan to include the Dieringer School District Amended 2023 Capital Facilities Plan as a part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. 3.The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Auburn to include the Dieringer School District's Amended 2023 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Auburn. 4.The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Sumner to include the Dieringer School District's Amended 2023 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Sumner. Proponent: Dieringer School District No. 343 Location of the Proposal: The Dieringer School District includes an area of approximately 5.5 square miles. Portions of the cities of Auburn and Sumner fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated Pierce County. Lead Agency: Dieringer School District No. 343 is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposal does not pose a probable significant adverse impact to the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030 (2) (c). This decision was made after a review of the completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public upon request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:00 p.m., June 20, 2023. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Michael Farmer Superintendent Dieringer School District No. 343 Telephone: (253) 862-2537 Address: 1320 178th Ave E. Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 Appeals of this determination are governed by Board Policy No. 6890 which can be obtained from Mr. Michael Farmer, Superintendent, Dieringer School District No. 343, 1320 178th Ave E., Lake Tapps, Washington 98391 and pursuant to WAC 680 and RCW 43.21 C.075. Date of Issue: Date Published June 2, 2023 June 5, 2023 Federal Way District No. 210 Federal Way, Washington Adopted: June 27, 2023 Resolution No: 2023-16 The Federal Way School District No. 210 hereby provides this Capital Facilities Plan documenting present and future school facility requirements of the District. The plan contains all elements required by the Growth Management Act and King County Council Ordinance 21-A. Page 1 of 35 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Olympic View K-8 Illahee M iddle School Memorial Field Renovation Lake Grove Elementary Mirror Lake Elementary Wildwood Elementary Thomas Jefferson High School Star Lake Elementary & Evergreen Middle School FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN May 12, 2023 BOARD OF EDUCATION Trudy Davis, President Dr. Jennifer Jones, Vice President Luckisha Phillips, Legislative Representative Quentin Morris, WIAA Representative Hiroshi Eto SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Dani Pfeiffer Prepared by: Ty Bergstrom, Chief Finance & Operations Officer, Interim Sally McLean, Facilitator Michael Swartz, Executive Director of Capital Projects Jennifer Thomas, Student & Demographic Forecaster FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 2-3 SECTION 1 THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Introduction 4 Inventory of Educational Facilities 5 Inventory of Non-Instructional Facilities 6 Needs Forecast - Existing Facilities 7 Needs Forecast - New Facilities 8 Six Year Finance Plan 9-10 SECTION 2 MAPS Introduction 11 Map – City and County Jurisdictions 12 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 13 Building Capacities 14-16 Portable Locations 17-18 Student Forecast 19-22 SECTION 4 KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Introduction 23 Capacity Summaries 24-28 Impact Fee Calculations 29-31 Student Generation Rates 32 Impact Fee Changes from 2023 to 2024 33 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2 INTRODUCTION In response to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act (SHB) 2929 (1990) and ESHB 1025 (1991)), and under the School Impact Fee Ordinances of King County Code 21A, City of Federal Way Ordinance No. 95-249 effective December 21, 1995 as amended, City of Kent Ordinance No.4278 effective June 2018, revised December 2021, and the City of Auburn Ordinance No. 5078 effective 1998, Federal Way Public Schools has updated its Capital Facilities Plan as of May 2023. This plan will be submitted for consideration to each of the jurisdictions located with the Federal Way Public Schools’ service area: King County, the City of Kent, City of Federal Way and the City of Auburn and is incorporated in the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction by reference. This plan is requested to be included in the Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. To date, the City of Des Moines has not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. The City of Des Moines collects school impact fees as part of the SEPA process. Discussions with the City of Milton to adopt an ordinance for school impact fees for parcels located within the Federal Way School District’s service area is in process. The Growth Management Act requires the County to designate Urban Growth areas within which urban growth can be encouraged. The Growth Management Planning Council adopted and recommended to the King County Council for Urban Growth Area Line Maps with designations for urban centers. A designation was made within the Federal Way planning area, which encompasses Federal Way Public Schools boundaries. King County will encourage and actively support the development of Urban Centers to meet the region’s need for housing, jobs, services, culture, and recreation. This Plan’s estimated population growth is prepared with this underlying assumption. This Capital Facilities Plan will be used as documentation for any jurisdiction, which requires its use to meet the needs of the Growth Management Act. This plan is not intended to be the sole planning tool for all of the District needs. The District may prepare interim plans consistent with Board policies or management need. Currently Federal Way Public Schools is nearing the end of Phase 2 Bond projects supporting school expansion and replacement as authorized by the voters in 2017. Prior to the passage of the Phase 2 Bond the District formed a 100 member Facilities Planning Committee consisting of parents, community members and staff. This Committee was tasked with developing a recommendation to the Superintendent regarding Phase 2 of the District’s plan for school construction, remodeling, and/or modernization for voter consideration in November 2017. The voters passed this $450M bond authorization with a 62% YES vote reflecting a commitment to invest in the modernization of our infrastructure. As of today, the District has completed Thomas Jefferson High School, Evergreen Middle School, Lake Grove Elementary, Mirror Lake Elementary, Star Lake Elementary, and Wildwood Elementary. Additionally, Olympic View K-8 is scheduled to open in Fall of 2023. Illahee Middle school is at the end of the Design Phase and set for Construction beginning June 2023. Finally, Memorial Field is under construction with completion target of Fall 2023. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 3 INTRODUCTION, continued The rebuilding of the schools has and will continue create additional capacity for students at the elementary and high school levels. The District continues to monitor factors that may have an impact on enrollment and capacity at our schools, including new single-family and multi-family residential developments and any impacts due to the COVID-19. In accordance with the McCleary decision, the State has provided funding to reduce K-3 class size to 17 and 4-12 class size to 25. Beginning in 2019-20 the legislature expected compliance with this funding adding pressure to the need for elementary capacity. In response to this need the district has acquired a commercial building to renovate into classrooms to provide permanent additional capacity. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected brick and mortar enrollment in recent years, as well as increased enrollment in the Internet Academy. However, the district’s 2022-23 enrollment was higher than projected and has continued to grow throughout the current school year. As we move farther away from the effects of COVID-19, we expect to see continued enrollment growth, especially considering the City of Federal Way’s plans to increase housing in the downtown core in conjunction with Sound Transit’s Link Light Rail development. The District has increased capacity at the elementary level over the past several years and shows no unhoused scholars based on the six-year enrollment projections (even with projected growth at that level). The 2024 Capital Facilities Plan does reflect growth at the high school level over the six-year planning period and, with the recent addition at Thomas Jefferson High School and the addition of portable facilities, the District is able to house new scholars at the high school level. As a result, school impact fees are appropriate to assist in offsetting costs of adding increased instructional spaces. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 4 SECTION 1 - THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The State Growth Management Act requires that several pieces of information be gathered to determine the facilities available and needed to meet the needs of a growing community. This section provides information about current facilities, existing facility needs, and expected future facility requirements for Federal Way Public Schools. A Financial Plan that shows expected funding for any new construction, portables and modernization listed follows this. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 5 INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5) Adelaide 1635 SW 304th St Federal Way 98023 Brigadoon 3601 SW 336th St Federal Way 98023 Camelot 4041 S 298th St Auburn 98001 Enterprise 35101 5th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Green Gables 32607 47th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Lake Dolloff 4200 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lake Grove 303 SW 308th St Federal Way 98023 Lakeland 35827 32nd Ave S Auburn 98001 Mark Twain 2450 S Star Lake Rd Federal Way 98003 Meredith Hill 5830 S 300th St Auburn 98001 Mirror Lake 625 S 314th St Federal Way 98003 Nautilus (K-8) 1000 S 289th St Federal Way 98003 Olympic View (K-8) 2626 SW 327th St Federal Way 98023 Panther Lake 34424 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003 Rainier View 3015 S 368th St Federal Way 98003 Sherwood Forest 34600 12th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Silver Lake 1310 SW 325th Pl Federal Way 98023 Star Lake 26812 40th Ave S, Bldg.B Kent 98032 Sunnycrest 24629 42nd Ave S Kent 98032 Twin Lakes 4400 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Valhalla 27847 42nd Ave S Auburn 98001 Wildwood 2405 S 300th St Federal Way 98003 Woodmont (K-8) 26454 16th Ave S Des Moines 98198 MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8) Federal Way Public Academy (6-10) 34620 9th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Illahee 36001 1st Ave S Federal Way 98003 Kilo 4400 S 308th St Auburn 98001 Lakota 1415 SW 314th St Federal Way 98023 Sacajawea 1101 S Dash Point Rd Federal Way 98003 Sequoyah 3450 S 360th ST Auburn 98001 Evergreen 26812 40th Ave S, Bldg.A Kent 98032 TAF @ Saghalie (6-12) 33914 19th Ave SW Federal Way 98023 HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12) Decatur 2800 SW 320th St Federal Way 98023 Federal Way 30611 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Thomas Jefferson 4248 S 288th St Auburn 98001 Todd Beamer 35999 16th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Career Academy at Truman 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS Internet Academy (K-12) 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Employment Transition Program (12+) 33250 21st Ave SW Federal Way 98023 Federal Way Open Doors 31455 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 ES24 (Former DeVry Property) (K-8) 3600 S 344th Way, Federal Way 98001 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 6 CURRENT INVENTORY NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES Developed Property Central Kitchen 1214 S 332nd St Federal Way 98003 Federal Way Memorial Field 1300 S 308th St Federal Way 98003 Educational Services Center 33330 8th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Support Services Center 1211 S 332nd St Federal Way 98003 Leased Property Early Learning Center at Uptown Square 1066 S 320th St Federal Way 98003 Undeveloped Property Site # Location 75 SW 360th Street & 3rd Avenue SW – 9.2 Acres 65 S 351st Street & 52nd Avenue S – 8.8 Acres 60 E of 10th Avenue SW - SW 334th & SW 335th Streets - 10.04 Acres 73 N of SW 320th and east of 45th PL SW – 23.45 Acres 71 S 344th Street & 46th Avenue S - 17.47 Acres 82 1st Way S and S 342nd St – Minimal acreage 96 S 308th St and 14th Ave S – .36 Acres Notes: Not all undeveloped properties are large enough to meet school construction requirements. Properties may be traded or sold depending on what locations are needed to house students in the District. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 7 NEEDS FORECAST - EXISTING FACILITIES PHASE EXISTING FACILITY FUTURE NEEDS ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS As needed Purchase and Relocate Portables Interim Capacity Anticipated source of funds is Impact Fees. II Thomas Jefferson High School Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Illahee Middle School Replace Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Evergreen Middle School Replaced Existing Building Voter Approved Capital bond II Lake Grove Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Mirror Lake Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Olympic View K-8 School Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Star Lake Elementary Replaced Existing Building, Increased Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Wildwood Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Memorial Stadium Replace Existing Facility Voter Approved Capital bond II ES24 (DeVry Property) Temp Swing School Increase Capacity SCAP and K-3 Class size reduction funding III Mark Twain Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD, pending SCAP funding III Decatur High School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Kilo Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Sacajawea Middle School Replace Existing Building TBD III Adelaide Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Brigadoon Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Camelot Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Lake Dolloff Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Nautilus K-8 School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Twin Lakes Elementary Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD III Woodmont K-8 School Replace Existing Building, Increase Capacity TBD FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 8 NEEDS FORECAST - ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEW FACILITY LOCATION ANTICIPATED SOURCE OF FUNDS FWPS has leased a portion of the Truman Campus property to Region X and Puget Sound Education Service District. Region X and PSESD built a Head Start building on this property which has served Federal Way 3- and 4-year-olds for the last twenty years. In the recent re- competition, the federal funding for a Head Start program at this location was lost. Subsequently the District has been using this facility for a state-funded Early Childhood Education (ECEAP) program and is currently in negotiations to secure title to the building. The building will only be available for preschool activities. FWPS is also concluding negotiations with King County Metro to secure the Redondo Park & Ride site for the relocation of Mark Twain Elementary school, which has been impacted by the construction of Sound Transit’s Federal Way Link Extension. Construction of a replacement school is slated to be part of the next school construction bond, or Phase 3. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 9 Six Year Finance Plan Secured Funding Sources Impact Fees (1)$142,000 Land Sale Funds (2)($3,820,000) Bond or Levy Funds (3)$80,798,000 K3-Class Size Reduction (4)$11,692,000 School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) (5)$73,877,000 TOTAL $162,689,000 Projected Revenue Sources School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) (6)$22,300,000 K-3 Class Size Reduction (7)$486,000 Bond Funds (8)$0 Land Fund Sales (9)$0 Impact Fees (10)$3,500,000 TOTAL $26,286,000 Actual and Planned Expenditures Total Secured Funding and Projected Revenue $188,975,000 NEW SCHOOLS Estimated and Budget 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total Total Cost Prior Years 2023-24 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2029-2030 2023-2030 MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION Lake Grove Elementary (11)$39,500,000 $0 $39,500,000 Mirror Lake Elementary (11)$41,800,000 $0 $41,800,000 Star Lake Elementary (11)$38,838,000 $0 $38,838,000 Wildwood Elementary (11)$40,900,000 $0 $40,900,000 Olympic View K-8 School (11)$47,450,000 $0 $47,450,000 Thomas Jefferson High School (11)$124,787,000 $0 $124,787,000 Evergreen Middle School (11)$66,129,000 $0 $66,129,000 Illahee Middle School (11)$27,848,000 $50,843,000 $9,309,000 $60,152,000 $88,000,000 Memorial Stadium (11)$28,821,000 $2,979,000 $2,979,000 $31,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 SITE ACQUISITION Former DeVry/ES 24 (12)$27,470,000 $1,421,000 $1,423,000 $1,422,000 $1,424,000 $1,422,000 $1,423,000 $8,535,000 $36,005,000 TEMPORARY FACILITIES Portables (13)$3,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,500,000 $7,000,000 TOTAL $487,043,000 $55,743,000 $11,232,000 $1,922,000 $1,924,000 $1,922,000 $1,923,000 $500,000 $75,166,000 $562,209,000 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 10 SIX YEAR FINANCE PLAN, CON’T NOTES: ` 1. These fees are currently being held in a King County, City of Federal Way, City of Auburn, and City of Kent impact fee account, and will be available for use by the District for system improvements. This is yearend balance on 12/31/22. 2. This is yearend balance on 12/31/22. 3. This is the 12/31/22 balance of bond funds and capital levy funds. This figure includes interest earnings. 4. This represents the K3-CSR revenue received but not spent as of 12/31/2022. 5. This represents the balance of SCAP funding but no spent as of 12/31/2022. 6. This is anticipated SCAP for the future projects authorized by the voters in 2017. 7. This is the remaining K-3 Class size reduction grant revenue. 8. In November 2017, the District passed a $450M bond measure. The amount included in the finance plan is for projects that will create additional capacity. Only the costs associated with increasing capacity are included in school impact fee calculations. 9. There are no projected sale of surplus properties. 10. In this current plan, there are no projected impact fees. 11. Project budgets are updated as of December 2022. The budget for Illahee Middle School is still being updated. 12. A former private university campus located in Federal Way was purchased in 2019 to provide up to 43 additional permanent elementary classrooms. Prior to creating new permanent capacity this location will be used as a temporary housing. These costs are excluded from impact fee calculations. 13. These fees represent the cost of purchasing and installing new portables. The portable expenditure in future years may replace existing portables that are not functional. These may not increase capacity and are not included in the capacity summary. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 11 SECTION 2 - MAPS As of September 2023, Federal Way Public Schools has twenty elementary schools (grades K- 5), three schools with a K-8 grade configuration, six middle school schools (grades 6-8), four high schools (grades 9-12) and four small secondary schools. The Federal Way Public Academy serves students in grades 6-10. The programs at Open Doors and Career Academy at Truman High School serves students in grades 9-12. In addition to these programs, TAF@Saghalie serves students in grades 6-12 who reside within the service area and the Employment and Transition Program (ETP) at the Norman Center serves 18–21-year-old scholars. The Growth Management Act requires that a jurisdiction evaluate if the public facility infrastructure is in place to handle new housing developments. In the case of most public facilities, new development has its major impact on the facilities immediately adjacent to that development. School districts are different. If the district does not have permanent facilities available, interim measures must be taken until new facilities can be built or until boundaries can be adjusted to match the population changes to the surrounding facilities. It is important to realize that a single housing development does not require the construction of a complete school facility. School districts are required to project growth throughout the district and build or adjust boundaries based on growth throughout the district, not just around a single development. Adjusting boundaries requires careful consideration by the district and is not taken lightly. It is recognized that there is a potential impact on students who are required to change schools. Boundary adjustments impact the whole district, not just one school. The final map included represents the city and county boundaries which overlap with the district’s service areas. • City of Algona • City of Auburn • City of Des Moines • City of Federal Way • City of Kent • City of Milton • Unincorporated King County FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 12 MAP – CITY AND COUNTY JURISDICTIONS FWPS boundaries is 100% Urban Growth Area FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 13 SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast – 2023 through 2029 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 14 BUILDING CAPACITIES This Capital Facilities Plan establishes the District’s “standard of service” in order to ascertain the District’s current and future capacity. The Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, but these guidelines do not take into consideration the education program needs. In general, the District’s current target class size provides that the average class size for a standard classroom for grades K through 3 should be 17 students to comply with current legislation. In grades 4-5 the target is 25 students. For grades 6 to 12 the target class size is 26 students. Classrooms for students with Individualized Education Program (Special Education) needs are calculated at 12 seats per classroom. Historically, the District has used the OSPI square footage calculation as a baseline for capacity calculation and made adjustments for specific program needs. The District will continue to use this calculation for determining capacity at our middle and high schools. However, for elementary school capacity will be calculated based on the number of classroom spaces and the number of students assigned to each classroom. Class Size Guidelines FWPS Historical “Standard of Service” HB2661/SHB2776 Enacted Law Square Footage Guideline Kindergarten 18.9 17 25-28 Grades 1-2 18.9 17 25-28 Grade 3 18.9 17 28 Grades 4-5 25 25 28 Grades 6-12 26 26 28 For the purposes of determining student capacity at individual schools, the following list clarifies adjustments to classroom spaces and the OSPI calculation. Special Education Resource Rooms: Each middle school requires the use of a standard classroom(s) for special education students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. English as a Second Language Programs: Each middle school and high school require the use of a standard classroom for students learning English as a second language. Middle School Computer Labs: Each middle school has computer labs, except Evergreen Middle School. Wireless access has been installed at all secondary schools. If additional classroom space is needed, these computer labs may be converted to mobile carts. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 15 BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued High School Career Development and Learning Center (Resource) Room: Each high school provides special education resource room and career development classrooms for students requiring instruction to address specific disabilities. Preschool/ECEAP: Our district currently offers preschool programs for both special needs & typically developing students at 9 elementary schools. We also have the ECEAP program at 10 sites (6 elementary schools, 3 high schools, and 1 commercial sites). These programs decrease capacity at those schools. Alternative Learning Experience: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in an Alternative Learning Experience through our Internet Academy. These students have never been included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. 1418 Youth Reengagement: Federal Way offers students the opportunity to participate in 1418 Youth Reengagement Open Doors program. These students are housed at the Truman campus but are not currently included in the capacity calculation of unhoused students. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 16 BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 17 PORTABLE LOCATIONS The Washington State Constitution requires the State to provide each student a basic education. It is not an efficient use of District resources to build a school with a capacity for 500 students due to lack of space for 25 students when enrollment fluctuates throughout the year and from year to year. Portables are used as interim measures to house students when increasing population impacts a school attendance area. Portables may also be required to house students when new or changing programs require additional capacity. They also provide housing for students until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. When permanent facilities become available, the portable(s) is either used for other purposes such as storage or childcare programs or moved to another school for an interim classroom. Some portables may not be fit to move due to age or physical condition. In these cases, the District may choose to buy new portables and surplus these unfit portables. With the school expansion projects funded through the 2017 Bond, new capacity has been created within the new schools and portables have been eliminated from these campuses. The following page provides a list of the location of the portable facilities, used for educational facilities by Federal Way Public Schools. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 18 PORTABLE LOCATIONS, continued PORTABLES LOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT HIGH SCHOOLS NON NON INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL* INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL Adelaide 1 2 Decatur 8 1 Brigadoon 1 Federal Way Camelot 1 Thomas Jefferson Enterprise 3 Todd Beamer 8 Green Gables 1 TOTAL 16 1 Lake Dolloff 5 1 Lake Grove Lakeland Mark Twain 3 Meredith Hill 3 PORTABLES LOCATED Mirror Lake AT SUPPORT FACILITIES Nautilus 3 Olympic View MOT Panther Lake 4 TDC 9 Rainier View 5 Former TAFA Sherwood Forest 2 4 TOTAL 9 Silver Lake 1 3 Star Lake Sunnycrest 6 DISTRICT PORTABLES IN USE FOR ECEAP Twin Lakes 1 2 AND/OR HEADSTART Valhalla 4 Sherwood Forest 1 Wildwood Evergreen Woodmont 3 Total TOTAL 47 12 PORTABLES LOCATED AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS NON INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL Illahee Kilo 1 6 Lakota Sacajawea 5 Sequoyah 1 1 Evergreen TAF@ Saghalie 4 TOTAL 11 7 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 19 STUDENT FORECAST Student enrollment projections are a basic component of budget development and facility need. Enrollment projections influence many of the financial estimates that go into budget preparation. The majority of staffing requirements are derived directly from the forecasted number of students. Allocations for instructional supplies and materials are also made based on projected enrollment. Other expenditures and certain revenue projections are directly related to enrollment projections. Enrollment projections are completed annually in the Business Services Department. Projections must be detailed at various levels, district total, school-building totals, grade level and program level to include vocational and special education students. The basis of projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. This method does not trace individual students; it is concerned with aggregate numbers in each grade level. The district has used this method with varying years of history and weighted factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of the school system are common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district’s census tracts and treats these statistics as a cohort for kindergarten enrollment in the appropriate years. The Federal Way School District is using various statistical methods for projecting student enrollments. The resultant forecasted enrollments are evaluated below. In January 2022, the District contracted a demographer to develop projections for the Federal Way School District. The model used to forecast next year’s enrollment uses cohort survival rates to measure grade to grade growth, assumes market share losses to private schools (consistent with county-wide average), assumes growth from new housing or losses due to net losses from migration. This forecast was provided as a range of three projections. The long-range forecast provided with this report used a model with cohort survival rates and growth rates based on projected changes in the 5-19 age group for King County. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 20 STUDENT FORECAST, CON’T The last demographer update was completed prior to the City of Federal Way’s Housing Action Plan. The enrollment projections below have been updated to include anticipated new student growth generated from the planned development. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 21 STUDENT FORECAST, CON’T Percent Calendar Yr School Year Elementary Middle School High School Total K -12 Change 2018 2017-18 10,418 5,159 6,501 22,078 2019 2018-19 10,158 5,115 6,674 21,947 -0.6% 2020 2019-20 9,953 5,309 6,516 21,778 -0.8% 2021 2020-21 9,192 4,990 6,385 20,567 -5.6% 2022 2021-22 9,062 4,850 6,393 20,305 -1.3% 2023 2022-23 9,317 4,719 6,532 20,568 1.3% 2024 B2023-24 9,452 4,789 6,473 20,714 0.7% 2025 P2024-25 9,613 4,872 6,558 21,044 1.6% 2026 P2025-26 9,695 4,913 6,569 21,176 0.6% 2027 P2026-27 9,743 4,935 6,559 21,238 0.3% 2028 P2027-28 9,782 4,955 6,586 21,322 0.4% 2029 P2028-29 9,860 4,995 6,638 21,493 0.8% 2029 P2029-30 9,949 5,040 6,698 21,687 0.9% Elementary K-5 Middle School 6-8 High School 9-12 October 1 Head Count Enrollment History and Projections Includes Open Doors and Internet Academy 19,000 19,500 20,000 20,500 21,000 21,500 22,000 22,500 23,000 School Year Enrollment History and Six Year Forecast Series2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 22 STUDENT FORECAST, continued Most of the methods used for long range enrollment reporting assume that enrollment is a constant percent of something else (e.g. population) or that enrollment will mirror some projected trend for the school-age population over time. The report included 5 different calculations to provide a range of possible projections for the District to the year 2029. This model produces a projection that is between 19,500 and 21,000 when applied to the low, medium, and high range modes. This provides a reasonable range for long-range planning and is consistent with estimates from various models. Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method of analysis becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The Federal Way School District long-range projections are studied annually. The study includes information from the jurisdictional demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. The long-range projections used by Federal Way Public Schools reflect a similar age trend in student populations as the projections published by the Office of Financial Management for the State of Washington. Near term projections assume some growth from new housing, which is offset by current local economic conditions. The District tracks new development from five permitting jurisdictions. Long range planning assumes a student yield from proposed new housing consistent with historical growth patterns. Growth Management requires jurisdictions to plan for a minimum of twenty years. The Federal Way School District is a partner in this planning with the various jurisdictions comprising the school district geography. These projections create a vision of the school district community in the future. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected brick and mortar enrollment in recent years, as well as increased enrollment in the Internet Academy. The district’s 2022-23 enrollment was higher than projected. As we move farther away from the effects of COVID-19, we hope to see continued enrollment growth, especially considering the City of Federal Way’s plans to increase housing in the down-town core in conjunction with Sound Transit’s Link Light Rail development. We took a conservative look at residential developments in-progress and pre- application phase that were not taken into consideration with previous demographic studies because they were unknown at the time of the study. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 23 SECTION 4 – KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Capacity Summaries Site & Construction Costs Allocations Student Generation Rates Impact Fee Calculations Reference to Impact Fee Calculations FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 24 CAPACITY SUMMARIES All Grades, Elementary, Middle School, and High Schools The Capacity Summaries combine Building Capacity information, Portable Capacity information and the Student Forecast information. The result demonstrates the requirements for new or remodeled facilities and why there is a need for the District to use temporary facilities or interim measures. The District has recently adjusted its capacity calculation method for Elementary schools to better show capacity needed to comply with the K-3 Class Size Reduction. This adjustment is also shown in the portable capacity calculation. In order to allow for flexibility in portable usage the District will use an average class size calculation of 21 for each Elementary portable and an average class size of 25 for each Middle and High School portable. The information is organized with a page summarizing the entire District, and then evaluating capacity vs. number of students at elementary, middle school, and high school levels individually. The notes at the bottom of each spreadsheet provide information about what facilities are in place each year. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 25 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – All Grades Actual Budget Calendar Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 CAPACITY School Year 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 22,592 22,957 22,957 22,957 23,569 23,569 23,569 23,569 Add Capacity 365 0 0 612 0 0 0 0 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 22,957 22,957 22,957 23,569 23,569 23,569 23,569 23,569 ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrollment 20,568 20,714 21,044 21,176 21,238 21,322 21,493 21,642 Internet Academy Headcount Enrollment1 (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) (255) Basic FTE Enrollment without Internet Academy 20,313 20,459 20,789 20,921 20,983 21,067 21,238 21,387 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM FTE CAPACITY 2,644 2,498 2,168 2,648 2,586 2,502 2,331 2,182 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY Current Portable Capacity 1,685 1,685 1,643 1,645 1,697 1,749 1,801 1,853 Add/Subtract Portable Capacity 0 (42)2 52 52 52 52 52 Adjusted Portable Capacity 1,685 1,643 1,645 1,697 1,749 1,801 1,853 1,905 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 4,329 4,141 3,813 4,345 4,335 4,303 4,184 4,087 NOTES: 1 - - Projected - - Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. This represents historic enrollment. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 26 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – Elementary Schools FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 27 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – Middle Schools FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 28 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – High Schools Actual Budget Calendar Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 CAPACITY School Year 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,853 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 Add/Subtract capacity 237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thomas Jefferson High School 237 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrollment 6,532 6,473 6,558 6,569 6,559 6,586 6,638 6,698 Internet Academy1 (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) (180) Basic Ed without Internet Academy 6,352 6,293 6,378 6,389 6,379 6,406 6,458 6,518 S URPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY (262) (203) (288) (299) (289) (316) (368) (428) RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2 Current Portable Capacity 416 416 416 520 624 728 832 936 Add/Subtract portable capacity 0 0 52 52 52 52 52 52 As Needed on High School Campuses 52 52 52 52 52 52 Adjusted Portable Capacity 416 416 520 624 728 832 936 1,040 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY3 154 213 232 325 439 516 568 612 NOTES: 1 2 3 - - Projected - - Internet Academy students are included in projections but do not require full time use of school facilities. This represents historic enrollment. Relocatable Capacity is based on the number of portables available and other administrative techniques which can be used to temporarily house students until permanent facilities are available. This is a calculated number only based on class size capacity of 25. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. Capacity for unhoused students will be accommodated with traveling teachers and no planning time in some classrooms. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 29 IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Single and Multi-Family Residences Each jurisdiction that imposes school impact fees requires that developers pay these fees to help cover a share of the impact of new housing developments on school facilities. To determine an equitable fee throughout unincorporated King County, a formula was established. This formula can be found in King County Code 21A and was substantially adopted by the City of Auburn, Federal Way, and Kent. The formula requires the District to establish a "Student Generation Factor" which estimates how many students will be added to a school district by each new single or multi-family unit and to gather some standard construction costs, which are unique to that district. Impact Fee Calculation When applicable, the CFP includes variables for the calculation of the Impact Fee for single family and multi-family units based on King County Code 21A and the Growth Management Act. Plan Year 2023 Plan Year 2024 Single Family Units $0 $0 Multi-Family Units $0 $6,998 Impact Fee Calculation - King County Code 21A FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 30 IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS, CON’T School Site Acquisition Cost:Student Student Facility Cost /Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Acreage Acre Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 0 0.1705 0.7104 $0 $0 Middle School 0.0682 0.3665 $0 $0 High School 0.0958 0.3665 $0 $0 TOTAL $0 $0 School Construction Cost:Student Student % Perm Fac./Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 96.61%0 0.1705 0.7104 $0 $0 Middle School 98.36%0.0682 0.3665 $0 $0 High School 98.28% $16,017,095 237 0.0958 0.3665 $6,363 $24,344 TO TAL $6,363 $24,344 Temporary Facility Cost:Student Student % Temp Fac.Facility Facility Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Total Sq Ft Cost Capacity SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 4.60%0.1705 0.7104 $0 $0 Middle School 2.75%0.0682 0.3665 $0 $0 High School 1.21%0.0958 0.3665 $0 $0 TO TAL $0 $0 School Construction Assistance Program Credit Calculation:Student Student Construction Cost Sq. Ft.State Factor Factor Cost/ Cost/ Allocation/Sq Ft Student Match SFR MFR SFR MFR Elementary 24683.00%0.1705 0.7104 $0 $0 Middle School 24683.00%0.0682 0.3665 $0 $0 High School 24683.00% $130 1 0.0958 0.3665 $1,963 $7,510 Total $1,963 $7,510 Tax Payment Credit Calculation SFR MFR Average Assessed Value2 (April 2022)$590,378 $236,260 Capital Bond Interest Rate (February 2022)3.58% 3.58% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling $4,890,202 $1,956,982 Years Amortized 10 10 Property Tax Levy Rate $1.45 $1.45 Present Value of Revenue Stream $7,091 $2,838 Single Family Multi-Family Residences Residences Mitigation Fee Summary Site Acquisition Cost -$ -$ Permanent Facility Cost 6,363$ 24,344$ Temporary Facility Cost -$ -$ State Match Credit (1,963)$ (7,510)$ Tax Payment Credit (7,091)$ (2,838)$ Sub-Total (2,691)$ 13,996$ 50% Local Share (1,345)$ 6,998$ Calculated Impact Fee1 -$ 6,998$ 1 Each jurisdiction (King County, Cities of Federal Way, Auburn, Kent) through local ordinances may adopt lesser fees. 2 Due to the high number of affordable housing projects in Federal Way there is a significant difference between Appraised and Taxable values. We have chosen to use the Appraised value to give a higher credit to future FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 31 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION, CON’T SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST Consistent with the capacity calculations described earlier, the District uses the OSPI square footage calculation for determining capacity at our secondary schools. Based on this methodology, the following construction costs for Thomas Jefferson High School are allocated as the proportionate share: Square Footage Capacity at approx. 