The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-21-2025 Agenda Planning Commission Special Meeting October 21, 2025 - 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers AMENDED AGENDA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. The Special Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. will be held in person and virtually. Virtual Participation Link: To listen to the meeting by phone or Zoom, please call the number below or click the link: Telephone: 253-205-0468 Toll Free: 877-853-5257 Zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88962158506 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION This is the place on the agenda where the public is invited to speak to the Board on any issue. A. Comment from the audience on any proposal for action by the Commission. The public can participate in-person or submit written comments in advance. Participants can submit written comments via mail, fax, or email. All written comments must be received prior to 5:00 p.m. on the day before the scheduled meeting and must be 350 words or less. Please mail written comments to: City of Auburn Attn: Tammy Gallier, Administrative Specialist 25 W Main St Auburn, WA 98001 Email written comments to: planning@auburnwa.gov If an individual requires accommodation to allow for remote oral comment because of a difficulty attending a meeting of the governing body, the City requests notice of the need for accommodation by 5:00 p.m. on the day before the scheduled meeting. Participants can request accommodation to be able to provide a remote oral comment by contacting the Community Development Department in person, by phone (253) 931-3090 or by email Page 1 of 528 (planning@auburnwa.gov). APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. September 16, 2025 Draft Minutes from the Special Planning Commission Meeting OTHER BUSINESS A. CAO Code Update Comments (Tatro/Teague) Discussion of the comments received up to date regarding the critical areas code update. B. Downtown Plan Follow Up Discussion (Teague) More in-depth discussion of the land use map change, zoning map change, and new DUC zoning districts associated with the Downtown Subarea Plan. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Auburn School District Comprehensive Map Amendment & Rezone (Reed) Public Hearing for the public testimony and Planning Commission deliberation on the Auburn School District Comprehensive Map Amendment & Rezone to change the land use designation for 15 parcels to Public/Quasi Public and to rezone the 15 parcels to P-1 Public Use District. B. 2025 City Initiated Annual Amendments (Clark) The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive testimony and conduct deliberations regarding the proposed 2025 City-Initiated Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The scope of the amendments include: • Adoption of Capital Facilities Plans for the Auburn, Dieringer, Federal Way, and Kent School Districts. • Land Use Map Amendment: Redesignation of 23 parcels from Public/Quasi-Public to Residential Neighborhood Two. • Technical Corrections to the Capital Facilities Element, Housing Element, and Housing Needs Assessment to address minor errors and improve clarity. • Removal of the Core Plan as a reference document in the Comprehensive Plan update process. ACTION ITEMS A. Auburn School District Comprehensive Map Amendment & Rezone (Reed) Planning Commission to take action on the Auburn School District Comprehensive Map Amendment & Rezone to change the land use designation for 15 parcels to Public/Quasi Public and to rezone the 15 parcels to P-1 Public Use District. B. 2025 City Initiated Annual Amendments (Clark) Planning Commission to take action on the proposed 2025 City-Initiated Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The scope of the amendments include: • Adoption of Capital Facilities Plans for the Auburn, Dieringer, Federal Way, and Kent School Districts. • Land Use Map Amendment: Redesignation of 23 parcels from Public/Quasi-Public Page 2 of 528 to Residential Neighborhood Two. • Technical Corrections to the Capital Facilities Element, Housing Element, and Housing Needs Assessment to address minor errors and improve clarity. • Removal of the Core Plan as a reference document in the Comprehensive Plan update process. ADJOURNMENT The City of Auburn Planning Commission is a seven member advisory body that provides recommendations to the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as zoning. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Actions taken by the Planning Commission, other than approvals or amendments to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to the City Council which must ultimately make the final decision. Page 3 of 528 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Draft Minutes from the Special Planning Commission Meeting October 21, 2025 Department: Attachments: Budget Impact: Community Development 09-16-2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Administrative Recommendation: N/A Background for Motion: Background Summary: Councilmember: Staff: Jason Krum Page 4 of 528 Planning Commission Special Meeting September 16, 2025 - 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers MINUTES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City of Auburn Planning Commission Meeting was held in person and virtually. CALL TO ORDER Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chair Judi Roland, Vice Chair William Stewart, Julie Berry, Aaron Vanderpol, Lynn Walters, Kirk Hiller, and Ajay Ganesan. Staff members present: Planning Services Manager Alexandria Teague, Senior Planner Dinah Reed, Senior Planner Alyssa Tatro, Planner II Gabriel Clark, Development Engineer Manager Shannon Howard, Deputy City Attorney Paul Byrne, Senior City Staff Attorney Chandra Hein, and Deputy City Clerk Rebecca Wood-Pollock. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Roland led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No one came forward to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 5, 2025 Draft Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Walters moved and Vice Chair Stewart seconded to approve the August 5, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting minutes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0 DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Annual Comprehensive Plan & Map Amendments (Clark) Discussion on the annual amendments for 2025. P/T No. 1 Auburn School District 2025 Capital Facilities Plan Page 5 of 528 P/T No. 2 Dieringer School District 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan P/T No. 3 Federal Way Public Schools 2026 Capital Facilities Plan P/T No. 4 Kent School District 2024-2025 through 2030-2031 Capital Facilities Plan P/T No. 5 Updates to the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element P/T No. 6 Updates to the Housing Element P/T No. 7 Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment P/T No. 8 Removal of the Core Plan M No. 1 Comprehensive Land Use Map Correction Planner Clark shared a presentation on the Annual Comprehensive Plan and Map Amendments, including an overview of the Policy/Text Amendments and Map Update, procedural steps, school district Capital Facilities Plans, the Capital Facilities Element, the Housing Element and Housing Needs Assessment, removal of the Core Plan, and the Land Use Map Amendment. Commission discussed school districts, population growth, housing units, verbiage, and procedures. B. Auburn School District Comprehensive Map Amendment & Rezone (Reed) Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment under the Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan Update 2024, the current land use designation for the subject site is Neighborhood Residential Two, which is intended to accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types but does not permit schools. The Auburn School District No. 408 is requesting an amendment to the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate all the subject parcels to Public/Quasi-Public land use to support the development of a new middle school. Planner Reed shared a presentation on the Auburn School District Comprehensive Map Amendment and Rezone, including an overview of the Private-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, land use designations, zoning map amendments, and staff recommendations. Commission discussed City Ordinances, the next steps in the process, and school district jurisdictions. C. Critical Areas Code Text Amendment (Tatro) Proposed updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance, codified in Chapter 16.10 ACC. Update to align with Ecology recommendations and best available science; this update is required in 2025 by the Department of Commerce. Planner Tatro shared a presentation on the Critical Areas Ordinance Update, including its background and purpose, key objectives, and updates to the Critical Areas Sections regarding Purpose and Intent, Definitions, Applicability and Regulated Activities, Exemptions and Nonconforming Uses, Classification and Rating of Critical Areas, Buffer Areas and Setbacks, Alteration or Development of Critical Areas, and Mitigation Standards. She also shared Page 6 of 528 updates regarding location and timing, replacement ratios, long-term protection, performance standards for the Mitigation Planning Section, the monitoring program and contingency plan, procedural provisions, the reasonable use provision, and the next steps in the process. Commission discussed buffers, minimization measures, and replacement ratios. D. Home Occupation Text Amendment (Clark) Discussion of the additional proposed changes to the Home Occupation (Chapter 18.60 ACC) code recommendation made by the Planning Commission on August 5, 2025. Planner Clark shared a presentation on the Home Occupation Code Update, including its background and purpose, a summary of the proposed Code changes, and staff recommendations. Commission discussed home occupations and business license requirements. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Home Occupation Text Amendment (Clark) Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing for the Home Occupation Text Amendment. Chair Roland opened the Public Hearing at 8:09 p.m. No one came forward to speak. Chair Roland closed the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. ACTION ITEMS A. Home Occupation Text Amendment (Clark) Planning Commission to recommend the City Council to review and adopt additional proposed changes to the Home Occupation (Chapter 18.60 ACC) code recommendation made by the Planning Commission on August 5th, 2025. Commissioner Berry moved and Vice Chair Stewart seconded to recommend to City Council the adoption of the additional proposed changes to the Home Occupation Code as recommended by staff. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0 Page 7 of 528 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m. APPROVED this _______ day of _________, 2025 _____________________________ _______________________________ JUDI ROLAND, CHAIR Rebecca Wood-Pollock, Deputy City Clerk Page 8 of 528 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Meeting Date: CAO Code Update Comments (Tatro/Teague) Discussion of the comments received up to date regarding the critical areas code update. October 21, 2025 Department: Attachments: Budget Impact: Community Development CAO Code Update Memo, Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments, Department of Natural Resources Comments, Department of Ecology Comments, Master Builders Association Comments Administrative Recommendation: Background for Motion: Background Summary: See attached Memorandum Councilmember: Staff: Jason Krum Page 9 of 528 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Bill Stewart, Vice Chair Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Alyssa Tatro, Senior Planner Dept. of Community Development DATE: October 2, 2025 RE: Critical Areas Code Update Comments The Department of Commerce requires jurisdictions to complete a periodic review of their Comprehensive Plans and development regulations, including Critical Areas Ordinances. Auburn’s most recent periodic update of its Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2024. As part of the follow-on work required under the GMA periodic review process, the City must now update its critical areas regulations. Staff provided an overview of proposed amendments to Auburn’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) during the September 16th, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. Since that meeting various agency comments have been received, and at the October Planning Commission meeting staff will walk through agency comments on the draft CAO code update with Planning Commission. Currently, comments have been received from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Department of Ecology (DOE), and the Master Builders Association (MBA). ATTACHMENTS 1) Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Comments 2) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Comments 3) Department of Ecology (ECY) Comments 4) Master Builders Association (MBA) Comments Page 10 of 528 State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4 Region 4 information: 16018 Mill Creek Blvd, Mill Creek, WA 98012 | phone: (425)-775-1311 1 September 12, 2025 City of Auburn Alyssa Tatro, Senior Planner 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 RE: Submittal ID 2025-S-9767, WDFW’s comments for Auburn Critical Area Ordinance amendments Dear Ms. Tatro, On behalf of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), thank you for the opportunity to comment on Auburn’s draft Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) amendments as part of the current periodic update. Within the State of Washington’s land use decision-making framework, WDFW is considered a technical advisor for the habitat needs of fish and wildlife and routinely provide s input into the implications of land use decisions. We provide these comments and recommendations in keeping with our legislative mandate to preserve, protect, and perpetuate fish and wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of future generations – a mission we can only accomplish in partnership with local jurisdictions. Table 1. Recommended changes to proposed code language. Code Section Code Language (with WDFW suggestions in red) WDFW Comment 16.10.010 Purpose and intent A....Such areas within the city include wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, geologic hazard areas, and... Jurisdictions are required to address five types of critical areas in their regulations, as outlined in WAC 365-196-830. We recommend revising this section to explicitly list Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) to ensure consistency with state terminology. Because streams are included under this designation, there is no need to list them separately within this section, though jurisdictions may choose to WDFW COMMENTS Page 11 of 528 2 do so if they wish to emphasize this type of FWHCA. 16.10.010 Purpose and intent B(2.) Streams. Streams and their associated riparian corridors Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) provide important fish and wildlife habitat; help to maintain water quality; store and convey storm water and flood water; recharge groundwater; recruit large woody debris to create habitat structure; provide shade to maintain water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels; support bank integrity and root reinforcement to reduce erosion; and serve as areas for recreation, education and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation. Stream buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates; reduce sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain desirable water temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect stream resources from harmful intrusion. As noted above, streams are already included within the FWHCA designation. The streams and wildlife habitat sections here (B.2. and B.3.) could be merged if desired. Additionally, we recommend substituting stream and stream buffer terminology throughout this chapter with ‘Riparian Management Zone (RMZ),’ consistent with WDFW’s Best Available Science (BAS) and guidance document. RMZs better capture the ecological scope and functions of these areas, which extend beyond the stream channel itself and include the adjacent riparian corridor necessary to sustain fish and wildlife populations and overall watershed health. RMZs support five key ecological functions: (1) recruitment of large woody debris to create habitat structure, (2) shading to maintain water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels, (3) bank integrity and root reinforcement to reduce erosion and maintain habitat quality, (4) filtration of nutrients and sediments in surface and subsurface flows to protect water quality, and (5) provision of diverse riparian habitat for fish and wildlife species. Updating this terminology will ensure your code reflects current science and aligns with WDFW recommendations for protecting Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas . 16.10.010 Purpose and intent B(3.) Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife Habitat Corridors. We appreciate the language within this section that references the need for connectivity between habitat areas and the coordination for connected open spaces, as required by WAC 365- 196-335. We recommend including Wildlife Habitat Corridors as a distinguished type of FWHCA here and later in this chapter to further align with these requirements. 16.10.010 Purpose and intent E. Best Available Science - The city intends to review and monitor implementation of its critical areas regulations and to use an adaptive management approach. It will make adjustments to the regulations, as appropriate, in response to changing conditions, new information about best available science, or empirical We appreciate the inclusion of adaptive management in this section. Does the city currently have a reporting process or adaptive management plan that tracks the CAO’s effectiveness in achieving no net loss, evaluates whether exemptions and variances may cumulatively affect critical area functions and values, and measures improvements in permit implementation? For more info, see Commerce's Critical Areas Handbook, Chapter 7. Page 12 of 528 3 data indicating the effectiveness of its regulatory program. Additionally, please see WDFW’s current best available science standards and management recommendations (released in 2020) for riparian management zones (RMZs) 16.10.020 Definitions “Channel Migration Zone” means the area within which a river channel is likely to move laterally over a specified period (e.g., 100 years). Local governments should identify and limit development within Channel Migration Zones (CMZs)(WAC 173-26-221). Additionally, identifying CMZs helps guide development away from high-risk areas and reduces flood hazards. CMZs are critical for maintaining the dynamic processes that support riparian ecosystems. Without addressing CMZs, the CAO may fail to fully protect the functional riparian areas that naturally shift over time. We encourage the city to incorporate this CMZ definition as well as delineate riparian management zones (RMZs) from the edge of the CMZ if present. For further information, please see the WA Department of Ecology’s (DOE) informational webpage as well as WDFW’s Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. 16.10.020 Definitions “Ecosystem functions" are the products, physical and biological conditions, and environmental qualities of an ecosystem that result from interactions among ecosystem processes and ecosystem structures. Ecosystem functions include, but are not limited to, sequestered carbon, attenuated peak streamflow, aquifer water level, reduced pollutant concentrations in surface and ground waters, cool summer in-stream water temperatures, and fish and wildlife habitat functions. We suggest including the adjacent definition of ‘Ecosystem Functions.’ ‘Functions’ as a standalone term is defined later in this section, but we suggest alignment with language found in WAC 365-196-210 (14). 16.10.020 Definitions “Ecosystem values" are the cultural, social, economic, and ecological benefits attributed to ecosystem functions. See comment above and WAC 365-196-210 (15). 16.10.020 Definitions "Fish habitat" or "habitat that supports fish life" means habitat, which is used by fish life at any life stage at any time of the year including potential habitat likely to be used by fish life, which could We recommend that the city include the WAC 220-660-030(52) definition of “fish habitat” to ensure consistency with state regulations and provide comprehensive protection of aquatic ecosystems. “Fish Habitat” is also mentioned Page 13 of 528 4 reasonably be recovered by restoration or management and includes off-channel habitat. later in this chapter for categorizing “Type F” streams. 16.10.020 Definitions “Hazard tree” is considered a threat to life, property, or public safety. Due to their high habitat value, hazard tree removal shall not adversely affect ecosystem functions to the extent practicable, encourage the creation of snags (Priority Habitat features) rather than complete tree removal, involve an avoidance and minimization of damage to remaining trees and vegetation, and require a qualified arborist to evaluate requests for hazard tree removal. We recommend defining “Hazard Tree” in order to designate regulations that guide removal and mitigation if necessary. 16.10.020 Definitions “Monitoring and Adaptive Management” means the process of monitoring and improving permits, regulations, and programs to ensure the protection of critical areas. This definition comes from the Department of Commerce. See further info in the comments given above for 16.10.010 Purpose and intent, section E. 16.10.020 Definitions “No Net Loss of Critical Areas” refers to the actions taken to achieve and ensure no overall reduction in existing ecosystem functions and values or the natural systems constituting the protected critical areas. This may involve fully offsetting any unavoidable impacts to critical area functions and values pursuant to the Growth Management Act, WAC 365-196- 830 ‘Protection of critical areas,’ or as amended. We recommend including this definition, as it is referenced throughout this chapter. 16.10.020 Definitions “Riparian management zone” (RMZ) means the area that has the potential to provide full riparian functions. In many forested regions of the state, this area occurs within one 200-year site- potential tree height measured from the edge of the stream channel. In situations where a We suggest adding ‘Riparian Management Zone’ as its own definition, to replace ‘stream buffer’ terminology. This is especially important when considering RMZs as a type of critical area and not buffers to critical areas. For further related management recommendations, see WDFW’s Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. Page 14 of 528 5 CMZ is present, this occurs within one site potential tree height measured from the edges of the CMZ. In non-forest zones, the RMZ is defined by the greater of the outermost point of the riparian vegetative community or the pollution removal function, at 100 feet. 16.10.020 Definitions “Watershed Plan” means a plan developed by federal, tribal, state, and/or local government agencies and/or appropriate non- governmental organizations, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, for the specific goal of aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and preservation. A watershed plan addresses aquatic resource conditions in the watershed, multiple stakeholder interests, and land uses. Watershed plans may also identify priority sites for aquatic resource restoration and protection. Including a definition for “Watershed Plan” provides clarity when referencing locally or regionally adopted plans that guide aquatic resource restoration and protection. It helps ensure consistency in implementation, supports landscape-scale planning, and allows jurisdictions to align CAO decisions, such as mitigation, restoration priorities, and buffer considerations, with established, stakeholder-informed watershed efforts. This definition also acknowledges the role of collaborative, science- based planning in achieving long-term ecological outcomes. 16.10.040 Exemption s and nonconforming uses A(4.) Minor Utility and Street Projects. Utility or street projects which have minor or short duration impacts to critical areas, as determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact the functions or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Critical area reports shall be required for all projects that impact critical areas in order to demonstrate that mitigation will reach no net loss standards. Part A of this section describes no intent to require a critical area report. A(4.) indicates allowance for impacts to critical areas with no formal mitigation plan. This is not in alignment with no net loss principles and state requirements (per WAC 365-196-830 and WAC 365-190-080). 16.10.040 Exemption s and nonconforming uses A(7.) Additions to a legally established single-family residential structure in existence before May 13, 2005, with a wetland or stream buffer located within the property, may be Buffers exist to maintain the ecological functions and values of a critical area, including water quality, habitat, and bank stability. Allowing new impervious surfaces within a buffer directly undermines these purposes by increasing runoff, reducing infiltration, and degrading habitat. For this reason, we recommend removing any Page 15 of 528 6 permitted if all of the following criteria are met: a. The addition is no greater than 500 square feet of building footprint over that in existence as of May 13, 2005; b. The addition is not located closer to the critical area than the existing structure; c. Impacts on critical area functions are avoided consistent with the purpose and intent of this title and as demonstrated in a critical area report by a qualified consultant; and provisions that allow additions of hardscape within buffers. It is also difficult to track the cumulative impacts of these incremental additions of impervious surface over time, especially given that many properties have undergone multiple alterations across decades (often 50+ years), making it challenging to assess the true extent of buffer loss and ecological degradation. At a minimum, we recommend that this section clearly state that no development or structures are allowed within 100 feet of a stream, as this is the minimum width identified by WDFW’s BAS to effectively filter pollutants if fully vegetated. 16.10.040 Exemption s and nonconforming uses A(12.) Activities in storm and water quality basins and “wetlands” created by poorly maintained or plugged culverts or pipes, and artificially created ditches that are not used by fish salmonids; This section currently allows work in areas of plugged culverts without a permit unless there is salmonid use. We recommend clarifying that such activities are not exempt from Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) requirements under state law, and that applicants should contact WDFW to determine HPA applicability prior to beginning work. In addition, we suggest revising the language to reference “fish” rather than “salmonid” to align with state requirements to protect all fish species. 16.10.040 Exemption s and nonconforming uses A(13.) Minor activities not mentioned above and determined by the director to have no minimal impacts to a critical area and will result in no net loss of ecological values and functions. State law requires no net loss of ecological values and functions to critical areas (per WAC 365-196- 830 and WAC 365-190-080). If impacts are unavoidable, mitigation must be outlined within a plan completed by a qualified professional. 16.10.050 Critical areas maps General Comment We recommend including WDFW’s 200-year Site- potential Tree Height (SPTH200) and Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) Values mapping resource and WDFW’s PHS map within the city’s mapping resources. 16.10.070 Critical area review process and application requirements C. Consultant Qualifications and City Review. All reports and studies required of the applicant by this section shall be prepared by a qualified consultant as that term is defined in these regulations. For delineating RMZs, we recommend pointing the applicant towards the qualified professional resources in Appendix A of WDFW’s Guidelines for Determining Site Potential Tree Height from Field Measurements. 16.10.080 Classificati E(5.) ...Intentionally created streams are excluded from regulation under this section, It is important to note that all waterways supporting fish must be protected. Where a waterway has been intentionally created for Page 16 of 528 7 on and rating of critical areas except manmade streams that provide “critical habitat,” as designated by federal or state agencies, for salmonids, or streams that contain fish. Intentionally created streams must install fish exclusion devices when applicable to protect fish life. irrigation or similar purposes and does not follow the historic path of natural water flow, appropriate fish exclusion devices should be installed, where applicable, to prevent fish from entering these areas. WDFW is available to plan and permit new fish exclusion devices. 16.10.080 Classificati on and rating of critical areas F. Wildlife Habitat Classification. Wildlife habitat areas shall be classified as critical, secondary or tertiary according to the criteria in this section: Critical areas listed under the FWHCA designation must be fully protected as critical areas, ensuring that there is no net loss of ecological values and functions within these areas. Please review WAC 365-190-130 and incorporate all FWHCA’s required for protection within this section that exist within Auburn. We also recommend including ‘Riparian Management Zones’ and ‘Wildlife Habitat Corridors’ as distinct types of critical areas under the FWHCA designation. 16.10.080 Classificati on and rating of critical areas F(e.) Riparian Management Zones Buffers for critical habitat shall be consistent with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Riparian Ecosystems. (f.) Wildlife Habitat Corridors Although appreciated, this addition seems out of place. The FWHCA section of the CAO should first outline the types of FWHCAs and later define the requirements for protecting each type within dedicated sections. 16.10.080 Classificati on and rating of critical areas 2. “Secondary habitat” 3. “Tertiary habitat” We do not recommend using ratings to distinguish different requirements for FWHCAs. All critical areas are subject to the same protection standard of no net loss. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks A. General Provisions. The establishment of on-site buffers, buffer areas or setbacks shall be required for all development proposals and activities in or adjacent to wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas... We suggest aligning this chapter with state language that describes the five types of critical areas that require protection, including Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs). 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks C. Buffers shall be measured as follows: ...2. Stream buffers – the buffer shall be measured perpendicular from the channel migration zone if present. If a channel migration zone is not present, the ordinary high water mark shall be used; Local jurisdictions should identify and limit development within Channel Migration Zones (CMZs)(WAC 173-26-221). We encourage the City to incorporate a CMZ definition as well as delineate riparian management zones (RMZs) from the edge of the CMZ if present, as outlined in WDFW’s Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations. The CMZ reflects where the river is most likely to erode Page 17 of 528 8 banks, flood, or change course. Limiting development within the CMZ reduces risks to public safety, property, and infrastructure, while also protecting riparian functions. If RMZs are measured only from the ordinary high-water mark, development may be permitted in areas highly prone to channel movement and flood hazards, creating long-term safety and liability issues for the jurisdiction. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks E(2.) Riparian Management Zones Stream buffers shall be established as follows: WDFW’s BAS and management recommendations (Riparian Ecosystems Vol. 1 & 2, 2020) emphasize that riparian areas are not just buffers but critical habitats in their own right. Although riparian ecosystems constitute a small portion of the surface landscape, approximately 85% of Washington’s wildlife species are known to use riparian areas associated with rivers and streams. Of these, 170 species may be riparian obligates, i.e., require riparian habitat to survive. Recognizing RMZs as a type of critical area rather than simply a buffer is necessary to reflect their ecological importance and align with WDFW’s BAS. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks 2. Stream Type Minimum Riparian Management Zone Buffer Width (in feet) Type S Per SMP Type F SPTH 100 Type Np SPTH 50 Type Ns SPTH 50 The widths in this table do not represent sufficient protection standards for riparian areas. All streams, independent of fish use, shall have protection measures that ensure no net loss of ecological values and functions. WDFW’s current best available science standards and management recommendations outline the need to use the Site Potential Tree Height at 200 years (SPTH200) to measure RMZ widths (see WDFW’s mapping tool and field delineation guidance). To stop pollutants from entering streams, RMZs must be 100 feet wide and fully vegetated at a minimum. Meeting RMZ standards is especially critical in highly developed areas like Auburn, where elevated levels of impervious surface contribute to increased stormwater runoff and water quality degradation. The importance of addressing water quality concerns is demonstrated by the listing of many water bodies within the city on Ecology’s 303(d) list, which outlines a trend of continued degraded biological integrity over time. The GMA also requires jurisdictions to give "special consideration" to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or Page 18 of 528 9 enhance anadromous fisheries (WAC 365-195- 925) as well as incorporate regulations to address issues at the watershed scale (WAC 365-196- 830(6)). This is especially relevant to Auburn and echoes the commitments made by the city in the WRIA 9 Interlocal Agreement. Stream-related critical area regulations within Auburn are instrumental in the recovery of federally listed Chinook salmon species. As outlined very clearly in the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan 2021 Update, Auburn has many priority projects that, if completed, would greatly benefit the watershed. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks General comment According to WDFW’s SPTH map, many RMZ widths look to be around 100 feet within Auburn. This means that it is likely that only a very small number of property owners would experience new critical area restrictions on their properties. These property owners also have the option to apply for reasonable use exemptions. We also recommend adding a section outlining the allowance for decreased widths for areas that are isolated from the critical area, similar to the wetlands section. For instance, Woodinville outlines “if a portion of a riparian management zone is determined to be functionally isolated and physically separated from the watercourse due to existing, legally established public roadways, railroads or other legally established structures or paved areas...the director may exclude this area from a riparian management zone provided...,” which can be found in the July 24th, 2025 planning commission packet. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks 2(b.) The buffer widths required in this section may be increased by the director up to a maximum of 50 percent for Type F and Ns streams and up to 100 percent for Type Np streams in response to site-specific conditions and based on the report information... This seems voluntary. We recommend language, such as “standard RMZ widths are based on the assumption that the area is densely vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion, consisting of an average of 80% native cover comprised of trees, shrubs, and groundcover plants. If the existing RMZ is sparsely vegetated or vegetated with invasive species, the RMZ must either be enhanced through an approved mitigation plan or increased by 33%.” Covington (Planning Commission meeting), Woodinville (planning commission packet), Skagit County (meeting agenda packet (14.24.530)), and other jurisdictions all utilize some version of the above language to incentivize healthy critical area buffers. Page 19 of 528 10 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks 2(c.)(ii.) For construction of new public roads and utilities, and accessory structures, when no feasible alternative location exists; or... See comments for 16.10.040 Exemptions and nonconforming uses, A(7.) above. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks 2(d.) Buffer width averaging may be allowed for Type F and Type Np streams only; provided, that all of the following are demonstrated by the applicant: We do not recommend stream buffer averaging. WDFW has found no scientific evidence supporting the idea that reducing a riparian buffer in one area while expanding it elsewhere achieves no net loss of ecological functions and values. WDFW’s Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications (2020) shows that riparian buffer widths are established based on the specific ecological functions they are intended to support, which are directly tied to the width, continuity, and quality of vegetation within the buffer. If buffer averaging is retained, we recommend adding a provision within this section that no width can be below 100 feet at any one point to ensure adequate pollution removal. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks 2(e.) Stream buffer widths may be reduced by the director on a case- by-case basis by up to 25 percent if an applicant demonstrates... See comment above. No RMZ/stream buffer should be reduced. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks 3. Wildlife Habitat Areas. a. Buffer widths for critical habitat areas shall be determined by the director based on consideration of the following factors: species recommendations of the Department of Fish and Wildlife; recommendations contained in the wildlife report and the nature and intensity of land uses and activities occurring on the site and on adjacent sites. Buffers shall not be required for secondary or tertiary habitat. When designated Priority Habitat or Species are present, buffer widths shall conform to the best available science guidance in WDFW’s Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations (2020), or as updated. The director may require a critical area Riparian protection should be defined in the section above. Section 3 should be specific to other wildlife habitats. Page 20 of 528 11 report prepared by a qualified professional to document compliance. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks 3(b.) Buffer widths for critical habitat areas may be modified by averaging buffer widths or by enhancing or restoring buffer quality. See comments for 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks. 2(d.) above. 16.10.100 Alteration or development of critical areas – Standards and criteria – Prohibited uses B(3.) Culverts are allowable only under the following circumstances: c. When the following design criteria are met: IV. Future climate-related impacts, such as projected high flows, shall be considered when reviewing proposals. This should be done in accordance with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s guidance document Incorporating Climate Change into the Design of Water Crossing Structures: Final Project Report and the accompanying Culvert and Climate Change web application. It’s important to include climate-related impacts in Critical Areas development regulations because projected changes in streamflow, such as higher peak flows and more frequent flooding, could directly affect the stability and function of water crossings and riparian systems. Designing for future conditions reduces the risk of infrastructure failure, prevents costly retrofits, and ensures continued protection of fish habitat and water quality. 16.10.100 Alteration or development of critical areas – Standards and criteria – Prohibited uses C(2.) Secondary Habitat... (3.) Tertiary Habitat... See comments for 16.10.080 Classification and rating of critical areas, part F, above. 16.10.110 Mitigation standards, location, and timing, wetland replacement ratios, and long- term protection requirements 1. All feasible and reasonable measures as determined by the department have been taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or avoid impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations including, where applicable; I) Alternative building locations on the property; II) Adjustments to the project footprint and orientation; We recommend this section specify the avoidance measures applicants must consider. Avoidance of impacts is the most critical step in the mitigation sequence, and applicants should be required to demonstrate that they have taken meaningful steps to avoid impacts. This often necessitates clear, specific criteria to show that avoidance was fully evaluated before moving on to other steps within the mitigation sequence. Page 21 of 528 12 III) Modification of setbacks, where feasible, as a first option before encroaching into critical areas or their buffers; IV) Multi-story design or alternate building design 16.10.110 Mitigation standards, location, and timing, wetland replacement ratios, and long- term protection requirements B(3.) In-kind mitigation shall be provided unless the applicant demonstrates, and the director concurs, that on-site mitigation is not feasible and out-of-kind mitigation will result in equal or greater ecological or habitat function. Out-of-kind mitigation may be approved only where it provides equal or greater benefits to critical area functions. For streams, it is essential that ecosystem functions and values be replaced on-site. The removal of trees adjacent to a stream can immediately results in increased water temperatures, reduced bank stability, and a loss of habitat complexity, impacts that cannot be effectively replicated elsewhere. Off-site mitigation does not restore these site-specific processes. We recommend that this section specify off-site mitigation guidance specific to the critical area type. 16.10.110 Mitigation standards, location, and timing, wetland replacement ratios, and long- term protection requirements D(a.) The director determines that it would provide appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts and on-site mitigation is infeasible. Including the adjacent edit ensures that in-lieu fee mitigation is only used as a last resort, consistent with the mitigation sequence. On-site mitigation is critical because many ecological functions cannot be adequately replaced elsewhere because they support the wider ecosystem at that specific location. Without this clause, applicants could more easily bypass on- site mitigation thereby weakening protections and undermining no net loss standards. 16.10.110 Mitigation standards, location, and timing, wetland replacement ratios, and long- term protection requirements F. Mitigation Plan Requirements. When a project involves critical area or critical area wetland and/or buffer impacts, a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified wetland professional shall be required, meeting the following minimum standards: This language should be edited to represent the requirements to protect all types of critical areas, including those listed within the FWHCA section. 16.10.110 Mitigation standards, location, and timing, wetland replacement ratios, and long- term protection requirements F. Mitigation Plan Requirements. This section should specify mitigation plan requirements for all critical areas, not just wetlands. The principle of no net loss of ecological functions and values applies to every critical area type, and protections must be consistent across them. Page 22 of 528 13 16.10.120 Performan ce standards for mitigation planning C. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Edit to align language with state requirements. 16.10.120 Performan ce standards for mitigation planning C(2.)(b.) Integrate retained habitat into open space and landscaping; Open space and landscaping areas should be planted with native vegetation and designed to include habitat features. However, the current language implies that FWHCAs can be treated as open space or landscaping, which is inappropriate. FWHCAs must remain distinct and protected, separate from lawns and other residential use areas, unless the city protects open spaces as a type of FWHCA for habitat connectivity purposes. 16.10.120 Performan ce standards for mitigation planning 3. Where WDFW-designated critical habitat or Priority Habitat/Site (PHS) areas are present adjacent to mitigation sites, buffer widths must be consistent with WDFW Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations (2020). We appreciate this addition and recommend the stream buffer/RMZ inclusions above to align this chapter with WDFW’s riparian protection standards. 16.10.160 Variances ...Minor variances, defined as up to and including 10 percent of the requirement, may be granted by the director as a Type II decision as defined by Chapter 14.03 ACC... A 10% variance, such as a 10% reduction of a critical area buffer, does not align with no net loss principles required by state law. Thank you for taking the time to consider our recommendations to better reflect the best available science for fish and wildlife habitats and ecosystems. We value the relationship we have with your jurisdiction and the opportunity to work collaboratively with you throughout this periodic update cycle. If you have any questions or need our technical assistance or resources at any time during this process, please don’t hesitate to contact me or the Regional Land Use Lead, Morgan Krueger (morgan.krueger@dfw.wa.gov). Sincerely, Marcus Reaves, Regional Habitat Program Manager (Marcus.Reaves@dfw.wa.gov) Page 23 of 528 14 CC: Kara Whittaker, Land Use Conservation and Policy Section Manager (Kara.Whittaker@dfw.wa.gov) Marian Berejikian, Land Use Conservation and Policy Planner (Marian.Berejikian@dfw.wa.gov) Stewart Reinbold, Assistant Regional Habitat Program Manager (Stewart.Reinbold@dfw.wa.gov) Julian Douglas, Habitat Biologist (Julian.Douglas@dfw.wa.gov) Region 4 Southern District Planning Inbox (R4SPlanning@dfw.wa.gov) Eric Guida, WA Department of Commerce (eric.guida@commerce.wa.gov) Page 24 of 528 From:Sears, Tricia (DNR) To:atatro@auburnwa.gov Cc:Sears, Tricia (DNR); Guida, Eric (COM) Subject:Auburn’s Critical Areas Ordinance Amendments (2025-S-9767): WGS comments Date:Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:50:05 AM Hello Alyssa, In keeping with the interagency correspondence principles, I am providing you with comments on Auburn’s Critical Areas Ordinance Amendments (2025-S-9767). For this proposal submitted via Planview, I looked at the proposal and focused on areas related to WGS work. Of note, but not limited to, I look for language around the geologically hazardous areas, mineral resource lands, mining, climate change, and natural hazards mitigation plans. Specifically in this proposal, I reviewed the Draft Chapter 16.10 ACC Critical Areas Ordinance .docx and the Agency Notice Cover Sheet. Kudos to you for updating your CAO! In 16.10.010 and throughout the provisions, the term used is geologic hazard areas rather than geologically hazardous areas (the term used in WAC and RCW). Overall, section 16.10.10.010 is thoughtfully written. On page 4,in this section, in subsection D, the provisions state “protects the public from injury, loss of life, property or financial losses due to flooding, erosion, landslide, seismic events, soil subsidence, or steep slope failure;…” That’s great! Note, be sure to clearly state which of the geologically hazardous areas are in Auburn. It’s not entirely clear which hazards are there due to a variety of definitions and descriptions in the code. In 16.10.020, the definition “Critical geologic hazard areas means lands or areas subject to high or severe risks of geologic hazard, including critical erosion hazard areas, critical landslide hazard areas, critical volcanic hazard areas, and critical seismic hazard areas.” And the definition of ““Geologic hazard areas means areas characterized by geologic, hydrologic, and topographic conditions that render them susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events.” Why are there two definitions, is that the definition with critical is more severe hazard? Are they mapped differently? There are also critical and not critical definitions of erosion and other hazards. On page 13-14 there is a definition of qualified consultant. It states “professionally trained and/or certified or licensed by the state of Washington to practice in the scientific disciplines necessary” which is great. Suggest specifically identifying the licensed professional needed for geologically hazardous areas (geologist or geotechnical engineer) in the manner that the definition specifically notes for CARAs and wetlands. Note that there are places in the code provisions that mention qualified professionals. Suggest selecting either qualified professionals or qualified consultants and using it consistently. Most jurisdictions use the term qualified professionals. Section 16.10.080, suggest adding a reference to Washington Geologic Information Portal in subsection C, along with the other noted state agency references. It could also be included in the subsection specific to geologically hazardous areas. In this section, under Geologic Hazard Area Classifications, there is mention of critical erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, and seismic hazard areas. Previously there has been mention of volcanic hazards, and in some places these DNR COMMENTS Page 25 of 528 hazards have the term critical placed in front of them. Please clarify the hazards in Auburn that are considered geologically hazardous areas hazards. In 16.10.120, for the physical marking in temporary and permanent fashion, with signs, suggest having it apply to all the critical areas rather than just a few. Suggest requiring that the property owner record to title the type of critical areas and the nature and extent of them. Below, I include our usual language for this and future endeavors. Recognizing the limitations of the current proposals, I want to mention that it would be great for you to consider these in current or future work, be it in your comprehensive plan, development code, and SMP updates, and in your work in general: Consider adding a reference to the definition of geologically hazardous areas, WAC 365-190- 120, in other areas besides the CAO. In addition, consider adding a reference to WAC 365- 196-480 for natural resource lands. Consider adding in other areas besides the CAO. If you have not checked our interactive database, the WGS Geologic Information Portal, lately, you may wish to do so. Geologic Information Portal | WA - DNR If you have not checked out our Geologic Planning page, you may wish to do so. Geologic Planning | WA - DNR Thank you for considering our comments. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. For your convenience, if there are no concerns or follow-up discussion, you may consider these comments to be final as of the 60-day comment deadline of 10/14/25. Have a great day! Cheerio, Tricia Tricia R. Sears (she/her/hers) Geologic Planning Liaison Washington Geological Survey (WGS) Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Cell: 360-628-2867 | Email: tricia.sears@dnr.wa.gov Page 26 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 1 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. Chapter 16.10 CRITICAL AREAS Sections: 16.10.010 Purpose and intent. 16.10.020 Definitions. 16.10.030 Applicability – Regulated activities. 16.10.040 Exemptions and nonconforming uses. 16.10.050 Critical areas maps. 16.10.060 Relationship to other regulations. 16.10.070 Critical area review process and application requirements. 16.10.080 Classification and rating of critical areas. 16.10.090 Buffer areas and setbacks. 16.10.100 Alteration or development of critical areas – Standards and criteria – Prohibited uses. 16.10.110 Mitigation standards, location, and timing, wetland replacement ratios, and long-term protection requirements. 16.10.120 Performance standards for mitigation planning. 16.10.130 Monitoring program and contingency plan. 16.10.140 Procedural provisions. 16.10.150 Reasonable use provision. 16.10.160 Variances. 16.10.170 Special exception for public agencies and utilities. 16.10.180 Severability. 16.10.010 Purpose and intent. A. The city of Auburn contains numerous areas that can be identified and characterized as critical or environmentally sensitive. Such areas within the city include wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, aquifer recharge areas, geologic hazard areas, and flood hazards areas. B. The city finds that these critical areas perform a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit the city and its residents. Alteration of certain critical areas ECY COMMENTS Page 27 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 17 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. “Wetland” or “wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. (Definition taken from RCW 36.70A.030(23).) Wetlands shall be classified and rated according to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Version 3.2, or latest approved by Ecology). “Wetland impact assessment report” means a report prepared by a qualified consultant that identifies, characterizes and analyzes potential impacts to wetlands consistent with applicable provisions of these regulations. A wetland impact assessment may be combined with and include a formal wetland delineation. “Wetland mosaic” means an area with a concentration of multiple small wetlands, in which each patch of wetland is less than one acre; on average, patches are less than 100 feet from each other; and areas delineated as vegetated wetland are more than 50 percent of the total area of the entire mosaic, including uplands and open water. “Wildlife report” means a report prepared by a qualified consultant that evaluates plant communities and wildlife functions and values on a site, consistent with the format and requirements established by this chapter. The report also includes an analysis of impacts. (Ord. 6733 § 3 (Exh. B), 2019; Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.) 16.10.030 Applicability – Regulated activities. A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any activity that potentially affects a critical area or its buffer, unless otherwise exempt. Such regulated activities include, but are not limited to: 1. Removing, excavating, disturbing or dredging soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or materials of any kind; Commented [EA1]: This should be Version 2.0. This is officially titled Washington State Wetland Rating System For Western Washington: 2014 Update, Version 2.0 Page 28 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 19 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. subdivision; building permit; planned unit development (if permitted by the city code); shoreline substantial development; variance; conditional use permit; and any other permits that may lead to the development or alteration of land. C. Administrative actions, such as rezones, annexations, and the adoption of plans and programs, shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. However, the director may, using discretion, permit any studies or evaluations required by this chapter to use methodologies and provide a level of detail appropriate to the administrative action proposed. (Ord. 6733 § 3 (Exh. B), 2019; Ord. 6187 § 3, 2008; Ord. 5991 § 3, 2006; Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.) 16.10.040 Exemptions and nonconforming uses. A. The following activities performed on sites containing critical areas as defined by this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: that meet the following criteria are not subject to avoidance and minimization requirements of the mitigation sequence (Chapter…) in accordance with the following provisions, and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions in “Chapter XXX”. Impacts should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program, if available, consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank or program. In order to fully verify whether the following criteria are met, it is essential that critical areas report for wetlands meeting the requirements of Chapter 16.10 ACC are submitted: 1. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, as defined in this chapter; 2. Activities involving artificially created wetlands or streams intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to grass-lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, retention or detention facilities, and landscape features, except wetlands or streams made from non-wetlands created as mitigation or that provide critical habitat for salmonids and except when the site contains another critical area; 3. Normal and routine maintenance, operation, repair and reconstruction of existing roads, streets, utilities and associated structures; provided, that reconstruction of any structures may not increase the impervious area and may not cause further encroachment on the critical area or its buffer, and may not result in adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater quality. Operation and maintenance includes vegetation management Page 29 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 20 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. performed in accordance with best management practices that is part of ongoing maintenance of structures, infrastructure, or utilities; provided, that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the critical area, are not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact an endangered or threatened species; 4. Minor Utility and Street Projects. Utility or street projects which have minor or short duration impacts to critical areas, as determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact the functions or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Minor activities shall not result in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such allowed minor utility projects shall meet the following criteria: a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical areas; b. The activity involves the placement of underground piping, conduit, traffic signal equipment, lighting equipment, utility pole(s), signs, anchor, or vault or other small component of a utility or street facility; 5. Normal maintenance, repair and reconstruction of residential or commercial structures, facilities and landscaping; provided, that reconstruction of any structures may not increase the previous floor area; 6. The addition of floor area within an existing building which does not increase the building footprint; 7. Additions to a legally established single-family residential structure in existence before May 13, 2005, with a wetland or stream buffer located within the property, may be permitted if all of the following criteria area met: a. The addition is no greater than 500 square feet of building footprint over that in existence as of May 13, 2005; b. The addition is not located closer to the critical area than the existing structure; Page 30 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 21 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. c. Impacts on critical area functions are avoided consistent with the purpose and intent of this title and as demonstrated in a critical area report by a qualified consultant; and d. Demonstrate that tThere are no changes in slope stability, flood conditions or drainage;Demonstrate through analysis by qualified professionals that other existing property conditions covered by this title (e.g. – slope stability, flood conditions, drainage) have not changed with the proposed addition; 8. Site investigative work and studies that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization including soils tests, water quality studies, wildlife studies and similar tests and investigations; provided, that any disturbance of the critical area shall be the minimum necessary to carry out the work or studies; 9. Educational activities, scientific research, and outdoor passive recreational activities, including but not limited to interpretive field trips, birdwatching and hiking, that will not have a significant effect on the critical area; 10. Emergency activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, property or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this chapter as long as any alteration undertaken pursuant to this subsection is reported to the city as soon as possible. Only the minimum intervention necessary to reduce the risk to public health, safety or welfare and/or the imminent risk of damage to private property shall be authorized by this exemption. The director shall confirm that an emergency exists or existed and determine what, if any, additional applications and/or measures shall be required to protect the environment consistent with the provision of this section and to repair any damage to a pre-existing resource; 11. Activities affecting previously legally filled wetlands; 12. Activities in storm and water quality basins and “wetlands” created by poorly maintained or plugged culverts or linespipes, and artificially created ditches that are not used by salmonids; 13. Minor activities not mentioned above and determined by the director to have minimal impacts to a critical area. Commented [EA2]: Ecology also recommends including a time limit for restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement of a critical area damaged or altered by emergency activities. Generally, this could be 1 to 2 years to help minimize temporal loss of wetland functions and values. Commented [EA3]: This exemption appears very broad and at the discretion of the director. How often is this used? Would it be possible to include some language of criteria minor activities would have to meet to have minimal impacts to a critical area? Might be something to consider. Page 31 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 26 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. D. Review Process. This section is not intended to create a separate critical area review permit for development proposals. To the extent possible, the city shall consolidate and integrate the review and processing of critical area-related aspects of proposals with other land use and environmental considerations and approvals. Any permits required by separate codes or regulations, such as floodplain development permits or shoreline substantial development permits, shall continue to be required. (Ord. 6733 § 3 (Exh. B), 2019; Ord. 6295 § 4, 2010; Ord. 5894 § 1, 2005.) 16.10.080 Classification and rating of critical areas. A. To promote consistent application of the standards and requirements of this chapter, critical areas within the city of Auburn shall be rated or classified according to their characteristics, function and value, and/or their sensitivity to disturbance. B. Classification of critical areas shall be determined by the director based on consideration of the following factors and in the following order: 1. Consideration of the technical reports submitted by qualified consultants in connection with applications subject to these regulations; 2. Application of the criteria contained in these regulations; and 3. Critical areas maps maintained by the department of community development. C. Classification shall incorporate Best Available Science as defined under WAC 365‑195‑900., and utilize statewide classification schemes, such as Ecology’s Wetland Rating System and WDFW Priority Habitats and Species maps. D. Wetland Classification. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications. 1. “Category I wetlands” include wetlands which: represent unique or rare wetland types, are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands, are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime, or Commented [EA4]: Please update to the V.2 update of the Western WA Rating system and the new publication number (Publication 23-06-009 ). If making this change it should be consistent throughout your CAO. Page 32 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 36 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. b. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when all of the following conditions are met: i. The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a “dual-rated” wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower-rated area. ii. The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher-functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower- functioning or less sensitive portion as demonstrated by a critical area report from a qualified wetland professional. iii. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging. iv. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 75 percent of the required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category III, and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever buffer is greater. v. Averaging applies only to standard buffer widths, not reduced widths. c. Certain uses and activities which are consistent with the purpose and function of the wetland buffer and do not detract from its integrity may be permitted by the director within the buffer depending on the sensitivity of the wetland. Examples of uses and activities with minimal impacts which may be permitted in appropriate cases include permeable pedestrian trails, viewing platforms, and utility easements. Trails and easements should be limited to minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located only in the outer 25 percent of the wetland buffer area, and located to avoid removal of significant trees. Trails should be limited to pervious surfaces no more than eight feet in width for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable. Page 33 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 37 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. d. Where existing buffers are degraded, the director may allow limited filling within the buffer when the applicant demonstrates that the buffer will be enhanced according to standards of this chapter, including appropriate soil preparation, will not result in slopes exceeding 25 percent, and there will be no net loss of wetland or buffer functions and values. e. Functionally Disconnected Buffer Areas. Buffers may exclude areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by an existing public or private road or legally established development, as determined by the director. Functionally and effectively disconnected means that the road or other significant development blocks the protective measures provided by a buffer. Significant developments shall include built public infrastructure such as roads and railroads, and private developments such as homes or commercial structures. The director shall evaluate whether the interruption will affect the entirety of the buffer. Individual structures may not fully interrupt buffer function. In such cases, the allowable buffer exclusion should be limited in scope to just the portion of the buffer that is affected. Where questions exist regarding whether a development functionally disconnects the buffer, or the extent of that impact, the director may require a critical area report to analyze and document the buffer functionality. 2. Stream buffers shall be established as follows: Stream Type Minimum Buffer Width (in feet) Type S Per SMP Type F 100 Type Np 50 Type Ns 50 a. Commented [EA5]: If buffers are degraded they should, ideally, be revegetated to sufficiently protect the functions and values of the wetlands per our recommended buffer standards. Our guidance notes that the buffer should be well vegetated. How is the buffer enhanced by this? Will revegetation be required? Page 34 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 42 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. A. Wetlands. 1. Category I Wetlands. Alterations of Category I wetlands shall be avoided subject to the reasonable use provisions of this chapter. 2. Category II Wetlands. a. Alteration and mitigation shall comply with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of these regulations; b. Where enhancement, restoration or creation is proposed, replacement ratios shall comply with the requirements of these regulations; and c. No net loss of wetland functions and values may occur. 3. Category III and IV Wetlands. a. Alteration and mitigation shall comply with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of these regulations; b. Where enhancement, restoration or creation is proposed, replacement ratios shall comply with the requirements of these regulations; and c. No net loss of wetland functions and values may occur. d. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid impacts and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated based on the remaining actions. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank. Mitigation requirements may be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011, or as revised and approved by Ecology). In order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the requirements in ACC 16.10.060 must be submitted. i. All non-federally-regulated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that: (A) Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers. Page 35 of 528 Chapter 16.10 ACC, Critical Areas Page 43 of 70 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6961, passed December 2, 2024. (B) Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers. (C) Are not part of a wetland mosaic. (D) Do not score six or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). (E) Do not contain a priority habitat or a priority area for a priority species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or species of local importance identified in ACC 16.10.080(E). ii. . Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this chapter. B. Streams. 1. Relocation of a Type F, Np and Ns stream exclusively to facilitate general site design shall not be allowed. Relocation of a stream may take place only when it is part of an approved mitigation or enhancement/restoration plan. ,Consultation with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and a functional assessment demonstrating equal or improved aquatic and riparian ecosystem function, and no net loss of stream functions, is recommended. and will resultThe result shall bein equal or better habitat and water quality, and will not diminish the flow capacity of the stream. 2. Bridges shall be used to cross Type S streams; boring/micro-tunneling, or other forms of trenchless technologies may be considered for utility crossings if it would result in the same or lower impacts as bridging. 