131 sq. ft. Current: 179,119 1378 Planned: 210,000 1615 Increased Capacity 237 Increase as % 17.24% GMP $92,903,922 Proportionate Share $16,017,095 The District will use the above formulas created as a base for future Capital Facilities Plans during the life of the current bond authorization. The capacity of these schools may vary from year to year as programs are added or changed and construction cost may increase over time. FACILITIES CAPACITY Permanent Facility Capacity: Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on page 16. Capacity Summaries: The changes in the Capacity Summary reflect the changes in the capacities and student forecast. New schools and increased capacity at current buildings are shown as increases to capacity. Capacity Summaries are found on pages 24-27. Student Generation Factor Analysis: Federal Way Public Schools student generation factor was determined separately for single-family units and multi-family units. The factors used in the 2023 Capital Facilities Plan were derived using actual generation factors from single- family units and multi-family units that were constructed in the District in the last five (5) years and can be found on the next page Temporary Facility Cost: The list of portables reflects the movement of portables between facilities or new portables purchased. Portable Locations can be found on pages 17 and 18. FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 32 STUDENT GENERATION RATES New Construction 2018-2022 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2024 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 33 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2023 to 2024 Item From/To Comment Percent of Permanent Facilities 96.95% to 97.65%Report #3 OSPI Percent Temporary Facilities 3.05% to 2.41%Updated portable inventory Average Cost of Portable $128,646 to $231,523 Cost of last portable purchased. Classrooms Construction Cost Allocation $246.83 to $246.83 Change effective July 2022 (2023 not available at time of production) State Match 62.95% to 63.86%Change effective July 2022 (2023 not available at time of production) Average Assessed Value Per King County Assessor's Office SFR- $465,326 to $581,023 Single-family residences MFR- $171,672 to $198,069 Apartments (2023 data corrected) Capital Bond Interest Rate 2.45% to 3.58%Market Rate Property Tax Levy Rate $1.85 to $1.45 King County Treasury Division Student Generation Factors Updated Housing Inventory Single-Family Elementary 0.1627 to 0.1705 Middle School 0.0278 to 0.0682 High School 0.0516 to 0.0958 Multi-Family Elementary 0.5158 to 0.7104 Middle School 0.3167 to 0.3665 High School 0.2081 to 0.3665 Impact Fee1 SFR- $0 to $0 Single-Family Residential based on the updated calculation MFR -$0 to $6,998 Multi-Family Residential based on the updated calculation 1 Each jurisdiction (King County, Cities of Federal Way, Auburn, Kent) through local ordinances may adopt lesser fees. Note: Student generation factors for our single family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation. Student generation factors for are multi- family units are based on new developments constructed within the District over the last five (5) years prior to the date of the fee calculation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 19 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of a Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools No. 210 for the purposes of planning for the District's facilities needs. The King County, City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan will be requested to include the District's 2024 Capital Facilities Plan in the Capital Facilities Plan Element. This project may also SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 19 request the City of Des Moines to incorporate the District’s 2024 Capital Facilities Plan into their Comprehensive Plans. 2. Name of applicant: Federal Way School District No. 210. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Federal Way School District No. 210 33330 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 (253) 945-2000 Contact Person: Ms. Jennifer Thomas Student and Demographic Forecaster, Business Services Telephone: (253) 945-2071 Email: jthomas@fwps.org 4. Date checklist prepared: May 24, 2022 5. Agency requesting checklist: Federal Way School District No. 210. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan is scheduled to be adopted by the District in June 2023. The Capital Facilities Plan will be forwarded to King County, the City of Federal Way, City of Kent, and the City of Auburn for inclusion in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It will also be forwarded to the City of Des Moines and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe for consideration. The District will continue to update the Capital Facilities Plan annually. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The Capital Facilities Plan sets forth the capital improvement projects that the District is currently implementing. This includes finishing construction on Federal Way High School and planning for several new voter-approved, Bond-funded projects. Additionally the plan covers the purchase and siting of temporary facilities at various locations. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will undergo additional environmental review, when appropriate, as they are developed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 19 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. This is a nonproject action. See Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The District will request that the following jurisdictions consider adopting the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Captial Facilities Plan as part of their respective Comprehensive Plan: • King County, • City of Federal Way, • City of Kent, • City of Auburn, • City of Des Moines, 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.) This is a non-project action. This proposal involves the adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan for the purpose of planning the District’s facilities needs. The projects included in the Captial Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project- specific environmental reviews. 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 Capital Facilities Plan will affect the Federal Way School District. The District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. The City of Federal Way, parts of the cities of Kent, Des Moines and Auburn, parts of unincorporated King County, fall within the District's boundaries. A detailed map of the District's boundaries may be viewed at the District's main office. B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____________ The Federal Way School District is comprised of a variety of topographic land forms and gradients. Specific topographic characteristics of the sites at which the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan are located have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 19 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Specific slope characteristics at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review. 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Specific soil types found at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-level environmental review when appropriate. Project-level environmental review for any projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will include identification of any agricultural soils and associated impacts. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable soils may exist within the Federal Way School District. Specific soil limitations on individual project sites have been or will be identified at the time of project-level environmental review when appropriate. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject, when appropriate, to project-specific environmental review and local approval at the time of proposal. Proposed grading projects, as well as the purpose, type, quantity, and source of any fill materials to be used have been or will be identified at that time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. It is possible that erosion could occur as a result of the construction projects currently proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The erosion impacts of the individual projects have been or will be evaluated on a site-specific basis at the time of project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Individual projects have been or will be subject to local approval processes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposed renovation projects will require the construction of impervious surfaces. The extent of any impervious cover constructed will vary with each capital facilities project included in the Capital Facilities Plan. This issue has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The erosion potential of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and appropriate control measures have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Relevant erosion reduction and control requirements will be met. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 19 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Various emissions, many construction-related, may result from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The air-quality impacts of each project have been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to project- specific environmental review when appropriate and relevant local approval processes. The District will be required to comply with all applicable air regulations and air permit requirements. Proposed measures specific to the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 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. There is a network of surface water bodies within the Federal Way School District. The surface water bodies that are in the immediate vicinity of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. When necessary, the surface water regimes and flow patterns have been or will be researched and incorporated into the designs of the individual projects. 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. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require work near the surface waters located within the Federal Way School District. Applicable local approval requirements have been or will be satisfied. 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. Information with respect to the placement or removal of fill and dredge material as a component of SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 19 the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Applicable local regulations have been or will be satisfied. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Any surface water withdrawals or diversions required in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Each project included in the Capital Facilities Plan, if located in a floodplain area, will be required to meet applicable local regulations for flood areas. 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. Specific information regarding the discharge of waste materials that may be required as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may impact groundwater resources. The impact of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on groundwater resources has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 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. The discharges of waste material that may take place in connection with the projects included in the Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. 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. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may have storm water runoff consequences. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 19 Specific information regarding the storm water impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local storm water regulations. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may result in the discharge of waste materials into ground or surface waters. The specific impacts of each project on ground and surface waters have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to all applicable regulations regarding the discharge of waste materials into ground and surface waters. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site. Specific information regarding the drainage pattern impacts of each project has been or will be provided during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local drainange pattern regulations. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ____deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ____evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ____shrubs ____grass ____pasture ____crop or grain ____ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____other types of vegetation A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the vegetation located on the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 19 Some of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may require the removal or alteration of vegetation. The specific impacts on vegetation of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. The specific impacts to these species from the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Measures to preserve or enhance vegetation at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local landscaping requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. A variety of vegetative zones are located within the Federal Way School District. Inventories of the noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ________ An inventory of species that have been observed on or near the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Inventories of threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on migration routes have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Appropriate measures to preserve or enhance wildlife have been or will be determined during project- SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 19 specific environmental review when appropriate. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Inventories of any invasive animal species known to be on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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. The State Board of Education requires the completion of a life cycle cost analysis of all heating, lighting, and insulation systems before it will permit specific school projects to proceed. The energy needs of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined at the time of specific engineering and site design planning when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on the solar potential of adjacent projects have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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: Energy conservation measures proposed in connection with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be considered during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may have any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses have been or will be identified during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 19 The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may contain existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used or produced during the project’s development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will comply with all current codes, standards, rules, and regulations. Individual projects have been or will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval at the time they are developed when appropriate. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? A variety of noises from traffic, construction, residential, commercial and industrial areas exists within the Federal Way School District. The specific noise sources that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create normal construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis only. The construction projects could increase traffic around the construction sites on a short-term basis. Please see the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The projected noise impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated and mitigated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Each project is or will be subject to applicable local regulations. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 19 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. There are a variety of land uses within the Federal Way School District, including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, utility, open space, recreational, etc. Impacts on projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on land uses on nearby or adjacent properties have been or will be identified and described during project-level environmental review when appropriate. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The project sites covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have not been used recently as working farmlands or working forest lands. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that may affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations have been or will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe any structures on the site. The structures located on the proposed sites for the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified and described during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The remodeling and renovation projects in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the demolishment of school structures. The structures that will be demolished as a result of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The sites that are covered under the Capital Facilities Plan have a variety of zoning classifications under the applicable zoning codes. Site-specific zoning information has been or will be identified during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 19 Inventories of the comprehensive plan designations for the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be completed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shoreline master program designations of the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Any areas located on the sites of the projects included in the Plan that have been classified as a critical area by the city or county have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The Federal Way School District currently serves approximately 21,500 students. The student population is expected to increase to 22,000 by the year 2029. This projection has been adjusted to reflect the current economic conditions. The District employs approximately 3,200 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Any displacement of people caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. However, it is not anticipated that the Capital Facilities Plan, or any of the projects contained therein, will displace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be subject to project-specific environmental review and local approval when appropriate. Proposed mitigating measures will be proposed at that time, if necessary. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with existing uses and plans has been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: The compatibility of the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance have been or will be assessed as part of the comprehensive planning process and during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 19 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided in connection with the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. It is not anticipated that the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan on existing housing have been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Measures to reduce or control any housing impacts caused by the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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? The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Appropriate measures to reduce or control the aesthetic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be determined on a project-specific basis when appropriate 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 19 The light or glare impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site sources of light or glare that may affect the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Proposed measures to mitigate light and glare impacts have been or will be addressed during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of formal and informal recreational facilities within the Federal Way School District. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The recreational impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, including proposed renovated school and support facilities, may enhance recreational opportunities and uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Adverse recreational effects of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be subject to mitigation during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. A school site usually provides recreational facilities to the community in the form of play fields and gymnasiums. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. There are no known places or objects listed on, or proposed for such registers on the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan. The existence of historic and cultural resources on or next to the sites has been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. An inventory of historical sites at or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 19 has been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be developed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed on a project-specific basis when appropriate. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The impact on public streets and highways of the individual projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The relationship between the specific projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and public transit has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? An inventory of parking spaces located at the sites of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan and the impacts of specific projects on parking availability has been or will be conducted during project- specific environmental review when appropriate. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The need for new streets or roads, or improvements to existing streets and roads has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Use of water, rail, or air transportation has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 19 be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The traffic impacts of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan that may interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan has been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The District does not anticipate that the projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan will substantially increase the need for other public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Remodeled/renovated school or facilities will be built with automatic security systems, fire alarms, smoke alarms, heat sensors, and sprinkler systems. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other ___________ Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, and sanitary sewer utilities are available at the sites of the projects proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan. The types of utilities available at specific project sites have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 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. Utility revisions and construction needs have been or will be identified during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 19 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: . Name of signee: Jennifer Thomas . Position and Agency/Organization: Student and Demographic Forecaster . Date Submitted: 7 June 2023 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to 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; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? To the extent the Capital Facilities Plan makes it more likely that school facilities will be constructed and/or renovated and remodeled, some of these environmental impacts will be more likely. Additional impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks, access roads, and playgrounds could increase storm water runoff, which could enter surface or ground waters. Heating systems, emergency generators, and other school equipment that is installed pursuant to the Capital Facilities Plan could result in air emissions. The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan should not require the production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, with the possible exception of the storage of diesel fuel or gasoline for emergency generating equipment. The District does not anticipate a significant increase in the production of noise from its facilities, although the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will increase the District's student capacities. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Proposed measures to mitigate any such increases described above have been or will be addressed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Storm water detention and runoff will meet applicable County and/or City requirements and may be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting requirements. Discharges to air will meet applicable air pollution control requirements. Fuel oil will be stored in accordance with local and state requirements. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 19 The Capital Facilities Plan itself will have no impact on these elements of the environment. These impacts have been or will be addressed in more detail during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. The projects included in the Plan are not likely to generate severe impacts on fish or marine life. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Specific measures to protect and conserve plants, animals, and fish cannot be identified at this time. Specific mitigation proposals have been or will be identified, however, during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The construction of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will require the consumption of energy. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan will be constructed in accordance with applicable energy efficiency standards. 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 Capital Facilities Plan and individual projects contained therein should have no impact on these resources. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Appropriate measures have been or will be proposed during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. Updates of this Plan will be coordinated with King County and the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, and Auburn as part of the Growth Management Act process, one of the purposes of which is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. To the extent the District's facilities planning process is part of the overall growth management planning process, these resources are more likely to be protected. 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? The Capital Facilities Plan will not have any impact on land or shoreline use that is incompatible with existing comprehensive plans, land use codes, or shoreline management plans. The District does not anticipate that the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein will directly affect land and shoreline uses in the area served by the District. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 19 of 19 No measures to avoid or reduce land use impacts resulting from the Capital Facilities Plan or the projects contained therein are proposed at this time. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan may create temporary increases in the District's need for public services and utilities. Upon the completion of the projects included in the Capital Facilities Plan, however, the District does not anticipate that its need for public services and utilities will increase substantially beyond existing levels. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: No measures to reduce or respond to such demands are proposed at this time. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The Capital Facilities Plan will not conflict with any laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. June 6, 2018 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal This threshold determination analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the following actions, which are so closely related to each other that they are in effect a single action: 1. The adoption of the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan by the Federal Way Public Schools for the purposes of planning for the facilities needs of the District. 2. The amendment of the King County Comprehensive Plan by King County to include the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment of the Comprehensive Plans of the City of Federal Way, City of Kent and the City of Auburn to include the Federal Way Public Schools’ 2024 Capital Facilities Plan as part of the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City of Federal Way’s, City of Kent’s, and the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan. Proponent: Federal Way Public Schools Location of proposal, including street address, if any: The Federal Way Public Schools District includes an area of approximately 35 square miles. Areas of the cities of Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, Milton, Algona, and Auburn fall within the District's boundaries, as do parts of unincorporated King County. Lead agency Federal Way Public Schools is the lead agency pursuant to WAC 197-11-926. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issue. Comments must be submitted by 4:30 p.m., June 23, 2023. The responsible official will reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, modify, or, if significant adverse impacts are likely, withdraw the DNS. If the DNS is retained, it will be final after the expiration of the comment deadline. Responsible Official: Mr. Ty Bergstrom Chief Finance and Operations Officer, Interim Federal Way Public Schools Telephone: (253) 945-2042 Address: 33330 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 Date. _________________ Signature ______________________________________________________________ You may appeal this determination in writing by 4:30 p.m., June 23, 2023 to Jennifer Thomas, Federal Way Public Schools, 33330 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003, or jthomas@fwps.org Date of Issue: June 7, 2023 Date Published: June 16, 2023, and June 23, 2023 June 7, 2023 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan 2022-2023 through 2028-2029 June 2023 Kent School District No. 415 12033 SE 256th Street Kent, Washington 98030-6643 (253) 373-7526 BOARD of DIRECTORS Mr. Joe Bento, President Ms. Meghan Margel, Vice Director Ms. Leslie Hamada, Legislative Representative Mr. Awale Farah, Director Mr. Tim Clark, Director ADMINISTRATION Israel Vela Superintendent of Schools Dr. Wade Barringer, Associate Superintendent Strategic Initiatives & Operations Dave Bussard, Executive Director Operations & Facilities Sara Dumlao, Assistant Director of Business Services Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table of Contents I - Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection ......................................................................... 3 III - Current Kent School District “Standard of Service" ............................................ 7 Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students ............................................... 7 Current District Standards of Service for Secondary Students .................................... 8 IV - Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools ........................................................ 9 V - Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan .......................................................... 14 VI - Portable Classrooms ....................................................................................... 19 VII - Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity ........................................................... 20 VIII - Finance Plan ................................................................................................. 26 IX – Summary of Changes to June 2022 Capital Facilities Plan .............................. 34 X Appendices ..................................................................................................... 35 I - Executive Summary This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan has been prepared by the Kent School District as the organization's capital facilities planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act, King County Code K.C.C. 21A.43 and Cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac. This annual Plan update was prepared using data available in the spring of 2023 for the 2023-2024 school year. This annual update of the Plan reflects no new major capital projects. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document for all the district's needs. The district may prepare interim and periodic Long-Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, considering a longer or shorter period, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the district as may be required. Prior Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School District have been adopted by Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington, Auburn, and Renton and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Comprehensive Plans of each jurisdiction. This Plan has also been submitted to the cities of Black Diamond, Maple Valley, and SeaTac for their information and inclusion in their Comprehensive Plans. In order for impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of Kent School District, the Metropolitan King County Council must adopt this Plan and a fee- implementing ordinance for the District. For impact fees to be collected in the incorporated portions of the District, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton and Auburn must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances. This Capital Facilities Plan establishes a standard of service in order to ascertain current and future capacity. While the State Superintendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for local program needs in the District. The Growth Management Act, King County and City codes and ordinances authorize the District to make adjustments to the standard of service based on specific needs for students of the District. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. Functional capacity is based on an average capacity and updated to reflect changes to special programs served in each building. Portables in the interim capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. 1 The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on the District’s standard of service and the existing inventory of permanent facilities. The District's program capacity of permanent facilities reflects program changes and the state’s mandated reduction of class size to meet the standard of service for Kent School District. Portables provide additional interim capacity. Kent School District is the fifth largest (FTE basis) district in the state. Enrollment is electronically reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (“OSPI”) on Form P-223. Although funding apportionment is based on Annual Average Full Time Equivalent (AAFTE), enrollment on October 1 is a widely recognized “snapshot in time” that is used to report the District’s enrollment for the year as reported to OSPI. The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of interim facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. The District plans to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the interim use of portables. This Plan currently represents projects in process funded primarily by the Kent School District’s 2016 Bond, as well as the 2018 Capital Levy. Additional information about these projects can be found on the District’s capital projects homepage (link). Additionally, project updates sent to our community of stakeholders can be accessed on the KSD website (link). Based on revised student generation rates, our capacity and enrollment projections, the District will stay current with non-collection of student impact fee rate for the coming year. For a short overview, see Section IX (Summary of Changes to the June 2022 Capital Facilities Plan). 2 II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, enrollment growth projections are based on cohort survival and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years (See Table 2). For this Plan, the district relied substantially on the results from Dr. Les Kendrick’s study of long-range enrollment forecasts for the Kent School District in the Winter of 2022. King County live births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entering the system (See Table 2). 7.49% of 24,337 King County live births in 2018 is projected for 1,824 students expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2023. This is a decrease of 937 live births in King County over the previous year. Early Childhood Education students (also identified as “ECE”), “Early Childhood Special Education (“ECSE”) students are forecast and reported to OSPI separately on Form P-223H for Special Education Enrollment. Capacity is reserved to serve students in the ECE programs at elementary schools. In addition to live birth data, enrollment projections for October 1, 2023 going forward rely upon the results of the enrollment study by Dr. Kendrick, utilizing the “medium growth” methodology. Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact to schools. Information on new residential developments and the completion of these proposed developments in all jurisdictions will be considered in the District's future analysis of growth projections. The Kent School District serves eight permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, Renton, and Auburn and smaller portions of the cities of SeaTac, Black Diamond, and Maple Valley. 3 STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR "Student Factor" is defined by King County code as "the number derived by a school district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit" based on district records of average actual student generated rates for developments completed within the last ten years. Following these guidelines, the student generation rate for Kent School District is as follows: Single Family Elementary .248 Middle School .085 Senior High .107 Total .440 Multi-Family Elementary .130 Middle School .049 Senior High .056 Total .235 The student generation factor is based on 1,728 new SFD (Single Family Detached) units built between 2017 and 2021. The student generation factor is based on 1,526 new MF (Multi- Family) units built during the same period. The multi-family units consisted of 1,222 apartment units and 340 townhome units. The District sees an average of 44 students for every 100 single family units that are built and an average of 24 students for every 100 multi-family units that are built. The rate for apartment units is higher than for townhome units. The District sees an average of 29 students for every 100 apartment units. The student generation rate also varies among apartment developments, based on the number of bedrooms in the unit. Units with three plus bedrooms have much higher student generation rates than units that have two or fewer bedrooms. Noting these differences can help the District when planning for future growth from housing. In preparing the 2022-2023 to 2028-2029 Capital Facilities Plan the District contracted with Educational Data Solutions, LLC led by Dr. Les Kendricks, a noted expert in demographic studies for school districts, to analyze and prepare the student generation factor. Within the district’s borders there are several income-based and multi-family housing projects coming on-line in 2022/2023. Once developed with occupancy occurring the District does recognize that the student generation for multi-family housing may impact future Capital Facilities Plan updates. One multi-family project worth noting, Covington Commons which appears to have many units with three-plus bedrooms and is likely to show better student growth than the medium project once completed. 4 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 OCTOBER REPORT 1251H (HEADCOUNT) ENROLLMENT HISTORY LB = Live Births LB in 2008 LB in 2009 LB in 2010 LB in 2011 LB in 2012 LB in 2013 LB in 2014 LB in 2015 LB in 2016 LB in 2017 October HC Enrollment 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 King County Live Births 1 25,222 25,057 24,514 24,630 25,032 24,910 25,348 25,487 26,011 25,274 Incr/(Decr)323 (165)(543)116 402 (122)438 139 524 (737) Kindergarten / Birth % 1 8.40%8.34%8.34%8.17%8.14%7.98%7.93%6.68%7.06%7.42% Kindergarten 2,119 2,090 2,045 2,013 2,037 1,989 2,010 1,703 1,837 1,875 Grade 1 2,186 2,127 2,131 2,067 2,056 2,061 2,036 1,882 1,768 1,945 Grade 2 2,055 2,190 2,163 2,163 2,077 2,008 2,091 1,980 1,817 1,840 Grade 3 1,922 2,070 2,176 2,195 2,143 2,043 1,995 2,001 1,938 1,887 Grade 4 2,087 1,956 2,089 2,195 2,218 2,118 2,038 1,912 1,924 1,953 Grade 5 2,008 2,116 1,958 2,103 2,189 2,169 2,120 1,937 1,872 1,953 Grade 6 2,079 2,023 2,058 1,952 2,120 2,184 2,164 2,024 1,894 1,962 Grade 7 Middle School 2,046 2,104 1,974 2,021 1,922 2,044 2,166 2,010 1,925 1,906 Grade 8 " "2,121 2,091 2,100 2,021 2,043 1,882 2,073 2,086 1,937 1,956 Grade 9 Senior High 2,483 2,428 2,093 2,105 2,006 2,004 1,888 2,006 2,043 2,011 Grade 10 " "2,046 2,151 2,165 2,099 2,080 1,946 2,035 1,813 1,959 2,050 Grade 11 " "1,873 1,802 1,818 1,865 1,823 1,732 1,663 1,744 1,583 1,677 Grade 12 " "1,539 1,576 1,742 1,730 1,810 1,654 1,634 1,484 1,656 1,467 Total Enrollment 2 26,564 26,724 26,512 26,529 26,524 25,834 25,913 24,582 24,153 24,482 Yearly Headcount Incr/(Decr)(48)160 (212)17 (5)(690)79 (1,331)(429)329 Cumulative Incr/(Decr)(267)(107)(319)(302)(307)(997)(918)(2,249)(2,678)(2,349) For 2023 CFP - Headcount Enrollment History 1 This number indicates actual births in King County 5 years prior to enrollment year as updated by Washington State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics. Kent School District percentage based on actual Kindergarten enrollment 5 years later. 2 Enrollment reported to OSPI on Form P-223 generates basic education funding and excludes Early Childhood Special Education ("ECSE" & "B2" or Birth to 2 Preschool Inclusive Education) and excludes College-only Running Start students. Change to Full Day Kindergarten for all schools Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 1 May 2023 5 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX - YEAR ENROLLMENT PROJECTION Full Day Kindergarten at all Elem LB in 2017 LB in 2018 LB in 2019 LB in 2020 LB in 2021 Est LB in 2022 Est. LB in 2023 ACTUAL ENROLLMENT October 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 King County Live Births 25,274 24,337 24,090 23,686 23,428 23,583 23,973 Incr/(Decr)(213)(937)(247)(404)(258)155 390 Kindergarten / Birth % 7.42%7.49%7.53%7.60%7.60%7.75%7.75% FD Kindergarten 1,875 1,824 1,814 1,801 1,781 1,827 1,858 Grade 1 1,945 1,937 1,893 1,902 1,888 1,849 1,897 Grade 2 1,840 1,967 1,960 1,945 1,954 1,930 1,890 Grade 3 1,887 1,871 2,003 2,016 2,000 2,009 1,985 Grade 4 1,953 1,874 1,861 2,012 2,025 2,009 2,018 Grade 5 1,953 1,964 1,887 1,893 2,047 2,060 2,044 Grade 6 1,962 1,995 2,008 1,949 1,955 2,114 2,128 Grade 7 Middle School 1,906 1,939 1,975 2,007 1,948 1,954 2,113 Grade 8 " "1,956 1,903 1,936 1,991 2,024 1,964 1,970 Grade 9 Senior High 2,011 1,993 1,941 1,995 2,051 2,085 2,024 Grade 10 " "2,050 2,009 1,991 1,959 2,013 2,070 2,104 Grade 11 " "1,677 1,798 1,763 1,765 1,736 1,784 1,834 Grade 12 " "1,467 1,585 1,691 1,675 1,677 1,649 1,695 Total Enrollment Projection 24,482 24,659 24,723 24,910 25,099 25,304 25,560 Yearly Incr/(Decr)(100)177 64 187 189 205 256 Yearly Incr/(Decr) %-0.41%0.72%0.26%0.76%0.76%0.82%1.01% Total Enrollment Projection*24,482 24,659 24,723 24,910 25,099 25,304 25,560 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study Dec '22 ("Medium Growth Model") 2022 - 2028 Enrollment Projections PROJECTED ENROLLMENT Live births for King County are estimates for year 2022 & 2023 *Does not include iGrad, RS Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 2 May 2023 6 III - Current Kent School District “Standard of Service" In order to determine the capacity of facilities in a school district, King County Code 21A.06.1225 references a "standard of service" that each school district must establish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the District which would best serve the student population. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. The District has identified schools with significant special needs programs as “impact” schools and the standard of service targets a lower-class size at those facilities. Portables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. The standard of service defined herein will continue to evolve in the future. Kent School District is continuing a long-term strategic planning process combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service. This process will affect various aspects of the District's standard of service and future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students •Class size ratio for grades K - 3 is planned for an average of 23 students per class, not to exceed 26. •Class size ratio for grades 4 - 6 is planned for an average of 27 students per class, not to exceed 29. Some special programs require specialized classroom space and the program capacity of some of the buildings housing these programs is reduced. Some students, for example, leave their regular classroom for a short period of time to receive instruction in special programs and space must be allocated to serve these programs. Students may also be provided with music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility. Some identified students will also be provided educational opportunities in classrooms for special programs such as those designated as follows: Multilingual Learner Education (MLE) Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title I) – Federal Program Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) – State Program 7 Highly Capable Students – State Program Reading, math or science Labs Dual Language Programs in four elementary schools and one middle school Inclusive Education Service for Elementary and Secondary students with disabilities may be provided in a separate or self-contained classroom sometimes with a capacity of 10-15 students, depending on the program. Current District Standards of Service for Secondary Students The standards of service outlined below reflect only those programs and educational opportunities provided to secondary students which directly affect the capacity of the school buildings per the negotiated collective bargaining agreement with KEA. •The average class size ratio for grades 7–8 is 30 students per class and 143 students per day, with a maximum daily class load/enrollment of 150 based on five class periods per day. •The average class size ratio for grades 9-12 is 32 students per class and 153 students per day, with a maximum daily class load/enrollment of 160 based on five class periods per day. Like Inclusive Education Programs listed above, many other secondary programs require specialized classroom space which can reduce the functional capacity of the permanent school buildings, such as technology labs, performing arts activities, a variety of career and technical education programs, and other specialized programs. Space or Classroom Utilization As a result of scheduling conflicts for student programs, the need for specialized rooms for certain programs, and the need for teachers to have a workspace during their planning periods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of regular teaching stations at secondary schools. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of classrooms, the Kent School District has determined that the standard utilization rate is 95% for secondary schools. Functional capacity at elementary schools reflects 100% utilization at the elementary level. 8 IV - Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has permanent functional capacity to house 33,847 students and interim (portable) capacity to house 4,161. This capacity is based on the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section III. Included in this Plan is an inventory of the District's schools by type, address and current capacity (See Table 3). The ratio between permanent capacity and portable capacity is 87.8% - 12.2%. The functional capacity is periodically updated for changes in the programs, additional classrooms, and new schools. Functional capacity has been updated in this Plan to reflect program changes implemented in the Fall of 2022. Calculation of Elementary, Middle School and Senior High School capacities are set forth in Appendices A, B, and C. Maps of existing schools are included. For clarification, the following is a brief description of some of the non-traditional programs for students in Kent School District: iGrad - Kent School District has developed the Individualized Graduation and Degree Program or “iGrad”. iGrad is an Open Door (Drop-out Reengagement) School that offers a second plus chance to students aged 16-21 who have dropped out of high school or are at risk of not earning a high school diploma by age 21. iGrad is not included in this Capital Facilities Plan, because it is served as a leased space at the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center. Over the past three years, enrollment in the iGrad program has averaged over 250 students. Kent Virtual Academy - The Kent Virtual Academy is open to grades 6-12 and is currently serving 171 students. The virtual school offers a flexible learning experience designed to engage students when and where they work best. Each school day will include a combination of live (synchronous) virtual instruction and on-demand (asynchronous) learning opportunities outside of a traditional bell schedule. Students can attend live virtual lessons with their teachers and classmates, participate in live virtual class or small group discussions, check-in or meet with teachers, watch recorded video lessons, work independently on projects and lessons, participate in learning experiences outside the school setting for credit or to meet competencies. Virtual school students may also attend their boundary school for select classes and services. 9 2022 - 2023 Year Opened Carriage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235 - 140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 550 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 576 Covington Elementary 2018 CO 25811 156th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 620 Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 504 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031 626 Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 602 Fairwood Elementary 1969 FW 16600 - 148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 490 George T. Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 446 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405 - 120th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 602 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700 - 191st Place SE, Kent 98042 564 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 - 144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 578 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 596 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700 - 64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 550 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660 - 142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 658 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 580 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1994 MR 27710 - 108th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 522 Meridian Elementary 1939 ME 25621 - 140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 608 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98030 580 Neely-O'Brien Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 522 Panther Lake Elementary 2009 PL 12022 SE 216th Street, Kent, 98031 546 Park Orchard Elementary 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 642 Pine Tree Elementary 1967 PT 27825 - 118th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 648 Ridgewood Elementary 1987 RW 18030 - 162nd Place SE, Renton 98058 578 River Ridge Elementary 2021 RR 00000 - 22420 Military Rd S SeaTac, WA 858 Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 554 Scenic Hill Elementary 1960 SH 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98030 600 Soos Creek Elementary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 508 Springbrook Elementary 1969 SB 20035 - 100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 564 Sunrise Elementary 1992 SR 22300 - 132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 578 Elementary TOTAL 16,850 Cedar Heights Middle School 1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street, Covington 98042 1,112 Mattson Middle School 1981 MA 16400 SE 251st Street, Covington 98042 922 Meeker Middle School 1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 1,154 Meridian Middle School 1958 MM 23480 - 120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 884 Mill Creek Middle School 2005 MC 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 1,058 Northwood Middle School 1996 NW 17007 SE 184th Street, Renton 98058 1,090 Canyon Ridge Middle School 1966 CR 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 0 Middle School TOTAL 6,220 Kent-Meridian High School 1951 KM 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98030 2,211 Kentlake Senior High School 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 2,516 Kentridge Senior High School 1968 KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 2,940 Kentwood Senior High School 1981 KW 2,608 Senior High TOTAL 10,275 Kent Laboratory Academy 2021 KA 00000 - 208th St Kent, WA 98030 502 Kent Virtual Academy KVA No hard Building i-Grad Program IG Not a KSD Building DISTRICT TOTAL 33,847 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 25225 - 180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 26915 - 186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 25800 - 164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 Functional CapacitySCHOOLABRADDRESS 31135 - 228th Ave SE, Black Diamond 98010 10 Kent-Meridian High School Kentlake High School Kentridge High School Kentwood High School King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA Kent School District 2022/23 School Year High School Boundaries Legend High School Buildings Kent-Meridian High School Kentlake High School Kentridge High School Kentwood High School ± 0 4 82 Miles 11 Kent School District 2022/23 School Year Middle School Boundaries Cedar Heights Middle School Mattson Middle School Meeker Middle School Meridian Middle School Mill Creek Middle School Northwood Middle School King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA 0 4 82 Miles Legend Cedar Heights Middle School Mattson Middle School Meeker Middle School Meridian Middle School Mill Creek Middle School Northwood Middle School Middle Schools ± 12 Kent School District 2022/23 School Year Elementary School Boundaries Carriage Crest Elementary Cedar Valley ElementaryCovington Elementary Crestwood Elementary East Hill Elementary Emerald Park Elementary Fairwood Elementary Daniel Elementary Glenridge Elementary Grass Lake Elementary Horizon Elementary Jenkins Creek Elementary Kent Elementary Lake Youngs Elementary Martin Sortun Elementary Meadow Ridge Elementary Meridian Elementary Millennium Elementary Neely O Brien Elementary Panther Lake Elementary Park Orchard Elementary Pine Tree Elementary Ridgewood Elementary Sawyer Woods Elementary Scenic Hill Elementary Soos Creek Elementary Springbrook Elementary Sunrise Elementary River Ridge Elementary King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA 0 4 82 Miles Legend Carriage Crest Elementary Cedar Valley Elementary Covington Elementary Crestwood Elementary Daniel Elementary East Hill Elementary Emerald Park Elementary Fairwood Elementary Glenridge Elementary Grass Lake Elementary Horizon Elementary Jenkins Creek Elementary Kent Elementary Lake Youngs Elementary Martin Sortun Elementary Meadow Ridge Elementary Meridian Elementary Millennium Elementary Neely O Brien Elementary Panther Lake Elementary Park Orchard Elementary Pine Tree Elementary Ridgewood Elementary River Ridge Elementary Sawyer Woods Elementary Scenic Hill Elementary Soos Creek Elementary Springbrook Elementary Sunrise Elementary Elementary Schools ± 13 V - Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan In November 2016, the voters of the Kent School District approved a bond measure for $252 million. This bonding authority provided for the replacement of Covington Elementary school, which opened in August of 2018, the new River Ridge Elementary school, and our new Kent Laboratory Academy, which both opened in August 2021. As a critical component of capital facilities planning, county and city planners and decision - makers are encouraged to consider safe walking conditions for all students when reviewing applications and design plans for new roads and developments. This should include sidewalks for pedestrian safety to and from school and bus stops as well as bus pull -outs and turn- arounds. Included in this Plan is an inventory of potential projects and sites identified by the District which are potentially acceptable site alternatives in the future (See Table 4 & Sitemap). Voter approved bond issues have included funding for the purchase of sites for some of these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan. Some funding is secured for the purchase of additional sites, but some may be funded with impact fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties meet current school construction requirements, and some property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs. The Board will continue an annual review of standards of service and those dec isions will be reflected in each update of the Capital Facilities Plan. Our District went out for a Bond Measure in April of 2023 and did not receive enough votes for approval. We are currently re-evaluating district needs and looking at next steps that align with the Strategic Plan which continues to make a priority to revitalize, rejuvenate and rebuild our aging schools as well as begin a process to remove interim classroom portables and find room or create permanent structures to reduce and eventually eliminate the more than 166 portable classrooms in our district. We will continue to determine capacity versus enrollment as well as programs to ensure this goal to reduce and or eliminate all portables in our district is obtained in the next several years. As a part of the planning process, the District has been tracking a few major development projects which have affected enrollment and will continue to increase students' forecasts. On Meeker Street in Kent we have seen several major apartment complexes, ETHOS and Midtown 64 Apartments. These continue to have an impact on enrollment as they fill up their newly built facilities. Alexian Gateway Project is located on the corner of Military Road and Veterans Drive in Kent and will begin occupying its 283 planned units in 2023-2024. In Covington, we are tracking a multi-family house development which has been approved and construction has begun. The 1700-unit Lakepointe Urban Community will fall within our 14 enrollment boundary and proposed completion of Phase 4 is shown to be 2027 . Construction in the Kent School District boundaries have been steadily rising over the last four years and planned communities are now being recognized through the planning teams in multiple city and county jurisdictions we serve. 