3. Culverts are allowable only under the following circumstances: a. Only in Type F, Type Np, and Type Ns streams; b. When fish passage will not be impaired; c. When the following design criteria are met: Commented [EA6]: Please update to most recent publication number: Ecology Publication #23-06-009 Page 36 of 528 September 16, 2025 City of Auburn Planning Commission Auburn City Hall 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 RE: Comments on Proposed Updates to Auburn’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Dear Planning Commissioners, On behalf of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties (MBAKS), representing nearly 2,500 members, thank you for your work to update Auburn’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). We support efforts to align with Best Available Science and state requirements while ensuring the ordinance also supports housing opportunity, predictability, and flexibility—especially for infill and middle housing. As MBAKS has emphasized in similar policy discussions across the region, it is critical that jurisdictions balance environmental protections with broader planning goals. The GMA does not prioritize one goal over another. While protecting the environment is a central objective (Goal 10), cities must also consider how new regulations affect other important objectives, including: • Urban Growth – Support development in areas with existing infrastructure. • Housing – Promote diverse, affordable housing. • Property Rights – Avoid overly restrictive regulations. • Permits – Ensure timely, fair, and predictable permitting. We encourage the Commission to ask staff to clarify which changes are required by law or BAS, and where discretion exists. Key questions include: • Will updates increase housing costs or delay permitting? • Are all changes required, or are some discretionary? • Are there alternative approaches that meet BAS with fewer impacts? We are particularly concerned about the use of Site Potential Tree Height (SPTH) to determine riparian buffer widths. From our research, SPTH is largely based on forested environments and may not reflect urban conditions. Applying large buffers based on theoretical canopy height could unnecessarily restrict development on small infill lots, even when redevelopment could improve ecological function. MBA COMMENTS Page 37 of 528 As noted in the nearby City of Covington’s CAO Gap Analysis (Facet, June 2024), riparian studies often overlook urban infrastructure contributions to ecological function. Cities have discretion to interpret BAS in ways that reflect local conditions and engineered systems. Adopting standards based on SPTH may reduce predictability, increase technical review costs, and establish buffers that are not based on site specific data; adding more barriers to urgently needed housing. We look forward to working with Auburn to ensure the final ordinance reflects a balanced approach to sustainability and housing opportunity. Sincerely, Matt Haight Government Affairs Manager Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties mhaight@mbaks.com | (425) 451-7920 Page 38 of 528 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Meeting Date: Downtown Plan Follow Up Discussion (Teague) More in-depth discussion of the land use map change, zoning map change, and new DUC zoning districts associated with the Downtown Subarea Plan. October 21, 2025 Department: Attachments: Budget Impact: Community Development Downtown Subarea Plan Update Memo, PowerPoint Presentation, 2024 Downtown Subarea Plan, Downtown Subarea Land Use Map, Downtown Subarea Zoning Map Administrative Recommendation: Background for Motion: Background Summary: See attached Memorandum Councilmember: Staff: Jason Krum Page 39 of 528 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission Bill Stewart, Vice Chair Planning Commission Planning Commission Members FROM: Alexandria Teague, AICP, Planning Services Manager Dept. of Community Development DATE: October 7, 2025 RE: 2024 Auburn Downtown Subarea Plan Update I.PROPOSED DOWNTOWN SUBAREA ZONING MAP The 2024 Downtown Subarea Plan introduces the concept of DUC zoning districts. The DUC zoning districts are further refinements of the traditional Downtown Urban Center or DUC zoning district. Or rather the traditional DUC zoning district is now broken down into eight zoning districts. The intent behind having multiple DUC zoning districts is that the uses, development, and infrastructure of the downtown subarea (the area within the thick red boundary in Attachments 3 and 4 in the proposed maps) is not the same and should allow for different uses, housing typologies, and design standards. There are areas of the downtown that feature lower density, middle housing type, residential development, and other areas that are heavy commercial in nature. The downtown subarea plan will ensure that the entire downtown area is planned together, comprehensively, and the different DUC zoning districts will allow the city to recognize the different areas within the downtown. II.PROPOSED DOWNTOWN SUBAREA LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP The land use will be updated to reflect the DUC zoning districts. The entire area is proposed to be redesignated to “Downtown”. This change will make the land use designation and corresponding DUC zoning districts consistent. III.STAFF REQUEST Request to bring the 2024 Downtown Subarea Plan, Appendix A (EIS), Appendix B (Baseline Report), Downtown Subarea Land Use Map, and Downtown Subarea Zoning Map forward to a public hearing. IV.ATTACHMENTS 1)PowerPoint Presentation 2)2024 Auburn Downtown Subarea Plan 3)Downtown Subarea Land Use Map 4)Downtown Subarea Zoning Map Page 40 of 528 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 PLANNING COMMISSION 2024 DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN PRESENTED BY ALEXANDRIA TEAGUE PLANNING SERVICES MANAGER OCTOBER 21, 2025 Department of Community Development Planning Building Development Engineering Permit Center Economic Development Code Enforcement Page 41 of 528 STATUS OF THE PLAN Page 42 of 528 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Page 43 of 528 PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION Page 44 of 528 EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS Page 45 of 528 PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS Page 46 of 528 DUC CORE DISTRICT Page 47 of 528 DUC HEALTH & WELLNESS Page 48 of 528 DUC NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL Page 49 of 528 DUC FLEX RESIDENTIAL Page 50 of 528 NEXT STEPS Page 51 of 528 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 Department of Community Development Planning Building Development Engineering Permit Center Economic Development Code Enforcement Thank you for your time Any questions? Page 52 of 528 ABERDEEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN – XXXX Element Name XXXX i 2024 Auburn Downtown Subarea Plan Update October 2025 Page 53 of 528 October 2025 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 1| Introduction 1-1 Purpose 1-1 Process and Participation 1-2 2| Existing Conditions 2-1 Study Area 2-1 Overall Themes 2-7 Elements 2-11 Assets, Challenges, & Opportunities 2-15 3| Concept 3-1 Goals and Objectives 3-1 Urban Design Framework 3-4 4| Land Use & Urban Design 4-1 Regional Growth Strategy 4-2 Zoning Concepts 4-3 Urban Form 4-10 Green Buildings and Urban Resilience 4-7 5| Housing & Redevelopment 5-1 Housing 5-1 Redevelopment 5-7 Programs, Funding, and Incentives 5-18 Local Businesses and Displacement Risks 5-22 6| Transportation 6-1 Roadway Network and Safety 6-1 Active Transportation 6-11 Transit, Vehicle Circulation, and Parking 6-16 7| Parks & Public Spaces 7-1 Green Space 7-1 Public Space Opportunities 7-5 8| Utilities 8-1 Water and Sanitary Sewer Service 8-1 Stormwater Management 8-1 9| Implementation 9-1 Implementation Chart Key 9-1 10| Appendices 10-1 Page 54 of 528 October 2025 Select List of Maps Map 2-1 Study Area ............................................................................................ 2-3 Map 2-4 Existing Zoning (prior to 2024 Comprehensive Plan update) ............... 2-6 Map 2-5 Existing Conditions and Character Areas in the Study Area ................. 2-9 Map 2-6 Assets – Key Destinations and Gateways .......................................... 2-16 Map 2-7 Challenges – Arterials and Circulation Barriers ................................. 2-18 Map 3-1 Concept Diagram ................................................................................. 3-7 Map 4-1 Zoning Concept ..................................................................................... 4-4 Map 4-6 Updated Key Streets Map..................................................................... 4-2 Map 4-6 Proposed Updates to Pedestrian Streets ............................................. 4-4 Map 5-1 Existing Multifamily Housing and Year Built ......................................... 5-3 Map 5-2 Improvement to Land Value ratio ........................................................ 5-8 Map 5-3 Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in the Study Area ........................ 5-11 Map 5-4 City-Owned Parcels in Downtown Auburn ......................................... 5-13 Map 6-2 Safety ................................................................................................... 6-3 Map 6-3 Rail Network ........................................................................................ 6-8 Map 6-4 Freight Network ................................................................................... 6-9 Map 6-5 Pedestrian Network ........................................................................... 6-12 Map 6-6 Bicycle Network ................................................................................. 6-13 Map 6-7 Active Transportation Recommendations ......................................... 6-14 Map 6-7 Transit Service ................................................................................... 6-17 Map 6-9 Parking ............................................................................................... 6-20 Map 7-1 Park and Open Space Improvements .................................................. 7-2 List of Tables Table 1-1 Summary table of engagement feedback ........................................... 1-2 Table 4-1 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan Anticipated Growth 2021-2044 .......... 4-1 Table 6-1 Planned Transportation Projects for Downtown Auburn ................... 6-6 Table 9-1 Implementation Summary Table ........................................................ 9-2 Page 55 of 528 October 2025 Acknowledgements Land Acknowledgement The City of Auburn acknowledges the area covered by the Downtown Plan on the ancestral and contemporary lands of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. They have stewarded the land since time immemorial. The City of Auburn recognizes the generational harm done to the Muckleshoot people on the Salish lands through colonization and commit to ensuring that our governmental partnerships recognize the continued vibrancy of their culture and honor their sovereignty. Participants City Staff • Jason Krum, Director of Community Development • Ingrid Gaub, Director of Public Works • Steve Sturza Assistant Director Community Development • Josh Steiner, AICP, Senior Planner (former) • Jacob Sweeting, City Engineer/Assistant Director Public Works • Jeff Tate, Director of Special Projects (former) • Alyssa Tatro, Senior Planner • Alexandria Teague, AICP, Planning Services Manager Consultant Team MAKERS architecture and urban design Rachel Miller Katy Saunders, PLA Ian Crozier, AICP ESA Pam Xander Nicole Lobodzinski Fehr & Peers Kendra Breiland, AICP Krista Runchey Leland Consulting Group Andrew Oliver Brian Vanneman Auburn Community Members Many thanks to all members of the City of Auburn community who offered their time to provide feedback and help guide the direction of this plan. Page 56 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Introduction | March 2025 1-1 1|Introduction Purpose The 2001 Auburn Downtown Plan (2001 Auburn Downtown Plan) set a vision and strategies for a vibrant, compact, mixed-use urban downtown core. Over the past 20 years Downtown Auburn has seen significant public investments, as well as private development, that have transformed several blocks within the downtown core into a strong, pedestrian-oriented center. This 2024 Auburn Downtown Subarea Plan Update (2024 Downtown Plan) builds on the vision and framework of the 2001 ADP vision, refining it where needed to accommodate growth through compact, pedestrian- and transit-oriented development, and ensure alignment with current City policies and community needs and priorities. These refinements include: • Expansion of Downtown north of 3rd St NE so that the city can accommodate additional growth and retain the Regional Growth Center (RGC) designation from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). • Expand and improve multimodal connections to align with the City’s current policies and plans. • Providing more space for housing within downtown, to align with the strategies established by the City’s recent Housing Action Plan (HAP) and Housing Action Plan Implementation (HAPI) projects. The City of Auburn received Transit-Oriented Development Implementation (TODI) grant funding from the Washington State Department of Commerce for the 2022-2023 Biennium to assist with this process. The goal is to adopt a subarea plan pursuant to RCW 43.21C.420, and a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440(1)(b)(ii). This plan’s horizon year is 2044, consistent with the Periodic Comprehensive Plan update that was adopted at the end of 2024. The 2024 Downtown Plan was developed concurrent to the 2024 Periodic Comprehensive Plan update. Some background information shown in this plan refers to the earlier Comprehensive Plan content, as this was the adopted plan at the time the 2024 Downtown Plan was developed. Staff coordinated the two processes to ensure alignment. The City plans to update zoning within downtown following the adoption of the 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan Update, and will amend the Comprehensive Plan in subsequent updates. Cover image from the original Auburn Downtown Plan (2001). Page 57 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Introduction | March 2025 1-2 Process and Participation Public engagement has included video-conference meetings with community stakeholders, an online survey, and an information booth at the Farmer’s Market to gather community-wide feedback on the plan. Table 1-1 Summary table of engagement feedback Event Date Topics Covered and Key Feedback City Council Update March 2022 ▪ Staff provided an overview of Downtown Plan Update with City Council Planning Commission Update June 2022 ▪ Staff update on planning process, Comprehensive Plan alignment, and regional requirements for Regional Growth Centers. Interview – Agencies and Property Owners July 2022 ▪ Many see the downtown as in a good point of transition – still work to do, but has good investments, and is well-poised for future. ▪ Would like more activity in downtown - more things to do, more options for transit, food, etc. ▪ MultiCare expansion and ST parking garages – will be important to coordinate. ▪ Safety and security challenges are important to ensure downtown stays livable ▪ MultiCare – employees have gaps in places to get food, places to sit outside, and safety security issues, particularly at off-hours and at night, and transit schedules…existing options don’t align with shifts. ▪ Want more focus on multimodal access/investments and ways to make downtown more active and livable ▪ KC Metro is developing plan for new routes…might be important to circle back on that. ▪ Bike infrastructure is lacking ▪ Want to stay connected to the city’s industrial and agricultural heritage and sense of place as city develops further. Interview – Development Community and Housing Advocates July 2022 ▪ Safety and security has been a challenge and is important to consider ▪ Need for more diverse housing options and affordable housing ▪ Open to development and expansion of housing in areas within the study area. ▪ Downtown as a gathering place for larger community – community aspect. Page 58 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Introduction | March 2025 1-3 Event Date What we learned Interview – Business Community July 2022 ▪ New commercial spaces aren’t affordable to existing businesses. ▪ Downtown as a gathering place is important for the vision. Needs to be more activity, and things to do. ▪ Arts is a big focus for the downtown – looking at artistic bike racks, murals on buildings, etc. ▪ Some businesses keep doors locked even during business hours – improving comfort and safety is important. ▪ More residents downtown is very helpful to businesses. ▪ Liked some of the public space uses that occurred during COVID (outdoor seating, etc.) Would like to see some of that continue, even at a small scale. Main Street is a key focus for that. ▪ Would like to see a green space downtown – for recreation, family activities, also place for people to take pets. (Dog waste is sometimes a challenge.) ▪ Lighting improvements – buildings, catenary lights, ways to make downtown feel brighter, welcoming and safer at night. ▪ Streetscape improvements – mid-block crossings and bike rack improvements. ▪ Recent heat waves have impacted business – people are less likely to come Downtown in extreme heat. Page 59 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Introduction | March 2025 1-4 Event Date What we learned Farmer’s Market Engagement August 2022 ▪ More affordable housing is needed, including senior housing and dense housing near accessible transit. ▪ Greater home ownership opportunities are desired. ▪ Affordable commercial/retail spaces are needed to expand business or move to a more central location ▪ More food options in downtown would benefit workers and visitors, especially those working at MultiCare Auburn Medical Center. Fires on Main Street were a big loss. ▪ New development is pushing existing businesses out ▪ More shopping and retain destinations would make me go downtown more often. ▪ Rents for new mixed-use buildings are too high for local businesses. ▪ Concerned about property theft, illicit activities in downtown. Want it to be welcoming and safe. ▪ Downtown green space and lunch space is desired. ▪ More open space for kids to play. ▪ Increasing trees in and around downtown has a lot of benefits. ▪ Downtown needs a swimming pool. ▪ So much harder to park these days. More parking for vehicles and secure bike parking for transit users is needed. ▪ East-west multimodal connections to Sounder are very limited. ▪ Would like a more walkable downtown. ▪ Improved bike lanes for downtown core are needed. ▪ Public transit is very important. ▪ Arts and green space are important. ▪ Main Street is important as a cultural destination. Theatre and Farmers Market are attractions. ▪ More gathering/celebration space for diverse community is needed. ▪ Would like a growing downtown that retains hometown vibe. L: Farmer market engagement, August, 2022 Page 60 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Introduction | March 2025 1-5 Event Date What we learned Planning Commission Presentation December 2022 ▪ Consultant team provided an update on findings from early analysis and shared early drafts for DEIS Alternatives City Council Update November 2023 ▪ City Council coordination on alignment between Downtown Plan and Comprehensive Plan land use and housing assumptions Planning Commission and City Council March to November 2023 ▪ Coordination with Planning Commission and City Council on incorporating draft Plan recommendations into Comprehensive Plan Online Survey 9 responses Summer 2021-2023 Where do you go Downtown and why? ▪ MultiCare, Merrill Gardens, Shopping, Main Street for Shopping, Haircuts, Eat and Drink on Main Street, Visit shops and eateries in the area – would love more variety, Work, Doctor Appointments, Driver’s Education, Commuting, Grocery Shopping In 3-5 words, describe what you like best about Downtown Auburn ▪ Old buildings, Walkable streets (mentioned 3 times), Good bones, Shop variety, potential, Businesses In 3-5 words, describe what you like best about Auburn overall ▪ Location, Rolls with the punches, Potential, Flat, Quaint, the People, Freeway and Highway access “I wish Downtown Auburn…” ▪ Would have more disc golf and pickle ball, had more businesses, was safer for others, had less empty spaces below the apartments, had more life to it, had less abandoned businesses between Auburn Way and Downtown, Was more people oriented “I wish Auburn…” ▪ Would update the look of old buildings, Had a downtown like Sumner’s, Would be a little more transparent, Would remove homeless, Was more booming and had things do to, Less drug use, Was more people oriented Page 61 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-1 2|Existing Conditions This section introduces the study area and describes the key themes and findings that were identified by a review of existing conditions for the 2024 Downtown Plan and Planned Action EIS (EIS). The full Baseline Report, was first developed in 2023 and partially updated in 2024, and is attached to this document as Appendix A. Content from the baseline report was updated during the drafting of the 2024 Downtown Plan and EIS. Study Area The City of Auburn Downtown Subarea is a unique and diverse area that includes a mix of land uses, neighborhoods, commercial areas, and architectural styles. Existing (2024) land use and related designations in the study area include: • Downtown Subarea is an adopted area in the comprehensive plan that aligns with the Regional Growth Center. This area includes a variety of land use and zoning types. • Regional Growth Center (RGC) is one of the Centers designations provided by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Downtown was first designated a Regional Growth Center in 2003 and is now considered an Urban Regional Growth Center, following the PSRC’s Regional Centers Framework Update in 2018. To maintain this designation, the City must accommodate levels of residential and employment density. Page 62 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-2 • The Downtown Urban Center (DUC) land use designation in the comprehensive plan that applies to much of the Downtown Subarea. It is implemented by a variety of zoning types including R-7, R-20, M-1 Light Industrial, and Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zone which was intended to create a strong identity of downtown Auburn. The 2024 Downtown Plan studied an area larger than the current boundary of the Downtown Subarea/RGC to assess new opportunities for residential and commercial growth that align with regional transportation investments. This study area, which is 376 acres total, includes the current downtown Subarea/RGC area, but expands north to 10th St NE and 8th St NE, and east to H St NE. The Union Pacific Railroad and Interurban Trail corridor comprises the western border while the eastern border is defined by H St NE, 4th St NE, and E St NE. The 2024 Downtown Plan proposes a Revised Downtown Area (Map 2-1,) and recommends updating the existing RGC to align with the Revised Downtown Area. PSRC oversees RGC boundary changes. Following the adoption of this plan, the City will coordinate with PSRC to determine the extent of RGC boundary updates. Current uses in downtown and existing zoning are shown on Map 2-2, and Map 2-3 on the following pages. Page 63 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-3 Map 2-1 Study Area Note: Wetlands shown reflect pre-2025 inventory, and may not represent current conditions. Source: MAKERS (City of Auburn GIS data). Page 64 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-4 Map 2-2 Current Use of Properties Source: Leland (King County Assessor data). Page 65 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-5 Map 2-3 Comprehensive Plan Land Uses (prior to December 2024 Comprehensive Plan update) Source: MAKERS (City of Auburn GIS data). Page 66 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-6 Map 2-4 Existing Zoning (prior to 2024 Comprehensive Plan update) Source: MAKERS (City of Auburn GIS data). Page 67 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-7 Overall Themes The following overarching themes emerged as key challenges and opportunities for Downtown Auburn, impacting many locations throughout the study area. Map 2-5 on page 2-9 illustrates how the plan defines character areas within the study area. Demographics and Socioeconomics Auburn is a historically blue-collar city and the majority of jobs and job growth in the past 20 years has been in manufacturing, though few of these jobs are in the downtown area. The downtown area accounts for around nine percent of all jobs in the city. The population of the downtown study area is moderately older than the citywide population and contains several large senior housing developments. SOURCES: ACS 5-year estimate, 2022; ACS, Census Tract 306 and 305.1 Retail jobs make up the largest share of jobs in the study area, at 21.6 percent. The health care sector accounts for another 20.5 percent of downtown jobs, and the MultiCare Auburn Medical Center (MultiCare) is the largest employer in the study area with 635 employees. Recent Growth and Development Auburn’s population has grown significantly since the 1980s. PSRC forecasts a population increase of about 20 percent for the next two decades in Auburn. Development in Downtown Auburn has taken place within a small part of the downtown core, and the majority of the development has been housing over some ground floor commercial space. Auburn Under 18 years 18-64 65+ Downtown Auburn Under 18 years 18-64 65+ Page 68 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-8 Market Conditions Although information and technology jobs are growing the fastest, driven by Seattle’s dominance in tech industries, health care and government are both expected to add significant numbers of jobs in the coming years regionally. Auburn’s existing cluster of medical facilities makes the downtown well positioned to take advantage of this regional trend. Increasing Activity Recent development has started to revitalize downtown, but more work is needed to make it a mixed-use urban center. The need for more things to do downtown and a focus on making the area feel welcoming and safe was common feedback from early engagement with stakeholders and community members. Thriving Business Center The 2024 Downtown Plan should continue to invest in and promote downtown as a thriving business center, with a mix of commercial uses and opportunities. Commercial displacement risk may also be a challenge for some existing businesses. Multimodal Access Multimodal access challenges include limited separated bike infrastructure, wide arterial streets with long crosswalks, and streets with five-foot-wide sidewalks that may or may not have a planter strip. Upcoming RapidRide service along Auburn Way N will provide opportunities to improve transit access. Arts and Cultural Public Investments The City’s plans for new opportunities at the Postmark Center for the Arts and the Auburn Ave Theater provide a new cultural and community gathering space within downtown and help revitalize Main Street. Housing and Affordability Housing affordability is a key challenge for communities throughout Washington State. The 2024 Downtown Plan should create opportunities for new and diverse housing types throughout downtown. PSRC has also indicated elevated risks of displacement within the study area and a diverse overall community. Page 69 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-9 Map 2-5 Existing Conditions and Character Areas in the Study Area SOURCES: MAKERS (City of Auburn GIS data). Page 70 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-10 Assets and Opportunity Areas • Main Street is unique within Auburn and an asset to