15 ccccccccccccc cc cccccccccccccccccc c c c c c c c c c c c cVETERANS DRIVEO L D M IL IT A R Y R O A D S O U T HAMENITY SPACETRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURESTRASH ENCLOSURES2101220123012401210422042304240421052205230524052108220823082408210922092309240921122212231224122113221323132413211622162316241621022202230224022103220323032403------220623062406------220723072407------221023102410------221123112411------221423142414------221523152415MAINTENANCE SHEDM0011. UNIT NUMBERS READ TOP TO BOTTOM (FLOOR 1-4) AS INDICATED ON THE UNIT STACK ONE BEDROOM UNITSTWO BEDROOM UNITSTHREE BEDROOM UNITSLEGEND31023202330234023101320133013401310332033303340331043204330434043106320633063406310532053305340531073207330734073108320833083408311032103310341031093209330934093112321233123412311432143314341431113211331134113101320133013401TYPE A UNITS31153215331534153116321633163416------32173317341731183218331834183119321933193419------322033203420------32213321342131223222332234223123322333233423------3224332434241105120513051405NO UNIT - GARAGE ONLY-----*******BUILDING SIGNAGE------120413041404------12011301------------------1302------------120313031403110612061306140611071207130714071110121013101410110812081308140811091209130914091112121213121412111512151315141511161216131614161117121713171417------121813181418------121513151415------12141314141411111211131114111120122013201420112112211321142111241224132414241125122513251425112812281328142811291229132914291132123213321432113312331333143311361236133614361137123713371437------121913191419------122213221422------122313231423------122613261426------122713271427------123013301430------123113311431------123413341434------1235133514351138123813381438APARTMENT PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE MONUMENT SIGNS -------SHOWING THE STREET ADDRESSES OF EACH BUILDING AT EACH VEHICLE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. EACH ETHICAL ENTRANCE SHALL ALSO HAVE AN ILLUMINATED SITE PLAN AND / OR DIRECTLY SIGNS. THE SIGNS SHALL SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN (THE VIEWER'S CURRENT LOCATION) AND ALL BUILDING ADDRESSES. DWELLING NUMBERS SHALL BE INCLUDED. THE MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL HAVE A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND COLOR.ALL SITE SIGNAGE TO BE PER OWNERS SPECIFICATION AND DESIGN AND UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. * INDICATE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ILLUMINATED BUILDING ADDRESS SIGNAGE. SIGNAGE FOR BUILDINGS MUST INCLUDE THE ENTIRE BUILDING ADDRESS AND STREET NAME. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES IN HEIGHT. THE BUILDING SIGN SHALL HAVE A CONTRASTING BACKGROUND COLOR.542 1st AVE. SOUTH, FLOOR 4SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE LLC© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE II LLC© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE III PLLC© 2019 KATERRA ARCHITECTURE IV LLCALL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS, IDEAS, ARRANGEMENTS AND DESIGNS REPRESENTED OR REFERRED TO ARE THE PROPERTY OF AND ARE OWNED BY KATERRA INC. WHETHER THE PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE IS EXECUTED OR NOT. THEY WERE CREATED, EVOLVED, DEVELOPED AND PRODUCED FOR THE SOLE USE ON AND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT AND NONE OF THE ABOVE MAY BE DISCLOSED OR GIVEN TO OR USED BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION FOR ANY USE OR PURPOSE WHATSOEVER INCLUDING ANY OTHER PROJECT, EXCEPT UPON WRITTEN PERMISSION AND DIRECTION OF KATERRA INC. OwnerConsultantBLDG. 1BLDG. 2BLDG. 3Key plan RevisionsMarkDateDescriptionN10/30/2020UNITNUMBERING/ADDRESSINGSHEET(1,2,3)G.00.014ALEXANGATEWAYAPARTMENTS23000 MILITARY RD S,KENT, WA 98032RMRM075-1800112/13/19IFC SETDrawn ByProject ManagerJob NumberDate Of OriginalProfessional SealSCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0"1UNIT NUMBERING PLANNORTH0 06/12/2019 PERMIT SET2 01/09/2020 REV.3 ITCDUPDATES6 05/22/2020 PC1 CORRECTIONS16 Phase 1BPhase 2Phase 3SE 260th St189th Ave SE 188th Ave SE191st Pl SE SE 259th Pl193r d P l S E 196 t h A v e S E SE 259th StSE 260th St19 9 t h A v e S E SE Timberlane Blvd198th Pl SESE 256th StSR 18 204th Ave SE2 0 1 s t A v e S E SE 258th St203rd Ave SE SE 258th PlPhase 4Phase 1APhasing LegendPhasing MapLakepointe Urban VillagePhasing MapLakepointe Urban Village200400400'0100SCALE: 1" = NNOTE:THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDINGS ROADWAYS ANDTRAILS, IS APPROXIMATE AND DOES NOT VEST TO THIER SPECIFICLOCATION. THE LOCATION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASEDON EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND THETERMS OF THE PLANNED ACTION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,AND APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS.January 30, 2017Phase 1B - Approximate Years 2019-2024Phase 2 - Approximate Years 2020-2025Phase 3 - Approximate Years 2023-2028Establishment of final grade, construction of Covington Connector toSoutheast boundary, construction of first phase of commercialdevelopment.Establishment of final lake perimeter, construction of 191st Place SEextension and associated R-12 residential development, construction ofsecond phase of commercial development on peninsula.Construction of third phase of commercial development.Preliminary Plat approval in third quarter 2021. Construction and FinalPlat Recording 2022.Phase 1A - Maple Hills Division 5Phase 4 - Approximate Years 2020-2027Completion of gravel pit reclamation, construction of MR andR-12 residential developmentUpdated September 15, 2021119108817 191st Pl SE Jenkins CreekSE 260th St189th Ave SE 188th Ave SE191st Pl SE SE 259th Pl19 3 r d P l S E 19 6 t h A v e S E SE 259th StSE 260th St19 9 t h A v e S E SE Timberlane Blvd198th Pl SESE 256th StSR 18 204th Ave SE2 0 1 s t A v e S E SE 258th St203rd Ave SE SE 258th PlBRCMU PARKS24,956 SF0.57 ACRCMU PARKS97,621 SF2.24 ACMR PARKS110,686 SF2.54 ACR-12 PARKS14,185 SF0.33 ACR-12 PARKS12,500 SF0.29 ACMR PARKS128,425 SF2.95 ACR-12 PARKS32,553 SF0.75 ACR-6 PARKS14,112 SF0.32 ACR-12 PARKS7,254 SF0.17 ACR-6 OPEN SPACE1,880,037 SF43.16 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE572,210 SF13.14 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE4,549 SF0.10 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE34,788 SF0.80 ACRCMU OPENSPACE86,894 SF1.99 ACR-6 PARKS9,908 SF0.23 ACMR PARKS12,799 SF0.29 ACMR OPEN SPACE22,507 SF0.52 ACR-12 OPEN SPACE5,687 SF0.13 ACR-6 OPEN SPACE139,837 SF3.21 ACR-6 OPEN SPACE57,182 SF1.31 ACPC o v i n g t o n C o n n e c t o r Master Development PlanLakepointe Urban VillageMaster Development PlanLakepointe Urban VillageJanuary 30, 2017WetlandWetland BufferUndisturbed Open SpacePublicly Accessible Parks and PlazasMedium Density Residential (R-6)Central Pond FeatureCovington Highlands TrailTrails / Offsite Trail ConnectionsStop LightProposed Park and Ride FacilityTransit StopProposed Truck and Bus Return RoutePublic StreetsHigh Density Residential (R-12)Mixed Residential (MR)Mixed Use / Commercial (RCMU)LegendBBike RouteCENTRAL POND FEATUREGateway ElementSteep Slope and Buffer200400400'0100SCALE: 1" = NProposed Trail ParkingFocal Point / Public Gathering SpotLandscape AreasJenkins CreekPPedestrian / Wildlife UndercrossingNOTE:THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDINGS ROADWAYS ANDTRAILS, IS APPROXIMATE AND DOES NOT VEST TO THIER SPECIFICLOCATION. THE LOCATION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BASEDON EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION AND THETERMS OF THE PLANNED ACTION, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,AND APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS.Mix of Multi-Family and Commercial isEncouraged within Peninsula AreaUpdated September 15, 2021Disturbed (Graded) Open SpaceSPECIAL PAVEMENTPARKS TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONE SQ FOOTAGE ACREAGE122,577 SF251,910 SF66,492 SF24,020 SF2.81 AC5.78 AC1.53 AC0.55 ACTOTAL464,999 SF 10.67 ACPOND TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONE SQ FOOTAGE ACREAGE366,128 SF106,040 SF334,094 SF0 SF8.41 AC2.43 AC7.67 AC0.00 ACTOTAL806,262 SF 18.51 ACOPEN SPACE TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONE SQ FOOTAGE ACREAGE86,984 SF22,507 SF617,234 SF2,077,056 SF1.99 AC0.52 AC14.17 AC47.68 ACTOTAL2,803,691 SF 64.36 ACCOMBINED OPEN SPACE TABLERCMUMRR-12R-6ZONEPARKS2.81 AC5.78 AC1.53 AC0.55 ACTOTAL10.67 AC91.25 AC34.00 AC35.34 AC53.51 AC214.10 ACOPEN SPACE* POND8.41 AC2.43 AC7.67 AC0.00 AC18.51 AC*OPEN SPACE INCLUDES CRITICAL AREAS, BUFFERS, AND OTHER GREEN SPACES13.21 AC8.73 AC23.37 AC48.23 AC93.55 ACNET ACRES**78.03 AC25.27 AC11.98 AC5.27 AC120.55 AC1.99 AC0.52 AC14.17 AC47.68 AC64.36 ACGROSSACREAGETOTALAMENITIESWILDLIFE /PEDESTRIANUNDER-CROSSING**NET ACRES EQUALS GROSS ACREAGE MINUS TOTAL AMENITIESFUTURE CONNECTIONBEYOND PROPERTY BYOTHERS3646125718 VI - Portable Classrooms The Plan references use of portables as interim capacity for facilities. Currently, the District utilizes portables to house students more than functional capacity and for program purposes at some school locations (Please see Appendices A, B, C). Based on enrollment projections, implementation of full day kindergarten programs, lower state mandated class sizes, functional capacity, and no need for additional interim capacity, the District anticipates no need to purchase or lease additional portables during the next six - year period to ensure capacity requirement (Noted in section V. Six Yr. Planning Construction). During the time period covered by this Plan, the District does not anticipate that all of the District’s portables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During the useful life of some of the portables, the school-age population may decline in some communities and increase in others, and these portables provide the flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community. Portables may be used as interim facilities: 1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school facilities. 2. To cover the gap between the times of demand for increased capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet that demand. 3. To meet unique program requirements. Portables currently in the District’s inventory are continually evaluated resulting in some being improved and some replaced or when possible, be removed due to life expectancy. The Districts goal is to reduce and or eliminate all portables so we may provide an equitable learning environment for all. The Plan projects that the District will use portables to accommodate interim housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of portables, their impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the interrelationship between portables, emerging technologies, and educational restructuring will continue to be examined. 19 VII - Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity As stated in Section IV, the functional capacity study is periodically updated for changes in special programs and reflects class size requirements, class size fluctuations etc. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3, the functional capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts (See Tables 5 & 5 a-b-c). Enrollment is electronically reported to OSPI on Form P-223 on a monthly basis and funding apportionment is based on Annual Average FTE (AAFTE). The first school day of October is widely recognized as the enrollment “snapshot in time” to report enrollment for the year. Kent School District continues to be the fifth largest district (both FTE and headcount basis) in the state of Washington. The P-223 Headcount for October 2022 was 24,482 with kindergarten students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECSE and college-only Running Start students. In October 2022, there were an additional 877 students in 11th and 12th grade participating in the Running Start program at different colleges and receiving credits toward both high school and college graduation. Of these students, 486 attended classes only at the college (“college-only”) and are excluded from FTE and headcount for capacity and enrollment comparisons. Kent School District has one of the highest Running Start program participation rates in the state. Based on the enrollment forecasts, permanent facility inventory and capacity, current standard of service, portable capacity, and future additional classroom space, the District plans to continue to satisfy required capacity through the interim use of portables (See Table 5 and Tables 5 a-b-c). While the district currently shows available capacity to address projected need on a purely statistical basis, there are variety of extenuating factors that need to be considered. The Kent School District currently makes significant use of portables, which we do not consider as part of our permanent standard of service. We have included portable space in our interim capacity figures, and we do not count that as a permanent space solution. Kent is unusual in that it incorporates neighborhoods intersecting with at least 6 municipalities, including Kent , Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, Renton, and SeaTac. The district covers 73 square miles and includes over 40 schools. Within this large geographic area, we expect to have pockets of localized capacity need that are not necessarily reflected in the aggregate figures. As one example, the Lakepointe Urban Village development in Covington may require new classroom capacity even as space may exist in schools on the far other end of the district’s boundaries. 20 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Actual Permanent Functional Capacity 1 33,847 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 Changes to Permanent Capacity 1 Capacity Increase (F) Additional Permanent Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 33,847 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 34,529 Interim Portable Capacity Elementary Portable Capacity Required 3,240 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 Middle School Portable Capacity Required 336 308 308 308 308 308 308 Senior High School Portable Capacity Required 654 540 540 540 540 540 540 Interim Portable Capacity Total 4,230 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 4,040 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 38,077 38,569 38,569 38,569 38,569 38,569 38,569 TOTAL ENROLLMENT/ PROJECTION 2 24,482 24,659 24,723 24,910 25,099 25,304 25,560 DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 13,595 13,910 13,846 13,659 13,470 13,265 13,009 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2022 ("Medium Growth Model") P R O J E C T E D Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 May 2023 21 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SCHOOL YEAR 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Actual Senior High Permanent Capacity 1 10,275 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 Changes to High School Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 10,275 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 Portables Interim Capacity 1 654 540 540 540 540 540 540 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 10,929 10,637 10,637 10,637 10,637 10,637 10,637 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 3 7,205 7,385 7,386 7,394 7,477 7,588 7,657 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 3,724 3,252 3,251 3,243 3,160 3,049 2,980 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 3 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2022 ("Medium Growth Model") P R O J E C T E D No Classroom Portables required at this time. Some Portables used for classroom and program purposes. SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: Grades 9 - 12 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C May 2023 22 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY 7-8 SCHOOL YEAR 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Actual Middle School Permanent Capacity 1 6,220 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 Changes to Middle School Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 6,220 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 Portable Interim Capacity 1 336 308 308 308 308 308 308 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 & 3 6,556 7,524 7,524 7,524 7,524 7,524 7,524 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 3,862 5,837 5,919 5,947 5,927 6,032 6,211 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 2,694 1,687 1,605 1,577 1,597 1,492 1,313 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. MIDDLE SCHOOL: Grades 7 - 8 2022-23 **Middle School: Grades 6-8 2023-24 and Beyond** 2 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2022 ("Medium Growth Model") P R O J E C T E D G r a d e 6 / 8 2 0 2 3 / 2 4 a n d b e y o n d Middle School Grade 6-8 No Classroom Portables required at middle schools at this time. Some Portables used for classroom and program purposes. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B May 2023 23 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY K-6 SCHOOL YEAR 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Actual Elementary Permanent Capacity 1 16,850 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 Additional Permanent Classrooms 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 16,850 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 Interim Portable Capacity 3,240 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 3,192 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 / 2 20,090 19,888 19,888 19,888 19,888 19,888 19,888 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 3 13,415 11,437 11,418 11,569 11,695 11,684 11,692 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 6,675 8,451 8,470 8,319 8,193 8,204 8,196 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Additional classrooms will be placed at schools with the greatest need for aleve overcrowding 3 Projection Source: Les Kendrick Demographic Study, 2022 ("Medium Growth Model") Enrollment & Projections reflect FULL Day Kindergarten at ALL Elementary schools @ 1.0 & exclude ECSE Preschoolers. P R O J E C T E D G r a d e K / 5 2 0 2 3 / 2 4 a n d b e y o n d Elementary Grade K-5 ELEMENTARY: Grades K - 6 Thru 2022-23 **ELEMENTARY: Grades K - 5 2023-24 and Beyond** Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A May 2023 24 VIII - Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2022-2023 through 2028-2029. The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact fees. The plan is based on future bond issues, state school construction assistance, collection of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act. In November 2016, the District held a special election to approve the authorization of $252,000,000 in bonding authority. The projects described below are part of this authorization. The first series of bonds ($80 million) were issued in February 2017, which funded the Covington Elementary Replacement School, as well as other infrastructure projects. Impact fees were used at both River Ridge Elementary School and Kent Laboratory Academy projects due to escalation in construction pricing across the Pacific Northwest. According to RCW 82.02.090, the definition of an impact fee is ". . . a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. `Impact fee' does not include a reasonab le permit or application fee." Mitigation or impact fees can be calculated on the basis of "unhoused student need" or "the maintenance of a district's level of service" as related to new residential development. A mitigation/impact fee may be imposed based upon a determination of insufficient existing permanent and/or interim portable school space or to pay for permanent and/or newly acquired interim portable school space previously constructed as a result of growth in the district. A district's School Board must first approve the application of the mitigation or impact fees and, in turn, approval must then be granted by the other general government jurisdictions having responsibility within the district, counties, cities and towns. (Kent, Covington, Renton, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, SeaTac, and Unincorporated King County) Though the current enrollment projections increase for both elementary and secondary schools are relatively flat, the ongoing need to provide permanent instructional facilities to house students is a driving need as the shifts in our family populations continue, due to ongoing development. Previously collected Impact fees may be used to support and address the challenges related to the number of interim instructional facilities currently in use, the replacement of some of these aged facilities, the maintenance of the district's level of services, and the potential expansions to existing facilities in future years. The Kent School District 2022-2023 CFP update includes continued execution of the 2016 Capital Bond Projects, the 2018 Levy Projects, and the data collection and review of our Facility Assessment Reports. The District Facilities and Capital Planning Teams have come together and joined the Capital 25 Bond Planning Task Force (CBPTF) which included District personnel, design professionals, teaching staff, student voices, as well as community members who collaborated and discussed district needs. Our initial plan revealed priorities including school replacement due to age, and the need for added permanent facilities to (1) reduce and eliminate our need for portables and (2) accommodate future growth as housing in the Kent region continues to expa nd. We started with a list of 2 billion in needs and through itemizing and prioritizing, we brought the list of essential projects to 495 million. This list was brought before the District’s Board of Directors for comments, discussion, and approval. A Capital Bond Measure followed and went out to vote in April 2023 and did not pass with voter approval. We are now re-evaluating needs and figuring out next steps. Future updates to this Capital Facilities Plan will include details of any adopted planning . With the opening of Canyon Ridge Middle School, our sixth grade moving from elementary to middle school, and our boundary change, we are advancing opportunities to even out capacity at each site to accommodate our programs and student-based needs. For the Six-Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from Kent School District Capital Planning Team. Please see pages 13-14 for a summary of the cost basis. Cost Basis Summary For impact fee calculations, construction estimated costs are based on the last elementary school built in Kent, adjusted for inflation, and projected cost future elementary school, as well as average pricing of nearby school districts recently built new middle and new high school projects. Project Projected Cost New Elementary School $68,000,000 New Middle School $155,000,000 New High School $220,000,000 Site Acquisition Cost The site acquisition cost is based on an average cost of sites purchased or built on within the last ten years. Please see Table 7 for a list of site acquisition costs and averages. District Adjustment The impact fee calculations on Appendix B & C result in a zero-dollar impact fee total for this year but may be adjusted if needed per RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b) provision. 26 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX-YEAR FINANCE PLAN Secured Unsecured Impact SCHOOL FACILITIES *2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 TOTAL Local & State State 2 or Local 3 Fees 5 Estimated Estimated PERMANENT FACILITIES No School Projects at this time.$0 TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional portables 3 - 4 $0 OTHER N / A Totals $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * F = Funded U = Unfunded NOTES: 2 The District anticipates receiving some State Funding Construction Assistance for some projects. 3 Facility needs are pending review. Some of these projects may be funded with impact fees. 4 Cost of portables based on current cost and adjusted for inflation for future years. 5 Fees in this column are based on amount of fees collected to date and estimated fees on future units. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 6 May 2023 27 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions & Costs Average of Sites Purchased, Sold or Built on within last 10 Years Type & # on Map School / Site Year Open / Purchased Sold Location Acreage Cost/Price Avg cost-price/acre Total Average Cost / Acre Elementary No Acquisitions for Elemenary Schools 0.00 $0 Elementary Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Elem site average Middle School No Acquisitions for Middle Schools 0.00 $0 Middle School Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Middle Schl Site Avg. Senior High No Acquisitions for Senior Highs 0.00 $0 $0 Senior High Site Subtotal 0.00 $0 $0 Sr Hi Site Average Note: All rural sites were purchased prior to adoption of Urban Growth Area. Numbers correspond to locations on Site Bank & Acquisitions Map on Page 35. Properties purchased prior to 2010 1 / Urban Site - Covington area North (So of Mattson MS)1984 2 / Rural Site - Ham Lake east (Pollard)1992 4 / Urban Site - Shady Lake (Sowers-Blaine-Drahota-Paroline)1995 0.00 $0 5 / Rural Site - SE of Lake Morton area (West property)1993 0 0 0 9 / Rural Site - McMillan Assemblage (South of MC)98 - 04 10 / Urban Site - Yeh-Williams (W of 132 Ave SE at SE 288)1999 12 / Urban Site - SE 256th Covington (Halleson)2000 12a / Urban Site - 156th Ave. SE Covington (Wikstrom)2004 12b / Urban Site - SE 256th St. Covington (West of CO)2004 Total Acreage & Cost Total Average Cost / Acre #DIV/0! Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 7 May 2022 28 KENT  SCHOOL  DISTRICT FACTORS  FOR  ESTIMATED  IMPACT  FEE  CALCULATIONS  Student Generation Factors - Single Family Student Generation Factors - Multi-Family Elementary (Grades K - 6) 0.248 Elementary 0.130 Middle School (Grades 7 - 8) 0.085 Middle School 0.049 Senior High (Grades 9 - 12) 0.107 Senior High 0.056 Total 0.440 Total 0.235 Projected Increased Student Capacity OSPI - Square Footage per Student, see side char Elementary 0 Elementary 115 Middle School 850 Middle School 148 Senior High (Academy)0 Senior High 173 Special Education ?? Required Site Acreage per Facility Elementary (required)12 Average Site Cost / Acre Middle School (required)25 Elementary $161,678 Senior High (required)40 Middle School $0 Senior High $0 New Facility Construction Cost Elementary $68,000,000 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost Middle School $155,000,000 Elementary @ 24 $315,000 Senior High $220,000,000 Middle School @ 29 $315,000 Senior High @ 31 $315,000 Temporary Facility Square Footage State Funding Assistance Credit Elementary 123,702 District Funding Assistance Percentage 51.86% Middle School 10,256 Senior High 21,296 Total 4.4% 155,254 Construction Cost Allocation CCA - Cost/Sq, Ft. $246.83 Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary 1,567,594 Middle School 760,483 District Average Assessed Value Senior High/Other 1,077,315 Single Family Residence $653,485 Total 95.6%3,405,392 Total Facilities Square Footage District Average Assessed Value Elementary 1,691,296 Multi-Family Residence $220,293 Middle School 770,739 Senior High/Other 1,098,611 Total 3,560,646 Bond Levy Tax Rate/$1,000 $1.02 Current Rate / 1,000 Tax Rate 0.0010 Developer Provided Sites / Facilities Value 0 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Dwelling Units 0 Current Bond Interest Rate 3.58% CPI Inflation Factor 5.20% Budget Preparations | OSPI (www.k12.wa.us) Kent School District Six‐Year Capital Facilities Plan (APPENDIX A)May 2023 29 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage Average Site Cost/Acre Facility Capacity Student Factor A 1 (Elementary)12 $161,678 0 0.248 A 2 (Middle School)25 $0 850 0.085 $0.00 A 3 (Senior High)40 $0 0 0.107 Total 77 $161,678 850 0.440 A $0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent/Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary)$68,000,000 0 0.248 0.903 B 2 (Middle School)$155,000,000 850 0.085 0.984 $15,252.00 B 3 (Senior High)$220,000,000 0 0.107 0.998 Total $443,000,000 850 0.440 B $15,252.00 Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence (Portables) Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary)$315,000 24 0.248 0.097 $315.74 C 2 (Middle School)$315,000 29 0.085 0.016 $14.77 C 3 (Senior High)$315,000 31 0.107 0.020 $21.75 Total $945,000 84 0.440 C $352.25 State Funding Assistance Credit per Single Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Construction Cost Allocation SPI Sq. Ft. / Student Assistance %Student Factor D 1 (Elementary)$246.83 115 0.5186 0.248 $3,650.73 D 2 (Middle School)$246.83 148 0.5186 0.085 $1,610.32 D 3 (Senior High)$246.83 173 0.5186 0.107 $2,369.52 D $7,630.57 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value (AAV)$653,485 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV)8.77 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r )0.10%TC $5,848.83 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 3.58% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calculation 10 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap ** A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $15,252.00 C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence $352.25 Subtotal $15,604.25 D = State Match Credit per Residence $7,630.57 TC = Tax Credit per Residence $5,848.83 Subtotal $13,479.40 Total Unfunded Need $2,124.85 50% Developer Fee Obligation $1,062 FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)$0 District Adjustment ($1,062) Net Fee Obligation per Residence - Single Family ($0.00) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (APPENDIX B)May 2023 30 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation Factor Required Site Acreage Average Site Cost/Acre Facility Capacity Student Factor A 1 (Elementary)12 $161,678 0 0.13 A 2 (Middle School)25 $0 850 0.049 $0.00 A 3 (Senior High)40 $0 0 0.056 Total 77 $161,678 850 0.235 A $0.00 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent / Total Square Footage Ratio) Construction Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio B 1 (Elementary)$68,000,000 0 0.13 0.903 B 2 (Middle School)$155,000,000 850 0.049 0.984 $8,792.33 B 3 (Senior High)$220,000,000 0 0.056 0.998 Total $443,000,000 850 0.235 B $8,792.33 Temporary Facility Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio) Facility Cost Facility Capacity Student Factor Footage Ratio C 1 (Elementary)$315,000 24 0.13 0.097 $165.51 C 2 (Middle School)$315,000 29 0.049 0.016 $8.52 C 3 (Senior High)$315,000 31 0.056 0.020 $11.38 Total $945,000 84 0.235 C $185.40 State Funding Assistance Credit per Multi-Family Residence (formerly "State Match") Formula: Area Cost Allowance x SPI Square Feet per student x Funding Assistance % x Student Factor Area Cost Allowance SPI Sq. Ft. / Student Equalization %Student Factor D 1 (Elementary)$246.83 115 0.5186 0.13 $1,913.69 D 2 (Middle School)$246.83 148 0.5186 0.049 $928.30 D 3 (Senior High)$246.83 173 0.5186 0.056 $1,240.12 D $4,082.11 Tax Credit per Multi Family Residence Average MF Residential Assessed Value (AAV)$220,293 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV)8.77 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r )0.10%TC $1,971.67 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 3.58% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calculation 10 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC 0 Fee Recap ** A = Site Acquisition per Multi-Family Unit $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit $8,792.33 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $185.40 Subtotal $8,977.73 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $4,082.11 TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit $1,971.67 Subtotal $6,053.78 Total Unfunded Need $2,923.95 50% Developer Fee Obligation $1,462 FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)0 District Adjustment ($1,462) Net Fee Obligation per Residential Unit - Multi-family ($0.00) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (APPENDIX C)May 2023 31 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity Projected Projected % for SCHOOL / FACILITY / SITE LOCATION Type Status Completion Program new Date Capacity Growth Approximate Approximate # on Map ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL & SENIOR HIGH TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional Capacity # on Map 2 OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Land Use Designation Type 12 256th - Covington (Halleson)25435 SE 256th, Covington 98042 Rural To be sold 12a 156th - Covington (Wikstrom)25847 156th Ave. SE, Covington 98042 Rural To be sold Notes: None King County King County Land Use Jurisdiction Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 May 2022 32 © copyright KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC. This map has been modified by KSD 05/22 Sawyer Woods Elementary Jenkins Creek Elementary Fairwood Elementary Ridgewood Elementary Northwood Middle School Lake Youngs Elementary Glenridge Elementary Kentridge High School Springbrook Elementary Soos Creek Elementary Sunrise Elementary Meridian Middle School Kentwood High School Park Orchard Elementary Martin Sortun Elementary Daniel Elementary East Hill Elementary Mill Creek Middle School Kent Elementary Kent-Meridian High School Scenic Hill Elementary Kent School District Administration Center Meadow Ridge Elementary Pine Tree Elementary Horizon Elementary Covington Elementary Cedar Heights Middle School Cedar Valley Elementary Crestwood Elementary Mattson Middle School Kentlake High School Neely O’Brien Elementary Carriage Crest Elementary MeridianElementary Meeker Middle School Grass Lake Elementary Emerald Park Elementary Millennium Elementary iGrad Kent Valley Early Learning Center The Outreach Program (TOP) Panther Lake Elementary River Ridge Elementary Kent Laboratory Academy 33 IX - Summary of Changes to June 2022 Capital Facilities Plan The Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") is updated annually based on previous Plans in effect since 1993. The primary changes from the June 2022 Plan are summarized here. Capacity changes continue to reflect fluctuations in class size ratio and program changes. Changes in portables or transitional capacity reflect use, lease or purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement between facilities. The District will be moving to a K-5 Elementary and 6-8 Middle School model beginning the 2023-2024 school year. Capacity has been added at the middle school level by reopening the former Sequoia Junior High (now Canyon Ride Middle School). The district worked with Educational Data Solutions, LLC to update student generation factors. The updated rates are included in the body of the Plan. The student headcount enrollment forecast is updated annually. All Elementary schools now have Full Day Kindergarten so six-year Kindergarten projections were previously modified to meet the requirements for Full Day Kindergarten programs at all elementary schools. The district expects to receive some State Funding Assistance (formerly called “state matching funds”) for projects in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually. Unfunded site and facility need will be reviewed in the future. The impact fees for 2024 calendar year will result in no collection of impact fees for both Single-Family and Multi-Family due to the capacity study completed in Spring 2023. 34 ITEM Grade /Type FROM TO Increase/ Decrease Comments Student Generation Factor Elem 0.27 0.248 -0.022 Single Family (SF)MS 0.105 0.085 -0.020 SH 0.075 0.107 0.032 Total 0.45 0.440 -0.010 Decrease Student Generation Factor Elem 0.082 0.130 0.048 Multi-Family (MF)MS 0.035 0.049 0.014 SH 0.029 0.056 0.027 Total 0.146 0.235 0.089 Increase State Funding Assistance Ratios (“State Match”) 52.49%51.86%-0.63%Per OSPI Website Area Cost Allowance $242.26 $246.83 4.570 Per OSPI Website Link Average Assessed Valuation (AV)SF $574,784 $653,485 78,701 Per King County AV - Average of Condominiums & Apts.MF $360,790 $220,293 (140,497)Per King county Debt Service Capital Levy Rate / $1000 $0.93 $1.02 $0.09 Per King Co. Assessor Report General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 2.45%3.58%1.13%Bond Buyers 20 year GO Index Impact Fee - Single Family SF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 No Change Impact Fee - Multi-Family MF $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 No Change X - Appendices Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors Include: 35 Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 1 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… Chapter 18.21 OVERLAYS Sections: 18.21.010 Lea Hill overlay. 18.21.020 West Hill overlay. 18.21.030 Urban separator overlay. 18.21.040 Bridges overlay 18.21.010 Lea Hill overlay. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for additional development standards to address the area commonly referred to as the Lea Hill annexation area, as annexed under city of Auburn Ordinance Nos. 5346 and 6121, and identified on the city of Auburn comprehensive zoning map. While the intent is that the development standards for zones in the Lea Hill annexation area will be similar to (if not the same as) corresponding zones in other areas of the city, some variations are needed to recognize previous development allowed by King County zoning. Unless otherwise provided for in this section, all other provisions and requirements of this title shall apply to properties within the Lea Hill overlay. B. Development Standards – Lots Previously Approved. 1. For any residential lot that had received final plat approval, final short plat approval, or preliminary plat approval or that King County had received and determined the application complete for a preliminary plat or short plat, prior to the effective date of annexation into the city of Auburn, the development standards in the following table shall apply. The property owner/applicant shall be responsible to provide to the city evidence of these previous approvals. 2. Any further subdivision of any lot and its subsequent use must conform to the permitted uses and standards referenced in the applicable zoning chapters of this title, except as modified by this section. For farm animals, subsection E of this section or ACC 18.31.220 shall apply. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 2 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… Zone Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft. per Unit) Min Lot Width (Ft.) Max Lot Coverage (%) Setbacks* Building Height Front (Ft.) Rear (Ft.) Side, Interior (Ft.) Side, Street (Ft.) Main (Ft.) Accessory (Ft.) R-1 8,000 N/A 35 35 20 5 5 10 35 35 R-5 2,500 N/A 30 35 10 5 5 10 35 16 R-7 2,500 6,000 30 35 10 5 5 10 35 16 R-10 2,500 4,300 30 40 10 5 5 10 35 35 R-16 2,500 2,700 30 55 10 5 5 10 35 35 R-20 2,500 2,175 30 55 10 5 5 10 35 35 * Garages and other similar structures with a vehicular access require a 20-foot setback from any street. C. Prior King County Approvals. The city of Auburn will recognize the terms of any King County- approved plat, PUD, conditional use permit, contract rezone or similar contractual obligations that may have been approved prior to the effective date of the annexation of the subject property. The conditions of any project that was approved by King County shall be required to be fulfilled in the city of Auburn. D. Planning Director Authorization. The planning director shall be authorized to interpret the language of any King County permit, plat or condition thereof and effectuate the implementation of same to the fullest extent possible. If there is a conflict between a previous King County approval and the Auburn regulation then the most restrictive provision shall apply as determined by the planning director. E. Farm Animals. 1. For properties greater than an acre in the R-1, R-5 and R-7 zones, it is permissible to keep farm animals (excluding goats and swine in the R-5 and R-7 zones); provided, there shall not be more than one horse, cow, donkey or other similar large animal, or four small animals such as sheep, or 12 poultry, rabbits, or similar size animals per each acre of Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 3 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… enclosed usable pasture or roaming area. This acreage requirement is in addition to the minimum lot size requirements of the zone. Property owners of more than an acre in the Lea Hill overlay may choose to apply these standards or the standards in ACC 18.31.220. 2. Shelters provided for farm animals shall be constructed no closer than 50 feet from any adjoining lot and shall be 100 feet from any public street or alley. Any corral, exercise yard, or arena shall maintain a distance of 35 feet from any property line. This excludes pasture area. 3. For those properties that do not meet the requirements of subsection (E)(1) of this section, and farm animals were present prior to annexation, the farm animals may remain as legal nonconforming uses. In such case the number of farm animals allowed may be the same as what the county zoning provisions had allowed prior to the effective date of the annexation of the subject property. F. Lot Averaging – R-1 Zone. It may be possible to subdivide land in the R-1 zone into lots smaller than 35,000 square feet if the property has a significant amount of nonbuildable land due to steep slopes, wetlands or similar features that would be in the public’s best interest to maintain. The following regulations shall apply in situations where lot averaging is permitted or required: 1. At least 50 percent of the subdivision must be set aside as open space. Critical areas (i.e., steep slopes, wetlands) can count towards the 50 percent requirement. Maintenance of the open space tract or easement shall be the responsibility of the property owner and/or a homeowners’ association. 