the overall downtown area. Programs to help property owners improve facades and make building improvements could continue revitalization efforts. The area also has many existing small businesses, and some have struggled to find affordable retail space in newer buildings. • MultiCare is a major employer and anchor within Downtown Auburn. Future expansion plans may continue to develop around this hub. • The West Downtown area has been considered part of Downtown in past planning cycles, but there are both access and market challenges for significant future development. • Expanding to North Downtown could allow for Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities around upcoming Rapid Ride line. There are some large parcels and development opportunities in that area. Growth Capacity Downtown Auburn should provide adequate growth capacity to retain the Regional Growth Center (RGC) designation. Expanding the existing RGC boundary may allow the city to provide more opportunities for population and job growth while also aligning with plans for new frequent bus service. Page 71 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-11 Elements The review of existing conditions also identified the following information relevant to the elements and key topics included in this plan. Land Use • There are pockets of auto-oriented commercial uses throughout the study area that provide opportunities for higher-density development. • Other City-owned properties, such as surface parking lots, could offer additional sites for new development, or could continue to serve as surface parking. • There are several large and mid-size commercial properties in downtown that could redevelop within the timeframe of this plan. • About a quarter of downtown housing units in the study area are single- family homes, and a third of housing units are in large developments of 50 units or more. • The downtown study area population is classified by PSRC as having a higher risk of displacement due to redevelopment. Some typical patterns of land use in downtown Auburn. Urban Form and Open space • There is limited open space and tree canopy cover in the study area, connections to assets like Veteran’s Memorial Park require people walking and biking to cross busy arterials. Downtown would benefit from more green open space and access to shade to reduce urban heat. • Redevelopment within the Downtown Subarea areas has delivered a strong pedestrian built-environment within the downtown core. Page 72 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-12 • The pedestrian experience of downtown is mixed. Newly updated streets meet standards and support good pedestrian circulation. Some older streets do not meet current standards for sidewalk width and some arterial streets have minimum five-foot-wide sidewalks without planter strips. • A safety analysis found that some Principal Arterial and Arterial streets, which carry higher numbers of vehicles, have higher numbers of collisions. • Increasing activation through groundfloor commercial uses, events, creative streetscape uses/programs, and/or linking of public space and streetscape improvements is an important opportunity. Groundfloor spaces in newer developments have been slower to fill. • There are two public high schools and one public elementary school located in or adjacent to the study area. • The highly developed context of downtown Auburn limits natural environment processes within the study area. Redevelopment could offer opportunities for green stormwater infrastructure, urban trees canopy cover, parks and green open spaces, and other elements of green infrastructure. • Downtown Auburn does not appear to be at elevated risk from riverine flooding, though stormwater flooding may present some challenges. • There are wetlands in the northwest portion of the study area. Wetlands shown in this plan reflect the pre-2025 inventory, and some are impacted by development. Redevelopment of other areas of North Downtown could provide an opportunity to enhance overall ecological conditions. • Urban heat is a challenge for the Downtown area. Lack of shade leads to higher temperatures, which can be very challenging for vulnerable populations (seniors, low-income, etc.) • Air pollution sources from arterial and rail corridors should be considered when locating new housing. L: landscaped plaza at Auburn Station. R: roses at a legacy house near SR 18. Page 73 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-13 Transportation • The transportation analysis found that traffic impacts from land use changes proposed in the 2024 Downtown Plan could be mitigated by making improvements in key locations. The City will monitor change and consider future improvements as redevelopment occurs. See EIS for more details. • There are several projects in and around the Downtown Subarea, such as the Sound Transit construction of a new parking garage to accommodate parking demand for Sounder rail line riders. • The Downtown Subarea has adequate sidewalk presence, but sidewalks are varying in age and conditions. There are limited class II and class I bikeways1 in the city, but the downtown area is in proximity to regional trails. There are also principal and minor arterials and freight rail lines running through the study area boundary. • The City does not administer transit service. Sound Transit, King County Metro Transit, Pierce Transit, and Muckleshoot Tribal (MIT) Transit provide bus service. The city also has Sounder rail service, operating on the north/south BNSF rail line, provided by Sound Transit. • Finally, parking is offered through on-street public parking, off-street public parking, and off-street private parking. L: cyclist riding on the sidewalk past City Hall plaza. R: Metro DART bus at Auburn Station. 1 This refers to the definitions for Biking LOS standards that the city is using for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update. Class II bikeways are generally bicycle lanes in the roadway but separated from vehicular traffic. Class I bikeways are bicycle facilities that are outside the roadway and are usually separated from roadway traffic by curbing, landscaping, buffer hardscaping, or physical barriers . Page 74 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-14 Utilities and Stormwater • The Water System Plan developed for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update considered land use changes consistent with the 2024 Downtown Plan. Though the downtown area generally has adequate water service and can meet future demands, water system improvements were identified in the Water System Plan to address specific deficiencies over the planning period. The City will continue to monitor service needs in downtown as development occurs. • Sewer lines run in alleyways throughout much of the downtown area, which can limit the type and size of development that can occur without moving these facilities. • The City has regulations that must be adhered to in terms of utilities and stormwater. The City’s Storm Drainage Utility coordinates the City’s municipal NPDES permit compliance efforts and leads efforts to manage flooding in the city. To effectively plan for future activities and improvements for the storm drainage system, the City has undertaken comprehensive planning efforts specific to stormwater management that go beyond regulatory compliance. • The City identifies the northeastern part of the Downtown study area – generally east of Auburn Ave. and north of Main St. – as within the City’s Groundwater Protection Zone 1, where infiltration of stormwater runoff from pollutant generating surfaces is not allowed without enhanced treatment and approval from the City Engineer, per the City’s SWMM. • Proposed development and growth should take into consideration potential adverse impacts to stormwater from potential increases in impervious surface. • Public utilities should be upgraded and increased as necessary to accommodate growth and development. • Attention to proper monitoring of water quality is crucial to public health and safety. Page 75 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-15 Assets, Challenges, & Opportunities This chapter describes existing assets and the challenges this plan addresses. Also see Appendix A: Baseline Report for additional detail. The following lists are not meant to be exhaustive but represent the range of downtown Auburn’s unique features. Assets Key Destinations and Neighborhoods • Compact, pedestrian-oriented Downtown Core • Downtown public plazas • Main Street • Division Street “Promenade” from 3rd Street SE/SW to Main Street • MultiCare employment hub and medical services • Multiple grocery stores: Safeway, Fred Meyer, smaller groceries • City Hall & Annex • Local businesses (East Main and other locations) • Veterans Memorial Park • Proximity to local services and amenities o Multiple Schools: West Auburn High School, Auburn High School, Washington Elementary School o Auburn Performing Arts Center (APAC) o Postmark Center for the Arts o Les Gove Park and Farmer’s Market o Auburn Pool o Auburn Theater (design work underway as of early 2025) Transit Access • Auburn Transit Station • Sounder commuter rail service • Metro, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit, and MIT Transit Bus service • Rapid Ride I Line – upcoming Page 76 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-16 Map 2-6 Assets – Key Destinations and Gateways Source: MAKERS Page 77 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-17 Challenges Circulation Challenges and Barriers • Multiple arterial streets • Railroad corridors divide downtown • Sidewalk gaps and older sidewalks that do not meet current standards (Auburn Engineering Design Standards for Downtown Sidewalks, 10.09.01) Housing and Economic Development • Commercial space affordability • Ensuring downtown is safe and welcoming • Increase affordable housing • Additional lighting on buildings and aesthetic light treatments to enhance downtown Public Space • Lack of parks downtown • Low activation of existing public spaces Page 78 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-18 Map 2-7 Challenges – Arterials and Circulation Barriers Source: MAKERS Page 79 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-19 Opportunities Arts, Culture, and Community • Arts and entertainment node and/or creative district around the former Auburn Avenue Theater site • Encourage new restaurants and things to do throughout Downtown, especially in the Downtown Core • Potential for more “craft” industrial uses in West Downtown • Make greater use of pedestrian-oriented and festival street layouts • Dedicated food truck locations that can serve downtown workers, commuters, and visitors • New park space • Highlight gateways into Downtown Housing and Development • Potential for more mixed-use development opportunities in North Downtown adjacent to RapidRide. • Encourage missing middle housing types and small apartments in residential zones in horizontal and vertical building configurations. • Provide flexibility in ground floor commercial space to temporarily accommodate housing while spaces are being filled. Transportation The plan is exploring the transportation improvements identified in the list below. • 2024-2029 Transportation Improvement Program Projects (see Planned Transportation Projects for Downtown Auburn on page 6-6) • Other transportation improvements the 2024 Downtown Plan recommends include: o Pedestrian and streetscape improvements on Main St Corridor (i.e. streetscape and/or traffic improvements.) o Implementing planned bike routes o Improving ped/bike crossings in key locations o Improving E-W bike circulation o Addressing sidewalk gaps in key areas Page 80 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE Existing Conditions | March 2025 2-20 Economic Development • Opportunity to increase employment options in the Downtown Subarea • Amend MFTE benefits to require activation of ground floor or other commercial space as part of mixed-use development • Create spaces for small business and new startups in downtown • Encourage neighborhood scale commercial development in residential areas Page 81 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Concept | March 2025 3-1 3|Concept Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives guide the content and recommendations of this 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan Update. Land Use and Economic Development Goals 1. Create new and diverse housing and employment options throughout Downtown Auburn. 2. Promote a thriving business community. 3. Provide sufficient future growth capacity to retain Auburn’s Regional Growth Center designation. 4. Activate downtown through increased housing and employment options, recreational activities, and open space. Land Use and Economic Development Objectives a. Expand Downtown boundary north of 3rd St NE and create a new mixed-use hub along Auburn Ave to provide more growth and redevelopment opportunities. b. Create an Arts and Culture hub at Auburn Ave and E Main St to provide a new cultural and community gathering space within downtown and help catalyze redevelopment. c. Encourage a hub of medical and wellness to better define the area around MultiCare Auburn Medical Center. d. Promote affordable commercial spaces. e. Encourage new restaurants and shops to open or relocate to Downtown. f. Retain the human-scale character of the Main St corridor, while supporting infill redevelopment. Implement/expend building façade improvement program to encourage updates to existing buildings. g. Promote and/or invest in public realm improvements (park and open space, streetscape activation and enhancement, lighting, etc.) to make Page 82 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Concept | March 2025 3-2 Downtown feel safe and welcoming at night and is an attractive place to visit and/or live. Housing Objectives a. Encourage market rate development Downtown through zoning changes and flexibility in housing choices. b. Encourage new affordable and supportive housing Downtown through zoning changes, expansion and re-tooling of MFTE program. c. Encourage preservation of existing naturally affordable housing. d. Promote home-ownership opportunities through strategies such as unit-lot subdivision for middle housing. e. Encourage missing middle housing and small apartment opportunities in residential areas. Transportation Goals 1. Complete or address bicycle and sidewalk gaps in Downtown and enhance connectivity to transit services. 2. Improve pedestrian and bike mobility and safety. 3. Reduce vehicle congestion and improve circulation. Objectives a. Improve circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly in North Downtown and between the downtown core and West Downtown and to transit facilities. b. Work with Transit Agencies to get improvement to their transit stops. (Lighting, adequate space, buffers from traffic, etc.) c. Create new bike facilities and bike parking d. Improve sidewalks along key arterials to enhance accessibility and comfort. e. Provide electric vehicle charging options within parking lots and parking garages and support shift to electric vehicles f. Complete Street roadway improvements that reduce congestion and/or improve circulation. Page 83 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Concept | March 2025 3-3 Urban Design and Community Livability Goals 1. Promote comfort and safety to ensure Downtown is welcoming to all. 2. Ensure Downtown remains a livable community as redevelopment continues and expands. 3. Create new opportunities for gathering and community-wide celebrations. 4. Encourage growth but maintain Auburn’s hometown feel and sense of place. Objectives a. Establish Downtown as an arts and cultural center for the greater Auburn community. b. Activate downtown through events, creative uses of public spaces and streets, etc. c. Encourage new shops and restaurants to provide more things to do, places to eat, etc. d. Encourage more activity along Main Street and other streets within Downtown by promoting creative uses, such as events, outdoor dining, day and night activities, pedestrian-focused street environment, etc. e. Celebrate cultural diversity and provide opportunities for gathering and celebration. f. Create a new park and green space within Downtown that supports needs of all ages (i.e., comfortable for seniors, play spaces for kids and grandkids, picnics, light recreation, etc.) g. Promote sustainable design and climate resilience by supporting transition to electric vehicles and promoting charging infrastructure; improving non-motorized access to encourage more people to walk or roll; encouraging energy-efficient buildings; and reducing the urban heat island effect within downtown. h. Assess existing light levels to determine where improvements may address perceptions of safety and enhance an attractive street environment at night. i. Connect to and celebrate Auburn’s history and build on the unique character of Downtown Page 84 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Concept | March 2025 3-4 Urban Design Framework The following list items provide an outline description of the central ideas of the Auburn Downtown Subarea Plan. Core Downtown • Serves as the heart of the Downtown Subarea and focus for new activities. o Proposed zone changes, partnerships, and/or programmatic actions will promote medical and wellness uses around MultiCare and encourage economic development opportunities that support community health and wellness. o Public investments, parnterships, and/or programmatic actions to encourage greater activity within downtown . o Create and support a new arts and culture hub centered around Auburn Ave and E Main St. o Construct a new City-owned green space near Postmark Center for the Arts. E Main Street • Build on the unique assets of E Main St while also allowing for growth and redevelopment over time. • Implement streetscape and/or traffic improvements to promote more pedestrian activity. Page 85 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Concept | March 2025 3-5 North Downtown • Create new node of development along Auburn Way North o Allow new missing middle housing types in existing residential areas to to encourage new housing while being sensitive to displacement risks. o Build on public investment of KC Metro’s new I line Rapid Ride transit service. o Enhance non-motorized connections using a mix of street facilities and through-block connections within developments. o Promote green infrastructure investments with redevelopment, such as street trees for shade, GSI, and other investments. Page 86 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Concept | March 2025 3-6 West Downtown • Promote “craft” industrial uses that are compatible with residential areas such as small workshop spaces, breweries, etc. • Refinements to zoning to align with what is feasible in this area in terms of growth and density. East Downtown • Support E Main St uses and allow new missing middle housing and small apartment types in residential areas to encourage new infill housing while being sensitive to displacement risks. Page 87 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Concept | March 2025 3-7 Map 3-1 Concept Diagram Source: MAKERS Page 88 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-1 4|Land Use & Urban Design This element describes recommended changes to zoning and other development regulations that will shape the types and intensities of land use in Downtown Auburn. These recommendations seek to align rules and guidelines with Auburn’s updated vision and goals for its downtown. This plan proposes updated zoning proposals and concepts that are targeted to build on the momentum of private investment and redevelopment that the city has seen in recent years within downtown. It studies potential refinements to existing zones within downtown to align with current market feasibility and the expansion of downtown to new areas to provide additional opportunities for population and job growth. This chapter also explores programmatic tools and other opportunities to improve development feasibility, reduce risk of commercial displacement, and promote overall economic development. Such tools include recommendations for updates to the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exemption (MFTE), the scope of Business Improvement Areas, and reconsideration of ground floor retail and minimum parking requirements. Specific redevelopment opportunity sites currently owned by the City are identified and evaluated with a strategic lens for the role they could play in building upon existing downtown assets. For more details on City-initiated investments, see Opportunity Sites in Chapter 5|Housing & Redevelopment. The plan also makes recommendations for future design standards updates that will support the unique needs and opportunities within Downtown Auburn. Under these recommendations, approximately 5,879 new homes and 3,386 new jobs are expected in Downtown Auburn by 2044 (reference Table 2-3 of Appendix A). This represents an increase of 3,346 new homes and 1,883 new jobs compared to what is anticipated with no action taken (reference Table 2-4 of Appendix A). This plan assumes a target of 17% of the 19,520 net new jobs needed by 2044 and approx. 49% of the 12,112 net new housing units by 2044. Table 4-1 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan Anticipated Growth 2021-2044 (population, housing, and jobs) Location Current (2021) Preferred Alternative (2044) Jobs Population Housing Jobs Population Housing Existing RGC 3,554 2,253 1,033 6,364 10,601 5,202 Revised Downtown Area (Proposed) 4,799 3,708 1,724 8,185 15,478 7,603 Page 89 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-2 Regional Growth Strategy State and Regional Plans The Growth Management Act requires comprehensive plans, including subarea plans like the 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan, and development regulations to be consistent with 13 goals, as set forth in RCW 36.70A.020, as well as the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act, regarding shorelines of the state, set forth in RCW 90.58.020. The goals address well-managed urban, rural, and resource lands and promote environmental quality by focusing growth in urban areas, advancing housing and employment opportunities, providing adequate public services, and more. (See EIS for more details.) Puget Sound Vision 2050 The City of Auburn downtown subarea is identified in the Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2050 plan as a Regional Growth Center (RGC) intended to accommodate a significant share of future growth. PSRC uses “activity units” to measure density of development and potential for growth within the RGC framework.2 An activity unit is one person or one job. RGCs and other types of centers are eligible as “priority areas for PSRC’s federal transportation funding” and support PSRC’s “objective of encouraging development of compact, livable centers as an opportunity to accommodate a significant portion of the region’s growth.”3 (See sidebar for RGC requirements.) Future Growth The 2001 Downtown Plan established Downtown Auburn as a center for growth and economic development. This plan has been implemented over time through several public and private investments, including significant redevelopment of the core downtown area over the last decade. Analysis of development as of 2022 shows that there is still capacity within the existing RGC boundary to accommodate future growth to meet the 45 activity units per acre target. However, expanding the RGC boundary to align with the proposed Revised Downtown Area provides the city more space to accommodate new housing and jobs and it would align with regional expansion of frequent bus service. (See EIS for more analysis.) This plan recognizes VISION 2050’s goal of attracting 65% of regional population growth and 75% of employment growth to centers and high-capacity transit station areas. 2 Puget Sound Regional Council. “Regional Centers Framework Update.” March 22, 2018. https://www.psrc.org/media/3038 3 Puget Sound Regional Council. “Regional Centers Framework Update.” 2018 Regional Growth Center (RGC) Requirements PSRC’s requirements for Urban Growth Centers: ▪ Minimum 18 activity units per acre existing density ▪ Minimum 45 activity units per acre planned density ▪ Size between 200 and 640 acres ▪ Minimum mix of 15% residential and employment activity Page 90 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-3 Recommendations DP-LU.1 Provide more opportunities for growth within Downtown Auburn and align with regional growth strategies by coordinating with PSRC to expand the Regional Growth Center boundary. Zoning Concepts This subarea plan recognizes the efforts and investments that have gone into creating the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zone and the successful redevelopment that has occurred within the downtown core under the 2001 Auburn Downtown Plan. This plan builds on the success of the existing zoning and recommends updates where development has not met expectations and/or where more flexibility is needed for new encourage new jobs and housing within the city, including affordable housing. This plan proposes the following changes to zoning within downtown: • Considers a new node of mixed-use development in North Downtown. • Creates a new subset of districts for the DUC in which downtown design guidelines would apply. • Expands and revises the DUC – Core district (formerly the DUC zone) to new areas. Revisions consider different heights and updates to design standards in key locations that align with market conditions and development feasibility in those areas. • Proposes a new DUC – Health and Wellness district that allows a range of housing types and some neighborhood serving businesses. • Proposes a new DUC – Neighborhood Residential district that allows a range of housing types, including middle housing and small apartments, and some neighborhood serving businesses. • Proposes a new DUC – Flex Residential district that can promote “craft” industrial uses that are compatible with residential uses. • Takes sensitive approaches to land use changes that balance the need for housing with the potential for increased development pressure and displacement risk. The proposed zoning code and design standards allow the types of development that would implement the vision and objectives described in Chapter 3|Concept. The map below illustrates recommended zoning changes and aligns with the Preferred Alternative studied in the Final Environmental Impact statement. Page 91 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-4 Map 4-1 Zoning Concept Note: in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement the zone shown above as “DUC – C-2 Heavy Commercial” was referred to as C-3 Heavy Commercial. During the 2024 comprehensive plan update a zone that had been called C-2 was deleted and the name of the C-3 zone was updated accordingly. Source: MAKERS. Page 92 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-5 DUC – Core The Downtown Urban Center zoning district encourages higher density residential compared to other areas of the city and mixed-use buildings. Other commercial uses are allowed. Retail, residential, and personal service storefronts are required on designated Pedestrian I streets. (see Pedestrian Streets) per the City’s currently adopted Downtown Design Guidelines. Building Form Expected Building Types Development Standards ▪ Mid-rise apartments ▪ Office buildings ▪ Parking structures ▪ Maximum height 75-125 feet depending on area ▪ FAR based on location, use mix, and bonuses ▪ No maximum density Land Use Allowed Uses Prohibited ▪ Retail/residential vertical mixed-use ▪ Office commercial ▪ Retail ▪ Multifamily residential (apartments and co- living housing) ▪ Restaurants/bars ▪ Craft industry/light industrial ▪ Arts/entertainment (gallery, theater, fine arts studio) ▪ FAR below 0.75 ▪ Outdoor storage and sales ▪ Most industrial uses ▪ Self-storage ▪ On Pedestrian I Streets: Drive-throughs Development Examples L-R: Mixed-use buildings in Salem, OR; Seattle, WA; and Kirkland, WA Page 93 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-6 DUC – Health and Wellness The Downtown Urban Center – Medical zoning district encourages growth of medical and medical office uses in downtown. High-density residential, mixed- use development and other commercial uses are also allowed. Retail, residential, and personal service storefronts are required on designated Pedestrian I streets. This zone is designed to build upon and replace the Residential Office Hospital zone (RO-H). Building Form Expected Building Types Development Standards ▪ Medical/office buildings ▪ Mid-rise apartments ▪ Parking structures ▪ Maximum height 125 feet ▪ Reduced height allowances for non-medical uses ▪ FAR based on use mix and bonuses ▪ No maximum density Land Use Allowed Uses Prohibited ▪ Medical offices and services ▪ Hospital-related ▪ Office commercial ▪ Retail/residential vertical mixed-use ▪ Retail ▪ Multifamily residential (apartments and co-living housing) ▪ Food production, i.e. brewery, coffee roastery ▪ Arts/entertainment (gallery, theater, fine arts studio) ▪ FAR below 0.75 ▪ Outdoor storage and sales ▪ On Pedestrian I streets: Drive-throughs ▪ Most industrial uses ▪ Self-storage Development Examples L-R: Office building in Seattle, WA; office/retail mixed-use buildings in Boise, ID, and residential/medical mixed-use building in Seattle, WA. Page 94 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-7 DUC – Neighborhood Residential This zoning district is designed to support middle housing types like quadplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, courtyard housing, and small apartment buildings. It is intended to be applied in residential areas of downtown near the core with relatively small lot sizes that could support gradual infill development. Limited nonresidential uses are allowed like live/work medical offices or ground-floor retail. Building Form Expected Building Types Development Standards ▪ Middle housing (including townhouses) ▪ Backyard infill detached houses and ADUs ▪ Live/work offices ▪ Small apartment buildings (up to 20 units) ▪ Small co-living housing ▪ Min lot size 2,000 sf ▪ Maximum height 45 ft Land Use Allowed Uses Prohibited ▪ Single-unit detached, middle housing, townhouses, small apartments, and small co- living housing ▪ Retail under 4,000 sf, including mixed use ▪ Small medical/professional offices ▪ Most commercial uses ▪ Industrial uses Development Examples L-R: Small apartment building in Seattle, WA; cottage cluster in Portland, WA; townhouses in Seattle, WA Page 95 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-8 Flex Residential The Flex Residential zoning district encourages a mix of uses, including homes, artisan spaces, workshops, small light manufacturing, and commercial. Building Form Expected Building Types Development Standards ▪ Workshops and single-story flexible buildings ▪ Middle housing ▪ Small mixed use buildings ▪ Small co-living housing ▪ Small footprint retail/services ▪ Houses with stores or shops in front ▪ Min lot size 3,000 sf ▪ Maximum height 45 ft ▪ No front setback Land Use Allowed Uses Prohibited ▪ Commercial/light industrial ▪ Residential ▪ Artisan/small workshops/ manufacturing/flex-tech ▪ Vertical and horizontal mixed use ▪ Outdoor storage/sales with screening ▪ Heavy industrial uses Development Examples L-R: Small retail office building in Seattle, WA; converted workshop in Bozeman, MT; live/work building in Bozeman, MT. Page 96 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-9 Zoning Recommendations DP-LU.2 Adopt proposed zoning changes described on previous pages to: a. Allow a wider range of housing types. b. Increase opportunities for market-rate and affordable housing. c. Attract new commercial uses and increase the number of jobs in Downtown Auburn. d. Increase live-work opportunities within Downtown Auburn. DP-LU.3 Review and update design standards to ensure regulations promote compatibility between adjacent land uses. Updates may include: a. Ensuring buffer (i.e. screening vegetation) between development in new DUC zones where it is adjacent to industrial uses. b. Consider requiring development within 500’ of freeways to locate air-intake for building HVAC systems away from major pollution sources (i.e. highways, major arterials, etc.) whenever feasible and to promote indoor air quality. c. Consider stricter window and building material requirements in North Downtown to reduce the impacts of noise pollution from the Auburn Municipal Airport. DP-LU.4 Where feasible, consider landscape buffers between new housing and freeways, and utilize this space for green infrastructure (GSI, urban heat mitigation, etc.) Page 97 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-10 Urban Form Key Streets The 2001 Auburn Downtown Plan identified key streets in Downtown Auburn that are “an integral part of the identity of downtown.”4 As in the 2001 Plan, this Plan aims to improve downtown’s image identity and cohesiveness through the improvement of street form. The streets identified in the 2001 Auburn Downtown Plan are also within the existing DUC area and include: • E and W Main St • A St NW/SW • Division St • A St SE • Auburn Avenue • Auburn Way • Sections of the following streets: o 1st St SW o 2nd St SW o 3rd St SW o Cross St SE The key streets framework developed early goals for pedestrian orientation within Downtown Auburn, identified needed investments to support downtown revitalization, and distinguish downtown from other commercial areas in Auburn. With the expansion of the downtown subarea to the north, the 2024 Downtown Plan identifies additional key streets to guide future investment and redevelopment over the duration of the plan. New key streets, show on Map 4-2, include: • Portions of A St NW in the expanded subarea • A St NE north of 3rd St NE • Portions of Auburn Way N in the expanded subarea • Park Ave NE • 3rd St NE • 1st St NE and NW west of A St NW • 2nd St SE east of Auburn Way S • 1st St SE (one block) • C St SW north of W Main St 4 City of Auburn. Auburn Downtown Plan. 2001 https://weblink.auburnwa.gov/External/docview.aspx?dbid=0&openfile=true&id=16776 3&cr=1 Page 98 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-2 Map 4-2 Updated Key Streets Map Source: MAKERS Page 99 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-3 Design Standards Following the 2001 Auburn Downtown Plan, the City developed design standards for downtown with the goal of ensuring that new buildings contribute to an inviting, comfortable, pedestrian-friendly environment. These standards cover a wide range of topics, including parking lots, outdoor lighting, trash/service areas, public plazas, design, and signage, with. The standards also encourage creativity and enhancing downtown’s unique character. Legislation passed in 2023 (RCW 36.70A.630) requires that cities update their design standards to reduce barriers to housing development. Design standards are now required to be “clear and objective” and must not reduce development capacity. Certain elements of the existing downtown design standards do not comply with these requirements. The standards will be updated for compliance with 36.70A.630; this will also provide an opportunity to review for needed updates, including sidewalk and streetscape standards for new downtown areas, and account for changing conditions and goals downtown. Pedestrian Streets Design standards developed to implement the 2001 ADP established new standards for building and site design on designated streets to help achieve a comfortable and attractive street environment for pedestrians. These standards built-on the Key Streets framework and provided guidance for future development. Designated Pedestrian I and Pedestrian II Streets have special rules for key design elements, including driveway and parking locations, ground floor use requirements, orientation to the sidewalk, transparency, weather protection, and signage. The 2024 Downtown Plan recommends updating both the Key Streets and the Pedestrian Street frameworks to align with the proposed expansion of Downtown. The expansion of downtown to the north incorporates an area with different street and building design patterns than the original downtown. Future updates to downtown design standards should apply pedestrian street designations in this area. Updates may also consider developing a new designation with standards more appropriate to the more auto-oriented, widely-spaced building patterns in the area north of 4th St NE. Page 100 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-4 Map 4-3 Proposed Updates to Pedestrian Streets Source: MAKERS Page 101 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-5 Street Activation Promoting greater activity and uses of key streets and open spaces is a significant opportunity to increase the vibrancy of downtown. E Main St (particularly east of A St SE) • Encourage and expand streeteries and/or outdoor dining options. (See Transportation - Main Street Traffic Analysis for more details on how potential traffic revisions could support this.) • Encourage stronger art presence along corridor to anchor and support arts district. • Support festivals. 1st St between Sounder Station Plaza and A St SE • Promote corridor through art elements. • As redevelopment happens east of A St SE, continue to activate corridor and strengthen pedestrian and bike connections to the Sounder Station. Division Street • Focus on activation (events, arts themes, etc.) and spillover opportunities with plaza spaces. L-R: Examples of new main street buildings supporting active street environments in Bozeman, MT Bellevue, WA; and Burien, WA. Page 102 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-6 New Connections Though many parts of Downtown Auburn have a well-connected street grid, in some North Downtown and West Downtown areas there are offsets in the existing street network. As new development comes to these areas, intersection improvements and strategic non-motorized crossings will be required. Street improvements should support safe and comfortable crossings for people walking and biking. In areas with larger block structures, through-block connections can also support non-motorized connectivity while also allowing flexibility for future development. Urban Form Recommendations DP-LU.5 Update DUC design standards with consideration for areas in North Downtown. DP-LU.6 Update Pedestrian Streets designations (see Map 4-3). a. Consider creating a new designation type appropriate for higher-traffic roads like Auburn Way S, with greater flexibility for ground-floor uses and building design, and an increased emphasis on sidewalk and landscape strip design. DP-LU.7 Require redevelopment to provide strong connections for people walking, biking, and using transit through the construction of new, complete streets, street improvements, and/or new through block connections. Page 103 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-7 Green Buildings and Urban Resilience As change and redevelopment comes to Downtown Auburn, there is an opportunity to make progress towards the city-wide sustainability goals which include increasing energy-efficiency in buildings, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting a walkable, livable downtown with strong connections to transit, efficient use of natural resources, enhancing and protecting natural systems, and laying the foundation for a sustainable future for the people who live and work in Auburn. Reducing GHG Emissions The 2024 Downtown Plan plays a central role in supporting the City’s goals for reducing GHG emissions by recommending increased opportunities for growth downtown, close to transit resources. In addition to these critical land use choices, the 2024 Downtown Plan will also explore opportunities to further reduce GHG emissions downtown, and consider future infrastructure needs to support decarbonatization of buildings and the transportation sector. The following items are most critical to consider for Downtown: • Promoting the decarbonization of existing buildings and new development within Downtown (Alignment with Goal 17 of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Climate Element) • Ensuring adequate EV charging infrastructure within downtown, both in public parking lot locations, and as required with redevelopment. • Using opportunity site catalyst projects recommended in this plan to demonstrate innovative strategies and approaches for supply and use of energy and heat. Page 104 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-8 Urban Resilience to Extreme Weather The 2024 Comprehensive Plan Climate Element identified the following priority climate-related impacts on Auburn: • Rising temperatures and extreme heat • Severe storms and flooding • Drought and wildfires Each of these will impact Downtown, but extreme heat is acutely felt in urban contexts where there is often a lack of shade and large areas of impervious surfaces that can increase temperatures. Furthermore, Downtown Auburn has a significant population of seniors and elderly residents, who are particularly vulnerable to extreme heat. Priorities for reducing the impact of the urban heat island within downtown may focus on the following. • Increasing access to shade and green space within the downtown (i.e. on private property and/or ‘cool corridor’ streets that provide shade, more green space, etc.) • Reviewing opportunities to promote cooling strategies, such as passive cooling design, green or reflective roofs, and other elements, when updating the DUC design standards. • Providing access to cooling centers within Downtown (i.e. resilience hubs, which could also provide clean air to offer refuge from wildfire smoke impacts.) Additional climate strategies for Downtown may include: • GSI improvements, and potentially innovative approaches with private development, to better manage stormwater and reduce urban heat. Air Quality Maintaining healthy air quality is also a key consideration for all urban areas, including Downtown Auburn, given proximity to regional state highways, and arterial traffic within downtown, residents are exposed to pollution from vehicle emissions and tires, as well as noise. The proximity to the Auburn Municipal Airport also adds to local air and noise pollution. The 2024 Downtown Plan includes recommendations to promote healthier indoor air quality for future residents, including: • Considering landscape buffers from major arterials, where feasible; • Locating in-take for building ventilation systems away from key arterials and other pollution sources, when feasible, and; • Increasing access to air conditioned spaces. Page 105 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Land Use & Urban Design | March 2025 4-9 Green Building and Resilience Recommendations DP-LU.8 Support decarbonization of existing buildings and new development to align with Auburn’s climate change goals. a. Use opportunity site catalyst projects recommended in this plan to promote innovative renewable energy sources for the supply of electricity and heat, passive cooling strategies, green roofs, and other strategies. b. Support the shift to electric sources of energy within downtown. DP-LU.9 Promote efficient water use in buildings and landscapes within downtown. a. Ensure new buildings meet or exceed state-level guidance on water-efficiency. DP-LU.10 Require water-efficient landscape with new buildings. DP-LU.11 Reduce the urban heat island effect by: a. Expanding tree canopy cover outside of right-of-way and increasing green space within Downtown. b. Update development standards to promote passive cooling, reflective and/or cooling building materials, and other design strategies. DP-LU.12 Provide a resilience hub in Downtown, that provide access to cool spaces and air filtration during periods of extreme heat and/or wildfire smoke. DP-LU.13 Support the transition to electric vehicles within downtown. a. Establish a plan for electric vehicle charging within downtown. (See Transit, Vehicle Circulation and Parking Recommendations) b. Ensure adequate EV charging infrastructure around new multifamily developments. Page 106 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-1 5|Housing & Redevelopment This chapter identifies how the 2024 Downtown Plan will encourage new housing options and promote redevelopment that can bring new jobs and broad economic benefits to the area. This chapter is divided into four sections: • Housing • Redevelopment • Programs, Funding, and Incentives • Local Businesses and Displacement Risks Housing Encourage Affordable Housing Development Downtown has seen success encouraging residential and mixed-use market rate development in recent years. The 2024 Downtown Plan recommends targeted updates to development and administrative code to help increase development of more affordable housing as well, including both lower-cost unit types and income-restricted affordable housing. Specific updates include: • Updating the DUC zone to encourage both naturally-occurring and income-restricted affordable housing may promote more affordable housing downtown. • Implementing the Housing Action Plan recommendations to help reduce the cost of newly constructed units, including parking reductions for affordable housing and micro units, increasing allowed FAR for affordable housing, and creating fee-waivers for affordable housing. • Updating regulations to allow co-living, a type of market rate affordable housing, as required by HB 1998 (passed in 2024). Encourage Middle Housing Middle housing offers a broad range of benefits in terms of affordability, unit type variety, ownership-opportunities, and human-scaled design. Existing nonconforming middle housing buildings are already present throughout downtown, constructed before the application of modern zoning. The recent effort to study feasibility and development constraints for the Housing Action Plan Implementation Strategies (HAPI) report offers important recommendations to allow and encourage development of middle housing in residential zones where it is currently not permitted or financially infeasible to produce. Page 107 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-2 L-R: Existing nonconforming triplex, six-plex, and duplex in downtown Auburn. Source: Google Street View © Google Protect Existing Dense Housing Regulated affordable housing typically makes up a relatively small share of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income people. Instead, homes that are affordable at market rates are known as “naturally occurring affordable housing” (NOAH). These are often older buildings which may not include amenities required by current zoning code, such as on-site parking or open space. In recent years most new housing development in downtown has occurred at formerly vacant or commercial properties. However, as development activity expands outward from the core area, existing NOAH resources may be at risk of redevelopment, with new development likely charging higher rents, leading to displacement. Care should be taken not to incentivize the redevelopment of NOAH sites when revising development regulations, zoning, and programs that encourage housing development. The map on the following page shows the location, size, and date existing multifamily buildings in downtown Auburn were built. Page 108 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-3 Map 5-1 Existing Multifamily Housing and Year Built Source: King County Tax Assessor 2022, MAKERS Update Zoning for Housing Abundance The primary cause of rising housing prices is restricted supply. At the same time, certain types of housing tend to be more affordable because they’re more compact and/or share the cost of land across a greater number of units. Downtown Auburn, with good access to transit and amenities, is an ideal place to increase housing capacity to help address scarcity. Zoning updates in downtown ensure that relatively affordable types of housing, like apartments, are allowed to be built. Page 109 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-4 Modify the City’s Existing MFTE Program Auburn currently has a Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program found in Auburn City Code 3.94, as authorized under RCW 84.14. This program allows qualifying developments to be exempt from taxation on the value of new construction, rehabilitation, and improvements of multifamily housing containing four or more units in the targeted area. Currently, the targeted area comprises the existing RGC boundary. The exemption lasts eight years for market-rate projects, or 12 years if 20 percent or more of the units are available to low-income households (earning under 80 percent AMI) or moderate-income households (earning 80-115 percent AMI). Twelve-year projects require an average minimum investment of $130,000 per year per unit, whereas 8-year market rate projects do not have a minimum per unit investment. In the current DUC zone, properties must have a minimum of 50 units to qualify for the program. In Auburn’s Housing Action Plan, affordable housing in the Downtown area was identified as a key priority for the City. An analysis of land values and costs of development using a 12-year MFTE program with affordable units provided at 80 percent AMI showed that such projects would likely be considerably more feasible in terms of residual land value than other development types given land values at the time of that plan’s adoption in June 2021. Although the market has changed over the past two years, land values in the Downtown area are consistent with the analysis in the HAP which indicates that a 12-year MFTE program can be a significant catalyst for multifamily projects which include affordable units in the Downtown. There are several possible strategies for updating Auburn’s MFTE program to help encourage