2. The number of allowable lots in a subdivision shall be determined by multiplying the total number of acres in the subdivision by one. Any fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number with one-half being rounded up. 3. The minimum size of any lot shall be 8,000 square feet. For lots less than 35,000 square feet, the minimum lot width shall be consistent with the requirements of the R-5 zone (Chapter 18.07 ACC). All other applicable development standards related to the R-1 zone will continue to apply. 4. Lots within the subdivision shall be clustered so as to provide for continuity of open space within the subdivision and, where possible, with adjoining parcels. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 4 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… 5. Each lot within a subdivision shall illustrate a building area within which the house, accessory structures, and parking areas shall be constructed. The building area shall be exclusive of setbacks, nonbuildable areas or any required buffers from the nonbuildable areas. Any preliminary plat, final plat or short plat shall illustrate the building area for each lot. Any future construction will be limited to the identified building area. 6. A native growth protection easement or similar device, which may include provisions for the limited removal of vegetation and passive use of the easement, that perpetually protects the nonbuildable areas must be recorded with the final plat or short plat. G. All marijuana related businesses and marijuana cooperatives are prohibited land uses within the Lea Hill overlay. (Ord. 6642 § 6, 2017; Ord. 6369 § 3, 2011; Ord. 6245 § 13, 2009.) 18.21.020 West Hill overlay. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for additional development standards to address the area commonly referred to as the West Hill annexation area, as annexed under city of Auburn Ordinance No. 6122 and identified on the city of Auburn comprehensive zoning map. While the intent is that the development standards for zones in the West Hill annexation area will be similar to (if not the same as) corresponding zones in other areas of the city, some variations are needed to recognize previous development allowed by King County zoning. Unless otherwise provided for in this section, all other provisions and requirements of this title shall apply to properties within the West Hill overlay. B. Development Standards – Lots Previously Approved. 1. For any residential lot that had received final plat approval, final short plat approval, preliminary plat approval or that King County had received and determined the application complete for a preliminary plat or short plat, prior to the effective date of annexation, the development standards in the following table shall apply. The property owner/applicant shall be responsible to provide evidence of these previous approvals/decisions. 2. Any further subdivision of any lot and its subsequent use must conform to the permitted uses and standards referenced in the applicable zoning chapters of this title, except as modified by this section. For farm animals, subsection E of this section or ACC 18.31.220 shall apply. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 5 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… Zone Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft. per Unit) Min Lot Width (Ft.) Max Lot Coverage (%) Setbacks* Building Height Front (Ft.) Rear (Ft.) Side, Interior (Ft.) Side, Street (Ft.) Main (Ft.) Accessory (Ft.) R-1 8,000 N/A 35 35 20 5 5 10 35 35 R-5 2,500 N/A 30 35 10 5 5 10 35 16 R-7 2,500 6,000 30 35 10 5 5 10 35 16 * Garages and other similar structures with a vehicular access require a 20-foot setback from any street. C. Prior King County Approvals. The city of Auburn will recognize the terms of any King County- approved plat, PUD, conditional use permit, contract rezone or similar contractual obligations that may have been approved prior to the effective date of the annexation of the subject property. The conditions of any project that was approved by King County shall be required to be fulfilled in the city of Auburn. D. Planning Director Authorization. The planning director shall be authorized to interpret the language of any King County permit, plat or condition thereof and effectuate the implementation of same to the fullest extent possible. If there is a conflict between a previous King County approval and the Auburn regulation, then the most restrictive provision shall apply as determined by the planning director. E. Farm Animals. 1. For properties greater than an acre in the R-1, R-5 and R-7 zones within the West Hill overlay, it is permissible to keep farm animals (excluding goats and swine in the R-5 and R-7 zones); provided, there shall not be more than one horse, cow, donkey or other similar large animal, or four small animals such as sheep, or 12 poultry, rabbits, or similar size animals per each acre of enclosed usable pasture or roaming area. This acreage requirement is in addition to the minimum lot size requirements of the applicable zone. Property owners of more than an acre in the West Hill overlay district may choose to apply these standards, or the standards in ACC 18.31.220. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 6 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… 2. Shelters provided for farm animals shall be constructed no closer than 50 feet from any adjoining lot and no closer than 100 feet from any public street or alley. Any corral, exercise yard, or arena shall maintain a distance of 35 feet from any property line. This excludes pasture areas. 3. For those properties that do not meet the requirements of subsection (E)(1) of this section, and farm animals were present prior to annexation, the farm animals may remain as legal nonconforming uses. In such case, the number of farm animals allowed may be the same as what the county zoning provisions had allowed prior to the effective date of the annexation of the subject property. F. All marijuana related businesses and marijuana cooperatives are prohibited land uses within the West Hill overlay. (Ord. 6642 § 7, 2017; Ord. 6369 § 4, 2011; Ord. 6245 § 13, 2009.) 18.21.030 Urban separator overlay. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for additional development standards to address the area designated as urban separator in the city’s comprehensive plan, as prescribed in the interlocal agreement between the city and King County approved under city of Auburn Resolution No. 4113 and identified on the city of Auburn comprehensive land use map. Unless otherwise provided for in this section, all other provisions and requirements of this title shall apply to properties within the urban separator overlay. B. Development Standards. For property located within a designated urban separator, lot averaging shall be required. The regulations of ACC 18.21.010(F) shall apply in situations where lot averaging is used. C. All marijuana related businesses and marijuana cooperatives are prohibited land uses within the urban separator overlay. (Ord. 6642 § 8, 2017; Ord. 6245 § 13, 2009.) Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 7 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… 18.21.040 The Bridges overlay. A. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this section: 1. “Annexation area” means the area of land formerly within the boundaries of the city of Kent that was annexed by the city of Auburn pursuant to RCW 35.10.217 and more specifically described in Auburn Ordinance No. _______________. 2. “Annexation date” means the date specified in Auburn Ordinance No. ____________ as the effective date of annexation. B. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for additional development standards to address the area that was annexed from the city of Kent under city of Auburn Ordinance No. ____, and identified on the city of Auburn comprehensive zoning map. The area is commonly known as The Bridges Planned Unit Development (Bridges PUD) (King County Recording No. 2007122000095) annexation area. This is an approximately 155-acre area that was an island of incorporated city of Kent that was mostly subdivided and developed by a single developer using Kent standards and code provisions prior to annexation by the city of Auburn. While the intent of this overlay is to adopt development standards for zoning districts in the Bridges annexation area that will both be similar to (if not the same as) corresponding zones in other areas of the city of Auburn and be consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations, some variations are necessary to conform with development allowed by Kent zoning and approvals. Unless otherwise provided for in this section, all other provisions and requirements of this title shall apply to properties within the Bridges overlay. C. Development Standards – Lots Previously Approved. 1. For all uses of land occurring after the annexation date, the development standards in the following table shall apply to any residential lot in the annexation area that is part of a plat that received final plat approval prior to the annexation date. 2. With the exception of the Bridges PUD Future Development Tracts, as identified on the Bridges PUD Plat Map (Tract Nos. LLL, MMM, NNN, and OOO) any further subdivision of any lot and its subsequent use must conform to the permitted uses and standards referenced in the applicable zoning chapters of this title, except as modified by this section. Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 8 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… Zone Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) (3) Min Lot Area (Sq. Ft. per Unit) Min Lot Width (Ft.) Max Lot Coverage (%) Max Impervious Surface (%) Setbacks Building Height Front (Ft.) (4) Rear (Ft.) (5) Side, Interior (Ft.) Side, Street (Ft.) Main (Ft.) (6) Accessory (Ft.) R-1(1) 34,000(7) N/A 30 37.5 50 10 5 5 10 35 23 R-5(2) 9,600 N/A 30 56.25 62.5 10 5 5 10 35 23 (1) Formerly Kent SR-1 zone prior to Auburn annexation. (2) Formerly Kent SR-3 zone prior to Auburn annexation. (3) Bridges PUD approved lot sizes ranging from 3,521 to 7,571 square feet. Per Bridges PUD Plat Map Restriction No. 2: “No lot or portion of a lot in this plat shall be divided and sold or resold or ownership changed or transferred whereby the ownership of any portion of this plat shall be less than the area required for the use district is which located.” (4) Garages and other similar structures with vehicular access require a 20-foot setback from any street. (5) 15-foot setback from alley. (6) 2.5-stories or 35 feet. (7) A minimum lot area of 2,500 square feet per lot allowed under city of Kent Urban Separator (Cluster Development Kent City Code (KCC) 12.04.263) for SR-1 zoned properties. D. Bridges PUD Future Development Tracts. Tract Nos. LLL, MMM, NNN, and OOO are subject to the R-10 zoning development standards contained in Chapter 18.07 ACC. E. Prior Kent Approvals. 1. Except as the planning director may determine pursuant to the provisions of (E)(2), the city of Auburn will recognize and uphold the terms and conditions of any city of Kent approved plat, PUD, conditional use permit, contract rezone or similar land use approval that the city of Kent approved prior to the annexation date. An applicant shall have the responsibility to provide to the city of Auburn documentation of any prior city of Kent approvals that the applicant believes should apply to a lot. 2. If there is a conflict between the terms or conditions of a previous city of Kent land use approval and this section or any other Auburn regulation, the planning director will determine, consistent with the comprehensive plan and the provisions of Chapter 18.54 Chapter 18.21 ACC, Overlays Page 9 of 9 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6904, and legislation passed through April 17, 20… ACC, whether the Kent land use approval shall apply. The planning director’s interpretation of the language of any such approval or condition contained therein shall be final. 1 1 3 T HPLSESE 299TH ST118THAVESESE299THST 127TH PL SE127THPLSE125THAVESESE 302ND PL SE 295TH ST 113THWAYSE114T HWAYS E 129THPLSE126THCTSESE 302ND PL 126TH CT SE128THCTSESE 296TH WAY SE301ST PL S E 301STWAYSE 300TH PL 114THAVESESE298TH PL 129THAVESESE 296TH ST SE 302ND CT 130THAVESE1 2 1STPLSE114TH PL SESE297TH CT SE 288THPL SE 303RD CT130THW AYSESE301ST CT111THAVESE SE302ND CT SE 301ST ST 116THAVESESE 290TH ST 1 2 8 THPLSESE 298TH PL 111THAVESE126THAVESE111THAVESESE 299TH PL SE 300TH WAY SE 298TH ST SE 301ST PL S E 297TH ST 111THCTSESE 297TH PL 125THCTSE110THAVESESE288THST SE294THST S E 2 9 1 S T S T SE 288TH ST SE 299TH P L 125TH PL SESE 290TH ST SE 290TH PL SE 295TH ST 128THCT SE124TH PL SESE 302ND ST 129TH PL SE127TH WAY SE120THAVESESE 288TH ST SE 293RD ST SE 292ND ST SE 288TH ST 118THAVESESE 302ND ST 134THAVESESE 288TH PL SE 294TH PL SE 3 02ND PL SE 295TH ST SE 301ST ST SE 297TH ST 110TH PL SESE 294TH ST 11 2 T H P L S E SE 290TH PL SE289TH ST SE 294TH ST 118THAVESE124THAVESE132NDAVESE112THAVESESE 304TH ST SE304TH S T SE 304TH ST SE304THSTInformation 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6251Printed On: 07/19/23 Bridges Zoning Map Amendment (CMP#1: CPA23-0003) 0 220 440 660 880 1,100 FEET 1 1 3 T HPLSE118THAVESE112THAVESESE 299TH ST SE299THST 127TH PL SE127THPLSE125THAVESESE 302ND PL SE 295TH ST 113THWAYSE114T HWAYS E 129THPLSE126THCTSESE298TH PL SE 302ND PL 126TH CT SE128THCTSESE 296TH WAY SE301STPL S E 301STWAYSE 300TH PL 114THAVESE129THAVESESE 296TH ST SE 302ND CT 130THAVESE1 2 1STPLSE114TH PL SE116THAVESESE297THCT SE 288THPL SE 304TH PL SE 303RD CT130THW AYSESE301STCT111THAVESE SE 301ST ST 116THAVESESE 290TH ST SE288THST 1 2 8 THPLSESE 298THPL 111THAVESE126THAVESE111THAVESESE 299TH PL SE 300TH WAY SE 298TH ST SE 301ST PL S E 297TH ST 111THCTSESE 297TH PL 125THCTSE110THAVESESE294THST S E 2 9 1 S T S T SE 288TH ST SE 299TH P L SE 295TH ST 125TH PL SESE 290TH ST SE 290TH PL 128THCT SE124TH PL SESE 302ND ST 129TH PL SE127TH WAY SE120THAVESESE 293RD ST SE 288TH STSE 288TH ST 118THAVESESE 302ND ST 134THAVESESE 288TH PL SE 292ND ST SE 294TH PL SE 3 02ND PL SE 295TH ST SE 301ST ST SE 297TH ST 110TH PL SESE 294TH ST 1 1 2 T H P L S E SE 289TH ST SE 290TH PL SE 294TH ST 118THAVESE132NDAVESE124THAVESE112THAVESESE 304TH ST SE 304TH ST SE304T H S T City of Auburn Zoning C1 Light Commercial District I Institutional Use District P1 Public Use District R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre Existing Zoning Proposed Auburn Zoning/Bridges Overlay Parcels City of Kent Zoning Single-Family (SR-3) Single-Family (SR-1) EXISTING PROPOSED Single-Family (SR-3) Single-Family (SR-1) R-5 R-1 R-10 1 1 3 T HPLSE112THAVESE118THAVESE108THAVESESE 290TH ST SE299THST 127TH PL SE127THPLSE125THAVESESE 302ND PL SE 295TH ST 113THWAYSE114T HWAYS E 129THPLSE126THCTSESE 302ND PL 126TH CT SE128THCTSESE 296TH WAY SE301ST PL S E 301STWAYSE 293RD ST SE 300TH PL 114THAVESE129THAVESE108THAVESESE 296TH ST SE 302ND CT 130THAVESE1 2 1STPLSE114TH PL SESE297TH CT SE 288THPL SE 304TH PL SE 303RD CT130THW AYSESE301ST CT111THAVESE SE302ND CT SE 301ST ST 116THAVESE1 2 8 THPLSESE 298TH PL110THPLSE 111THAVESE126THAVESE111THAVESESE288THST SE 299TH PL SE 299THST SE 300TH WAY SE 298TH ST 107THPLS E SE 301ST PL S E 297TH ST 111THCTSESE298TH PL SE 297TH PL 125THCTSE110THAVESESE294THST S E 2 9 1 S T S T SE 288TH ST SE 299TH P L 125TH PL SESE 292 NDSTSE 290TH PL SE295THST 128THCT SE124TH PL SESE 302ND ST SE 302ND ST SE 299TH PL 129TH PL SE108THAVESE127TH WAY SE120THAVESESE 293RD ST SE 288TH ST 118THAVESESE 302ND ST SE 288TH PL SE 297TH ST 110TH PL SESE 294TH ST 11 2 T H P L S E SE 290TH PL SE 289TH ST SE 294TH ST 118THAVESE124THAVESE112THAVESESE 304TH ST SE 304TH ST 132NDAVESESE304THSTInformation 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6252Printed On: 07/20/23 Bridges Land Use Map Amendment (CMP#1: CPA23-0003) 0 240 480 720 960 1,200 FEET 1 1 3 T HPLSE108THAVESE118THAVESESE 290TH ST SE299THST 127TH PL SE127THPLSE125THAVESESE 302ND PL SE 295TH ST 113THWAYSE114T HWAYS E 129THPLSE126THCTSESE 302ND PL 126TH CT SE128THCTSESE 296TH WAY SE301STPL S E 301STWAYSE 300TH PL 114THAVESE129THAVESE108THAVESESE 296TH ST SE 302ND CT 130THAVESE1 2 1STPLSE114TH PL SESE297THCT SE 288THPL SE 304T H P L SE 303RD CT130THW AYSESE 293RD ST SE301ST CT111THAVESE SE302ND CT SE 301ST ST 116THAVESE1 2 8 THPLSESE 298THPL110THPLSE 111THAVESE126THAVESE111THAVESESE 299TH PL SE 299THST SE 300TH WAY SE 298TH ST SE288THST SE 301ST PL S E 297TH ST 111THCTSESE298TH PL SE 297TH PL 125THCTSE110THAVESESE294THST S E 2 9 1 S T S T SE 288TH ST SE 299TH P L 125TH PL SESE 292 NDSTSE 290TH PL SE295THST 128THCT SE124TH PL SESE 302ND ST SE 302ND ST SE 299TH PL 107THPLSE129TH PL SE108THAVESE127TH WAY SE120THAVESESE 288TH ST SE 293RD ST 118THAVESESE 302ND ST SE 288TH PL SE 297TH ST SE 294TH ST 110TH PL SE1 1 2 T H P L S E SE 290TH PL SE 289TH ST SE 294TH ST 118THAVESE124THAVESE112THAVESESE 304TH ST 1 0 7 T H A V E S E 132NDAVESESE 304TH ST SE304THSTCity of Auburn Land Use Designations Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Parcels Existing Kent Land Use Proposed Auburn Land Use City of Kent Land Use Designations Single-Family 3 Units/Acre Urban Separator EXISTING PROPOSED Single-Family 3 Units/Acre Urban Separator Single-Family ModerateDensityResidential 12TH ST SEF ST SEJ ST SE10TH PL SE J ST SE11TH ST SE 12TH ST SE 10TH ST SE DEALS WAY SEH ST SEH ST SEG ST SEF ST SEE ST SEA U B U R N W AY 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6262Printed On: 08/28/23 MultiCare Site Land Use Map Amendment CPM #2 (CPA23-00 01) 0 50 100 150 200 250 FEET 12TH ST SEF ST SEJ ST SE10TH PL SE J ST SE11TH ST SE 12TH ST SE 10TH ST SE DEALS WAY SEH ST SEH ST SEG ST SEF ST SEE ST SEA U B U R N W AY S Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Parcels Existing Land Use Proposed Auburn Land Use EXISTING PROPOSED F ST SE12TH ST SE J ST SE10TH PL SE 11TH ST SE J ST SE12TH ST SE 10TH ST SE DEALS WAY SEH ST SEH ST SEG ST SEF ST SEA U B U R N W AY 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6261Printed On: 08/29/23 MultiCare Site Zoning CPM #2 (REZ23-0003) 0 50 100 150 200 250 FEET 12TH ST SEF ST SEJ ST SE10TH PL SE J ST SE11TH ST SE 12TH ST SE 10TH ST SE DEALS WAY SEH ST SEH ST SEG ST SEF ST SEE ST SEA U B U R N W AY S C1 Light Commercial District C2 Central Business District C3 Heavy Commercial District C4 Mixed Use Commercial CN Neighborhood Shopping District DUC Downtown Urban Center I Institutional Use District Lakeland Hills South PUD LF Airport Landing Field District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Heavy Industrial District Open Space P1 Public Use District PUD Planned Unit Development R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R16 Residential 16 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservency RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units RO Residential Office District RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) TV Terrace View UNC Unclassified Use District Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Parcels EXISTING PROPOSED 3RD ST SWCLAY ST NW1ST ST SWH ST NWG ST NWF ST NWE ST SWG ST SWFSTSWW MAIN ST 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6252Printed On: 08/28/23 Auburn Dairy Land Use Map CPM#3 (CPA23-0002) 0 50 100 150 200 250 FEETCLAY ST NWH ST NW1ST ST SWG ST NW3RD ST SW F ST NWESTSWG ST SWFSTSWW MAIN ST Downtown Urban Center Heavy Commercial Heavy Industrial Public/Quasi-Public Light Commercial Light Industrial Moderate Density Residential Multiple-Family Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Residential Conservancy Residential Transition Overlay Single Family Parcels Existing Land Use Proposed Auburn Land Use EXISTING PROPOSED 1ST ST SWCLAY ST NWH ST NWG ST NWF ST NWE ST SWG ST SWFSTSWW MAIN ST 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 w arranty as to its accuracy. ¬Map ID: 6260Printed On: 08/28/23 Auburn Dairy Zoning Map #3 (REZ23-0004) 0 50 100 150 200 250 FEET3RDSTSW 1ST ST SWCLAY ST NWH ST NWG ST NWF ST NWE ST SWG ST SWFSTSWW MAIN ST C1 Light Commercial District C2 Central Business District C3 Heavy Commercial District C4 Mixed Use Commercial CN Neighborhood Shopping District DUC Downtown Urban Center I Institutional Use District Lakeland Hills South PUD LF Airport Landing Field District M1 Light Industrial District M2 Heavy Industrial District Open Space P1 Public Use District PUD Planned Unit Development R1 Residential 1 DU/Acre R5 Residential 5 DU/Acre R7 Residential 7 DU/Acre R10 Residential 10 DU/Acre R16 Residential 16 DU/Acre R20 Residential 20 DU/Acre Residential Conservency RMHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Units RO Residential Office District RO-H Residential Office District (Hospital) TV Terrace View UNC Unclassified Use District Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Parcels EXISTING PROPOSED