use of the program, expand its potential outcomes, and align more closely with recent legislative changes. The 2024 Downtown Plan recommends revising the City’s MFTE program with the following: • Expand MFTE Program to full Study Area. • Consider revising unit minimums based on updated Downtown zoning. • Remove “High Cost Areas” from MFTE definitions. • Consider ground floor commercial requirements or agreements in key locations where a strong pedestrian-oriented environment is desired. • Continue to track usage of the MFTE program. Page 110 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-5 Housing Recommendations DP-H-1 Update the Downtown Urban Center Zone to encourage more affordable housing (see DUC – Core): a. Create a fee waiver and FAR bonus for affordable housing in DUC zones. b. Reduce required parking for affordable housing and micro- units c. Provide a FAR bonus for affordable housing. d. Allow co-living in all DUC zones that allow residential. DP-H-2 Revise citywide residential zoning through the comprehensive plan process to incorporate middle housing types and apply appropriate zones in downtown. DP-H-3 Implement HAPI recommendations generally, including updated definitions, zone intent, permitted uses tables, dimensional standards, parking requirements, and internal conversions. DP-H-4 Ensure zoning updates allow apartments in all downtown residential zones. DP-H-5 Update the City’s MFTE program to encourage greater flexibility and use by doing the following: a. Expanding the MFTE Program to the Revised Downtown Area, to include North Downtown b. Revising unit minimums based on updated Downtown zoning. c. Removing “High Cost Areas” from MFTE definitions. d. Reviewing ground floor commercial requirements or agreements in key locations where a strong pedestrian- oriented environment is desired. e. Continuing to track usage of the MFTE program. DP-H-6 Continue using the Affordable and Supportive Housing Sales Tax Credit Fund for acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction of affordable housing; operations and maintenance costs of new affordable or supportive housing units; and rental assistance provisions to tenants. DP-H-7 Prioritize conservation of Auburn’s existing housing stock in the Neighborhood Residential District of the downtown because it is the most affordable form of housing. Page 111 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-6 DP-H-8 Promote the maintenance, energy efficiency, and weatherization of existing affordable housing stock through City funded and operated program(s). DP-H-9 Allow density bonus if first right to return policy that prioritizes members of the community is offered in new affordable housing developments. DP-H-10 Allow for nonconforming single-family residential homes, middle housing, and their accessory structures may be replaced and the new structure shall either meet the development standards of the district in which the home is located or the new structure shall not be more nonconforming than the previous use. Page 112 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-7 Redevelopment Opportunity Sites Key sites in Downtown Auburn could help catalyze future development in the area and/or serve as important redevelopment projects in the Downtown landscape. The City currently owns several sites which could play a key role in catalyzing redevelopment of the area. Additional sites could also serve as catalysts, as opportunities arise. Map 5-2 below shows the relationship between the building (improvement) value and the land value in the downtown Auburn study area. This ratio can help to identify sites that are likely to redevelop if the value of the land is substantially more than the value of the building (i.e., a ratio below 1.0, shown here in shades of orange and brown). Sites with ratios above 1.0 (shown in shades of blue) are less likely to redevelop due to the value of the building. The map also shows potential for development activity to shift from the core area towards other areas with clusters of underutilized parcels. In the Downtown Core, there are several blocks directly to the east of the most recent developments which are showing a low improvement-to-land value ratio. This area currently contains a Safeway and an auto parts store, both surrounded by a significant amount of surface parking. Of note, several recent projects in Auburn including Legacy Plaza and The Verge were developed on similar sites previously occupied by surface parking, as shown below. The Verge Apartments before and after development. Source: Google Earth Page 113 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-8 Map 5-2 Improvement to Land Value Ratio in Downtown Auburn with Potential Development Areas Source: King County Assessor, Leland Consulting Group Page 114 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-9 Several Safeway sites throughout the Pacific Northwest have redeveloped from single-story supermarkets into multistory mixed-use projects while retaining the Safeway on the ground floor. The Museum Place development in Portland, shown in the top image below, replaced an old single-story Safeway with a new mixed-use development across the street containing 140 loft-style apartments, a 48,000 square foot Safeway, and 220 structured parking spaces. It was financed through a mix of public and private financing and opened in 2002. Several such projects are currently underway in the Seattle area, including a large, proposed development in Capitol Hill which would replace an existing Safeway with 330 market rate units, a new Safeway, and other supplemental small retail areas. Another such project is planned for the Safeway in Seattle’s Queen Anne neighborhood. Top: Museum Place Safeway, Portland, OR Source: Shiels Obletz Johnson Bottom: Proposed Safeway in Capitol Hill, Seattle Source: Capitol Hill Seattle Page 115 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-10 These projects demonstrate the potential for Auburn’s Safeway site to better capitalize on its Downtown location with mixed-use development while retaining the important grocery store use for the community. Additionally, this site could represent an opportunity to repurpose some of the parking for open space or connection to an improved pedestrian greenway on 1st or 2nd St, depending on the parking configuration of a redevelopment concept. In the northern area of Auburn’s Downtown, there is also a cluster of large, underutilized sites south of Fred Meyer. These may be potential candidates for redevelopment, particularly in light of the forthcoming King County Rapid Ride I line slated to begin service in 2025, with a stop directly adjacent to the Fred Meyer. With the potential expansion of the RGC to include the northern area of Downtown and the regional policy priority for density around high-capacity transit, this area could be well positioned for denser uses. In addition to these clusters of well-located, underutilized properties, there are other “opportunity sites” in the Downtown area. There are a number of large and mid-size commercial properties in downtown. Most have large surface parking areas that reflect parking ratios desired by commercial tenants in the mid- to late-20th century. In the short and medium term, businesses on these sites may continue to operate as they have in the past. However, looking over a 20+ year time horizon, these sites appear to offer redevelopment opportunities that can accommodate more mixed-use development. Some of the buildings will reach the end of their lifespan and the sites can be redeveloped in a way that reflects their highest and best use—as denser, mixed-use projects. Some existing tenants can be brought back into new mixed-use projects as ground floor tenants. DP-H-11 Update design standards to promote more flexibility, particularly for ground floor commercial spaces, to promote a wider range of businesses. Potential strategies include: a. Flexible ground floor layouts to accommodate different and growing businesses; b. Commercial ground floor requirements that can accommodate a range of uses (high-ceilings for ventilation to support cafes/restaurants, etc.); and c. Consider maximum retail sizes (outside of grocery, hardware, etc.). Page 116 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-11 Programs, Funding, and Incentives Map 5-3 Vacant and Redevelopable Parcels in the Study Area Source: City of Auburn, Leland Consulting Group Page 117 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-12 City-owned Opportunity Sites The City of Auburn owns several key sites in the downtown on which redevelopment could take place; current locations (2025) shown on Map 5-4. The City-owned former Auburn Avenue Theater and former Max Apartments site presents a significant opportunity for the city, as the vision is to recreate a theater along with arts-focused ancillary development. Implementation of this type of project can be complex and sometimes challenging, so ongoing planning may be needed to realize this vision. Other City-owned properties, such as surface parking lots north and south of E main Street between A Street and Auburn Way, could offer additional sites for new development, or could continue to serve as surface parking. These property assets will enable the City to play a significant role in guiding Downtown’s development in the coming decades, through renovations, modifications, and/or major redevelopment projects. See also the Programs, Funding, and Incentives section in Chapter 5| for more details on funding considerations. Page 118 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-13 Map 5-4 City-Owned Parcels in Downtown Auburn Source: City of Auburn, King County, Leland Consulting Group Page 119 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-14 Key Districts Arts and Culture Hub With notable energy around arts and cultural events in the City of Auburn and the City’s recent investment in the Postmark Center for the Arts, and the Auburn Ave Theater and former Max Apartments properties near Auburn Ave and E Main St there is an opportunity to expand this area into an arts district and catalyze new investment and growth. There is a state program that can support efforts, and provide technical assistance and marketing to help kickstart opportunities. (https://www.arts.wa.gov/creative-districts/) Communities can also form their own arts districts, to encourage local interest in the arts, and promote economic development and community revitalization. When supported by active local arts commissions, these districts can be successful in forming and maintaining creative arts centers. Affordable housing for artists is also a key need and opportunity to bring new vibrancy and housing opportunities into the area. Art installations on E Main Street. Encouraging Medical/Wellness Uses Encouraging new medical and wellness uses around MultiCare could help build on this key employment center and regional asset by providing companion uses, expanded outpatient clinic, and other health-related services. Ongoing coordination with MultiCare can help the City identify potential partnership opportunities, areas of overlap with health service and community needs. Recent developments in the region highlight the shift that some medical institutions are making toward community-oriented facilities and integrated health and community services. The Odessa Brown in Seattle’s Othello neighborhood, operated by Seattle Children’s is one such example. The new building combines medical and dental care with physical therapy and sports medicine office, a kitchen, and a half basketball court for indoor recreation, and is based on the Social Determinants of Heath model, which highlight the importance of elements like housing, access to education, social and community Page 120 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-15 ties to overall health and well-being.5 The building also includes several floors of apartments above the clinic. Visually striking with public art that relates to the local community and a strong pedestrian-orientation, the building is a successful example of a mixed-use development centered around health. Odessa Brown Children’s Clinic and mixed-use building in Seattle’s Othello Neighborhood The Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) campus in Portland’s South Waterfront neighborhood is another example of how partnerships and early investments can lead to significant redevelopment over time. The first redevelopment, OHSU’s Center for Health and Healing, was completed in 2006 and OHSU has further expanded its campus in the area over the last 20 years. Additional investment followed, resulting in an estimated $3 billion dollars in new development.6 Planning and implementation was centered not only on the private health investments, but also public transit investments and significant public private partnerships. OHSU anchors redevelopment in Portland South Waterfront neighborhood. Promoting Redevelopment Recommendations DP-H-12 Continue to promote development sites and seek partners. 5 https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health 6 http://www.alamomanhattan.com/portfolio/block -45 Page 121 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-16 DP-H-13 In the medium-term (next 1-3 years), the City should define a plan for redevelopment. Begin to seek grant funds, and/or nonprofit or private development partners in order to implement the defined and desired development. If one or more stand-alone arts venues are not being pursued, then other options should be considered and implemented to avoid long-term vacancy of the sites. DP-H-14 Market the benefits of the Planned Action EIS such as reduced SEPA review and risk for developers. DP-H-15 Highlight importance of Arts to Downtown Auburn by: a. Continuing to support local public art program. b. Fostering Arts Commission to generate local interest and opportunities for the arts. c. Explore potential for forming an Arts District in downtown by creating a local district or pursuing state programs. d. Build on recent investments around the Postmark Center for the Arts. e. Pursue mixed-use project that combines affordable housing and arts and/or performance space on City-owned properties in this area. f. Leverage Main Street traffic revisions to accommodate more active art events in this space. g. Work with local partners and businesses to support arts- themed events (Sound Transit, MultiCare, etc.) DP-H-16 Encourage new types of businesses in Downtown that provide new activities, including new restaurants, arts-related spaces, etc. DP-H-17 Continue to monitor redevelopment and permit activity and work with developers to ensure the 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan’s goals are being met by new development in the area. DP-H-18 Actively facilitate projects in key locations: a. Large and mid-sized commercial properties b. North Downtown DP-H-19 Identify incentives to address storefront vacancies. Page 122 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-17 DP-H-20 Develop a plan to prioritize action on other City-owned sites. Key steps may include: a. Identify staff to oversee a feasibility analysis of existing City- owned parcels to evaluate best opportunities for redevelopment. b. Consider parking utilization and future electric vehicle charging infrastructure needs when assessing existing parking lots for redevelopment. c. Sharing information on the City’s website. DP-H-21 Promote Medical-Wellness hub around MultiCare by considering the following: a. Continue to work with MultiCare to identify future goals and partnership opportunities to expand and enhance medical-well uses around the existing medical center. b. Consider opportunities to cluster uses that complement medical services and support greater health and wellness outside of strictly medical uses c. Review DUC design standards in this area. DP-H-22 Update design standards to promote more flexibility, particularly for ground floor commercial spaces, to promote a wider range of businesses. Potential strategies include: a. Flexible ground floor layouts to accommodate different and growing businesses; b. Commercial ground floor requirements that can accommodate a range of uses (high-ceilings for ventilation to support cafes/restaurants, etc.); and c. Consider maximum retail sizes (outside of grocery, hardware, etc.). Page 123 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-18 Programs, Funding, and Incentives There are a variety of funding and incentive opportunities which can help stimulate and fund business activity and development in Auburn’s downtown, both City- and State-operated. These programs are highlighted below and followed by recommendations for updates to some of these initiatives and additional funding and incentive sources for the Downtown. Existing City Programs The City of Auburn provides several incentives for businesses in the Downtown Urban Center, including: • The Multifamily Tax Exemption (see Housing in Chapter 5|for update details) • Staff-level design review of development applications • Business Improvement Area (BIA) • Storefront Auburn Program • Access to federal New Market Tax Credits • Coordination with other existing organizations The City should continue to offer such programs and opportunities. The DUC zone already provides for staff review of applications to expedite permitting and design review, and such policies should be continued as some areas of the downtown are rezoned as part of this planning process. Storefront Auburn Program The City of Auburn has historic and unique buildings, as well as many wonderful family-owned and compelling businesses. The Storefront Auburn Program seeks to preserve and enhance the charm of the Downtown commercial area through strategic physical improvements to buildings. The City is awarding façade improvement grants to facilitate exterior building (façade) improvements for businesses within the designated Business Improvement Area (BIA). Since 2015, the City Council approved $100,000 per year to be awarded to owners of buildings and/or businesses in downtown Auburn. The 2024 Downtown Plan recommends the City continue these efforts to create favorable conditions for businesses in the downtown area. Auburn’s program covers the costs of improvements under $5,000 and requires a gradually increasing match for more expensive projects, with a maximum grant of $30,500. The business must be within the Business Improvement Area and employ 25 people or fewer, and newly constructed buildings are not eligible. Page 124 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-19 Images below provide examples of historic and mid-century buildings revitalized under Auburn’s program. The 2024 Downtown Plan recommends the City explore whether this grant program can be expanded so that grants can be made to address internal and/or building envelope improvements, such as grants for commercial kitchens, heating and cooling, structures, roof repairs, etc. Additionally, the 2024 Downtown Plan recommends considering increased funding for this program, and in particular targeting businesses along the historic Main Street corridor, which was identified by stakeholders as a unique asset within Auburn. Before and After Storefront Improvement Examples in Auburn. Source: City of Auburn Source: City of Auburn New Opportunities Tax Increment Financing In 2021, Washington State granted new powers of tax increment financing (TIF) to the state’s cities, counties, and port districts.7 This funding mechanism allows municipalities to establish a geographic district (called the increment area) that is expected to benefit the most from a proposed new infrastructure investment. Typically, bonds are issued at the outset and the additional tax revenue resulting from the increased land and property values are then captured to pay for the new infrastructure and pay off the bonds. TIF is widely used in other states across the country, but Washington’s new program has some specific guidelines which differ from other states. In Washington, the state school levy and some other local taxes used to repay general obligation bonds are exempt. Additionally, TIF financing can only be used for specific authorized public improvements which are expected to 7 “Tax Increment Financing (TIF)”. Municipal Research Service Center. https://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Economic-Development/Financing-Economic- Development/Tax-Increment-Financing.aspx Page 125 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-20 encourage private development and increased assessed valuation which would not otherwise happen without the improvements. These improvements may be located inside or outside the increment area and include streets, water and sewer systems, sidewalks, streetlights, parking facilities, parks and recreational areas, broadband service, or brownfield mitigation. TIF can also be used to pay for long-term affordable housing, childcare service, providing maintenance and security for public improvements, and acquiring property for historic preservation. Unlike in other states, TIF funding in Washington can only be used for the specified projects or improvements set forth in the initial application, and project lists cannot be modified later. Thus, TIF is only applicable to existing and well-defined projects with specific infrastructure needs. The TIF district must have a maximum sunset date of 25 years and not have an assessed valuation greater than $20 million, and each city may not have more than two districts.8 In Auburn, projects on City-owned property might benefit from TIF funding. Redevelopment of other parking lot sites, or larger-scale projects requiring new streets, plazas, or streetscape improvements and which also include affordable housing could also benefit from TIF funding. State Programs There are several state programs in which the City could participate to enhance downtown economic activity and revitalization as well as tie in with other projects including the Auburn Ave. Theatre redevelopment. Creative Districts9 are found in cities throughout Washington and are designated cultural hub areas which can help attract artists, creative businesses, and promote the creative identity of an area. In creative districts, ArtsWA (Washington State Arts Commission) administers resources, grant opportunities, and technical assistance to cities to help promote marketing, placemaking, and development, including affordable housing for artists and redevelopment of historic assets, in these areas. The Washington State Main Street Program helps communities revitalize the economy, appearance, and image of their downtown commercial districts using the successful Main Street Four-Point Approach. While this approach has usually been applied to historic downtown districts, it also has applicability to commercial corridors such as Auburn Way. 8 “Washington State's Expanded TIF Authority Creates Powerful Catalyst for Public-Private Partnerships.” Denis Wright Tremaine. May 2022. https://www.dwt.com/insights/2021/05/washington-state-tax-increment-financing-law 9 https://www.arts.wa.gov/creative-districts/ Page 126 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-21 Organizations and Partnerships Auburn has an existing nonprofit business organization, The Downtown Auburn Cooperative, which https://downtownauburncooperative.org works to improve and create opportunities for small businesses in the downtown.10 Many of the strategies discussed in this chapter and in Chapter 4|Land Use & Urban Design could be undertaken, at least in part, by this organization. The 2024 Downtown Plan recommends the City maintain an active relationship with the Cooperative and consider providing funding to the organization, particularly for programs or projects in which they are working in partnership. One concern voiced by members of the cooperative in stakeholder interviews conducted by the project team in 2022 was around increased crime and perceptions of safety issues downtown by residents and customers. This could be an area for cooperation between the Cooperative and City works to improve and create opportunities for small businesses in the downtown.11 Continuing to engage with local and regional employers, institutions, regional agencies, and Tribal governments can help identify future opportunities and potential partnership strategies. Examples include, but are not limited to: MultiCare, Auburn School District, Green River College, Boeing, Safeway, Fred Meyer, Trillium Employment Services, King County agencies (including Public Health, which has a location just north of 10th St NE), and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Programs, Funding, and Incentive Recommendations DP-H-23 Consider using TIF as a funding mechanism in the Downtown for specific projects. DP-H-24 Maintain and expand existing City programs to support local businesses and address storefront vacancies. a. Maintant Storefront Auburn Program and explore feasibility of extending the program beyond façades, to address overall building envelope needs, and other improvements. b. Consider increasing funding for this program. DP-H-25 Consider implementing a Commercial Vacancy Tax. DP-H-26 Consider participating in state programs that align with the key goals of specific areas within downtown, including: a. Apply for Downtown Auburn to become a designated creative district through ArtsWA. (See Key Districts) 11 https://downtownauburncooperative.org/ Page 127 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-22 b. Explore opportunities and resources in the Washington State Main Street Program. DP-H-27 Coordinate with the Downtown Auburn Cooperative (DAC), and other organizations, and seek to develop partnerships to improve security and promote new economic opportunities. DP-H-28 Continue to seek coordination and partnership opportunities with other major employers, institutions, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe located in and around downtown Auburn. DP-H-29 Consider expanding access to economic opportunities through actions such as adopting a priority hire ordinance, encouraging workforce development partnerships, and identifying pipeline education or training opportunities. Local Businesses and Displacement Risks Displacement is most frequently discussed in the residential context, where residents of an area are forced to relocate due to redevelopment or rapid increases in rents and housing costs as an area revitalizes, gentrifies, or redevelops. Although less frequently discussed, the process of displacement can also apply to businesses, particularly small businesses, in areas of redevelopment. Numerous studies have demonstrated the importance of small businesses in the American economy, with the Small Business Administration noting that businesses with 10 or fewer employees make up three-quarters of the nation’s private-sector employers.12 Neighborhood small businesses are important for community gathering and cohesion as well as providing local employment. In many communities, particularly lower- and middle-income areas, small businesses tend to be owned by immigrants and/or people of color. Despite the negative impacts that can be caused by commercial and residential displacement, it is also true that cities are in a constant, if often slow, process of change and evolution. New people, investment, development, and businesses can also have many positive impacts, including introducing more foot traffic, safety, and overall spending in an area. The 2024 Downtown Plan calls for more mixed-use development and overall revitalization. Therefore, policies should attempt to balance the positive impacts of development with negative impacts, including commercial displacement. 12 [1] U.S. Small Business Administration. (2020). Frequently asked questions about small business. https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/05122043/Small-Business-FAQ-2020.pdf Page 128 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-23 Small businesses can be vulnerable to several types of commercial displacement: • Physical Displacement occurs when businesses are forced to relocate due to building sale, renovation, or redevelopment. • Economic Displacement occurs when businesses can no longer afford their rent due to rising property values and rents in the area. • Exclusionary Displacement occurs when businesses cannot afford to move into a neighborhood experiencing rapid economic change and consumer preferences. In Downtown Auburn, there are several areas with businesses which may be prone to displacement. Main Street, described above under “Downtown Core,” contains a variety of small businesses in historic buildings, some of which cater to a diversity of cultural groups. This area has already seen a significant amount of redevelopment in recent years. Although many of the new developments contain ground floor commercial space, the new spaces rent for higher rates and may not cater to the needs of the businesses which previously occupied the area. Another corridor in the Downtown area which may be at some risk of commercial displacement is the section of Auburn Way north of MultiCare, which contains a variety of auto-oriented commercial uses, some of which are vacant or in disrepair. Many of these sites are significantly underutilized with large quantities of surface parking. As the area continues to develop, this area will likely see increased densities and some pressure to redevelop these uses into denser development types, though the MAKERS team projects that the pace of change on Auburn Way will be incremental and modest. Older strip malls, and other aging commercial spaces are typically the most affordable to small businesses. As old retail spaces are redeveloped into mixed use developments, the number of retail spaces affordable to local business owners could be reduced over multiple decades. Stakeholder interviews with business leaders in Auburn conducted by MAKERS and Leland Consulting Group (LCG) in 2022 indicated that the majority of businesses in the downtown are small, “mom-and-pop” businesses, and there was a general consensus that rents in the area are too high for many of these types of businesses to afford in the Downtown area, even with the increased numbers of residents that new development has brought downtown. Page 129 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-24 Commercial Displacement Tools The Small Business Anti-Displacement Network has produced a toolkit with strategies cities can use to reduce the risk of small business displacement. A number of these strategies, highlighted below, may be effective in helping mitigate commercial displacement in Auburn. Commercial preservation and property improvement Strategies to preserve and improve properties include the City’s Storefront Auburn Program, discussed in detail above, as well as programs which provide grants, technical assistance, and/or marketing to help keep designated legacy businesses in an area. Auburn could consider such efforts if specific businesses the City wishes to see remain in the Downtown area are at risk of displacement. Downtown Associations and Campaigns The Downtown Auburn Cooperative (DAC), described in detail above, is well positioned to advocate for small businesses in the downtown. Further partnerships between the City and the DAC, or funding of the Cooperative, could help prevent commercial displacement in the downtown area. Create and Sustain “Shop Local” Campaigns Campaigns to promote shopping at small local businesses have been successful in bringing economic activity and attention to small businesses in downtown areas across the country. “Small Business Saturday” in November generated over $20 billion for small retailers and restaurants in 2021. Small businesses can work together to promote such campaigns, improve their online marketing presence, and secure funding from private and public sources. A recurring yearly or quarterly event can help sustain customer interest and visibility of Downtown businesses. More tools for “Shop Local” campaigns can be found at Main Street America’s website. Local hiring and entrepreneurial support Technical assistance and counseling Technical assistance programs can target BIPOC, immigrant-owned businesses, and other small businesses and can provide assistance with business planning, accounting, and tax filing, as well as language assistance. The City could work with the DAC to provide such services to small businesses in the Downtown area. Page 130 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-25 Neighborhood business incubators These often take the form of free or low-cost spaces, mentorship, and/or access to capital for emerging small businesses. The City’s Storefront Auburn Program in past decades brought artists to vacant storefronts in the city, providing gallery and exhibition space. A future, more comprehensive business incubator could be considered in existing or new space in Downtown. A Micro-Restaurant Space at the La Scala in Beaverton, OR. Source: Carleton Hart Architecture. Zoning and form-based codes Store size caps One way to ensure that affordable commercial spaces do not disappear as the Downtown redevelops is to incentivize or even require new mixed-use buildings to include small or micro-retail spaces. For example, The La Scala in Beaverton, Oregon, includes micro-spaces for breweries and restaurants along with a communal eating area. The City’s Storefront and Building improvement programs described above could be targeted to assist small or micro-retail spaces. Height limitations Limiting building heights along certain corridors such as areas of Main Street can provide a disincentive to redevelopment of historic buildings which may otherwise be demolished under higher or more permissive height regulations. This can provide some displacement prevention for businesses in these buildings. Page 131 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Housing & Redevelopment | March 2024 5-26 Streamlined permitting and licensing Streamlining of licensing can help small businesses, particularly those starting out, avoid delays and complexity getting started. Additionally, streamlined permitting can save developers money, potentially reducing rents for newer commercial spaces. Auburn already offers a downtown Environmental Impact Review which significantly reduces barriers to development in the Downtown. The City could also explore other ways to streamline business permitting and licensing to Downtown businesses. Design Standards Updating Design standards to promote more flexibility. (See Redevelopment in Chapter 5|Housing & Redevelopment.) Displacement Risk Recommendations DP-H-30 Identify best strategies to reduce commercial displacement risks. Page 132 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-1 6|Transportation Auburn’s transportation network consists of vehicle, rail, bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities. The recommendations provided for the downtown are intended to help achieve the goals and objectives related to transit, multimodal connectivity, and enhanced street design and streetscape. Improving multimodal circulation to and through Downtown Auburn is essential to supporting population and economic growth in the area. This 2024 Downtown Plan and EIS identifies how the City can support vehicle access and circulation, while also expanding bicycle and pedestrian access, and improving access to the city’s rail station and frequent service bus routes. This chapter provides existing contents and future improvement opportunities for the following transportation modes: • Roadway Network and Safety • Active Transportation • Transit, Vehicle Circulation, and Parking Roadway Network and Safety The street system functions as a network. Functional classification is the hierarchy by which streets and highways are defined according to the character of service they provide. The three main classes of streets in Auburn are arterials, collectors, and local streets. 2024 street classifications are shown in Map 6-1. Understanding the existing functional classification helps establish which corridors will provide for the future movement of people and goods, as well as emergency vehicle access. As development is being considered, accommodation for the appropriate transportation corridors is crucial. In the downtown study area, most streets are primarily collector and local roadways, with three arterials running north-south and one east-west connection. Page 133 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-2 Map 6-1 Roadway Network Source: City of Auburn, King County, Fehr & Peers and MAKERS Page 134 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-3 Map 6-2 Safety Source: City of Auburn, King County, Fehr & Peers and MAKERS Page 135 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-4 Safety Safety is a high priority for the City to promote a downtown environment that accommodates multiple transportation modes. Map 6-2 shows the locations in Downtown Auburn with the highest density of collisions, as reported in the City’s 2020 Local Road Safety Plan. As shown by the heatmap, many collisions occurred along principal and minor arterial roadways, as well as major intersections. At-grade rail crossing intersections were also evaluated for safety, including several in the downtown study area. There have been recent upgrades to the rail crossings, such as pre-signals that prevent vehicles from stopping on the crossing. The City will continue to make safety improvements in the Downtown Area based on the priorities identified in city-wide safety plans. Street Grid and Future Circulation Needs The downtown core generally has a small-block street grid structure, with some larger parcels interrupting the street connections east of A St NE. This grid pattern generally supports strong connectivity in downtown, which facilitates walkability and distributes traffic, benefiting access to major downtown destinations like the Sounder Station and MultiCare. In the North Downtown area, the street grid is more irregular, with large blocks and off-set intersections. New through-block connections, and intersection improvements could improve overall multimodal circulation and safety as downtown continues to redevelop. The City has some plans for roadway network expansion within the downtown. Page 136 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-5 Table 6-1 provides an overview of planned transportation projects by 2044. The recently constructed A Street Loop project provides a new key east-west street connection on the southern border of the downtown. Page 137 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-6 Table 6-1 Planned Transportation Projects for Downtown Auburn (2024-2029 Transportation Improvement Projects (TIP) Proposed TIP Project Description I-7 – Downtown Infrastructure Improvement Project The purpose of this project is to construct infrastructure improvements in the Downtown Auburn that will support existing development and future re-development activities and to replace infrastructure that is at or near the end of its useful service life. This project will design and construct street and utility improvements in the alley along the north side of the Auburn Ave Theater building, Auburn Ave from the alley to E Main Street, and on E Main Street from Auburn Ave to the B Street Plaza. The project includes replacing the existing traffic signal at the intersection of E Main/Auburn Ave, installing decorative overhead street lighting on E Main Street and the B Street Plaza, replaced sidewalks on E Main Street, sewer and water utility main construction, and other work to improve and enhance the project area. I-15 - 10th Street NW/A Street NW Traffic Signal The project will construct a new traffic signal in place of the existing stop- control on the 10th Street NW approach. The project is needed to address a level of service deficiency at the intersection. The project will also evaluate intersection control, channelization, and pedestrian crossing improvements along 10th Street NW to the east of the intersection. N-5 – 1st Street NE/NW and Division Street Pedestrian Improvements The project will implement non-motorized improvements at the 1st Street NE/NW/N Division Street intersections in downtown Auburn. Construction is expected to begin in the summer of 2025. The proposed improvements will create a raised intersection to reduce speeds and encourage motorists to yield to pedestrians using the crosswalks; add curb bulbs where they are not currently provided to reduce crossing distances and improve pedestrian visibility; construct new ADA complaint ramps; and both pedestrian level and street lighting improvements. P-3 - 10th Street NE Non- Motorized Improvements The project will preserve 10th Street NE between B Street NW and Auburn Way N. The project will also rechannelization the roadway to convert the existing four-lane cross section to a three lanes section incorporating bike lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane. The existing intersection control at the intersection with A Street NE will be revised to remove the east/west stop-control, and the installation of a new north/south crosswalk to the east of the intersection. The new crosswalk is proposed to be enhanced with a median island and a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB). The existing signal at D Street NE will require modification to match the new roadway cross section. R-5 – A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main Street to 3rd Street NW) The project will widen A Street NW to create a three-lane roadway section between W Main St and 3rd St NW. This project will improve the connection between the A St NW Extension, (Phase 1) and Auburn Station and Central Business District. The project is approximately 0.2 miles long. Page 138 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-7 R-16 - 3rd Street NE/Auburn Avenue The project will construct a northbound left-turn lane and a northbound/southbound crosswalk at the 3rd Street NE/Auburn Avenue intersection and realign the 4th Street NE/Auburn Way N intersection to eliminate the split phase signal operation improving circulation and access. The project will improve traffic operations, safety, and circulation for both vehicles and non-motorized users. Rail and Freight Circulation The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) have rail lines running through Auburn as indicated in Map 6-3. The UP Railroad runs north-south along the western edge of the study area boundary. BNSF also runs north-south, with 3 rails running through the area. BNSF also has rail lines running east-west along the south edge of the study area along SR-18 (Stampede Pass Line) and operates the rail yard between A Street SE and C Street SW, south of SR-18. This area may develop as a multi-modal rail yard in the future, which could necessitate capacity improvements due to increased truck traffic. While the rail yard is outside the study area, future development could impact traffic flow through downtown. Finally, the Sounder additionally runs through downtown Auburn on the north-south BNSF tracks, with the Auburn Transit station located downtown with one parking garage and a second parking garage under construction with a tentative completion date of 2027. Downtown Auburn includes some existing industrial uses and commercial operations which require truck access for both delivery and commercial operations. The City of Auburn prohibits large commercial vehicles (16,000 pounds or more) in the downtown traffic control zone (Ordinance 6633) defined as the areas between C St NW and Auburn Way N, and 3RD Ave NE and 3RD Ave SW/Cross St SE. The City allows some exceptions for deliveries to downtown, vehicles originating from a property within the control zone, and public transit, school buses, and emergency vehicles. The City also has dedicated truck routes within downtown. See Map 6-4 for truck route locations. Page 139 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-8 Map 6-3 Rail Network Page 140 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-9 Map 6-4 Freight Network Page 141 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-10 Roadway Network Recommendations DP-T.1 Implement recommended improvements at the C St NW & 3rd St NW intersection to reduce traffic impacts as downtown redevelopment occurs. (See transportation analysis in EIS for more background.) DP-T.2 Make improvements to address roadway and intersection safety at key locations highlighted in the City’s Local Road Safety Plan and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (See also Active Transportation in Chapter 6|Transportation). DP-T.3 Consider strategies to reduce traffic speeds in downtown to improve safety. DP-T.4 Consider the need for connectivity for both vehicle and non- motorized traffic with new development within the limits allowed. Update design and/or engineering standards to encourage non- motorized connections in mixed-use nodes DP-T.5 Consider how to facilitate crossing of the BNSF/Sounder rail corridor at W Main St. DP-T.6 Whenever feasible meet ACC 12.06.030 Complete streets infrastructure and provide complete streets with all new street projects downtown. Page 142 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-11 Active Transportation Pedestrian Network Downtown Auburn offers a mostly complete pedestrian network, in which sidewalks are generally available on both sides of most streets and there are also two multiuse trails in proximity to the study area. Overall, this supports a positive pedestrian environment, as businesses, shops, and single-family homes in the downtown core generally benefit from sidewalks and street trees. However, there are gaps in existing sidewalk infrastructure in the study area and some older sidewalks are five feet wide without buffers provide comfortable walkability. When feasible with redevelopment or major transportation projects, these should be widened to meet the City’s current standards. (See also Map 2-7 for a map of sidewalk gaps and pedestrian circulation barriers.) Pedestrian improvements will be most critical around new nodes of mixed-use development in areas that lack street grid connections and/or sidewalk infrastructure. L: Vehicle traffic and construction on E Main Street. R: Five-foot sidewalks on Auburn Way N. Main Street Traffic Analysis The 2024 Downtown Plan evaluated changing traffic patterns along East Main Street to provide more space for people walking and biking and promote commercial activity along this key business corridor. The City conducted a preliminary traffic analysis of modifying East Main Street from Auburn Ave to Auburn Way. Four options were studied in the analysis: • Option 1 - Keep the road in its existing two-way traffic configuration. • Option 2 - Close the road to all vehicle traffic. • Option 3 - Close the road to eastbound traffic. • Option 4 - Close the road to westbound traffic. All scenarios utilized the 2044 Draft-Preferred Land Use Alternative Scenario (2044 Land Use) from the City’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan as the background traffic demand model which is also consistent with the methodology used for the EIS. This preliminary traffic analysis shows that, from a traffic operations perspective, Options 1 and 3 are feasible. Implementation of Option 3 would Page 143 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-12 support the 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan’s goals for improving non-motorized circulation and access and promoting more activity in downtown. A more detailed traffic analysis will be required prior to implementation of any changes. Map 6-5 Pedestrian Network Page 144 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-13 Bicycle Network Better accommodating people who wish to travel by bike is priority for the City. Current infrastructure benefits from access to regional trails such as the Interurban Trail directly west of downtown. There are also two multiuse trails in proximity to the study area as seen in Map 6-6. Improving existing bike routes through downtown and providing a new low stress connection would be most welcoming for cyclists of all ages and abilities. Map 6-7 highlights the active transportation recommended improvements of the 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan Update. Map 6-6 Existing Bicycle Network Page 145 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-14 Map 6-7 Active Transportation Recommendations Page 146 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-15 Active Transportation Improvements Recommendations DP-T.7 Implement planned bike improvements within downtown in the near-term. Over time, improve facilities in key locations to class II or I bikeways, when feasible, including: a. Explore strategies to widen and/or buffer existing bike lanes on 3rd St NW/ NE and facilitate crossing of Auburn Way N and Auburn Ave. b. Provide bike facility improvements with future traffic changes on E Main St. c. Explore strategies to buffer existing bike lanes on W Main St, west of the C St NW. DP-T.8 Implement planned ped/bike improvements on priority routes, such as E Main St, that provide access to downtown. DP-T.9 Implement planned utility, street, and streetscape improvements that support future development in Downtown and enhance ped/bike access, including: a. Downtown Infrastructure Improvement Project (TIP I-7) b. 1st Street NE/NW and Division Street Pedestrian Improvements (TIP N-5) c. 10th Street NE Non-Motorized Improvements (TIP P-3) d. 3rd Street NE/Auburn Avenue (R-16) DP-T.10 Seek opportunities to provide new bike routes as redevelopment occurs over time, and expand bike circulation through downtown. a. Consider new bike facilities on 2nd St SE and in North Downtown, particularly in coordination with redevelopment. DP-T.11 Identify key pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, to improve circulation and access to transit resources, such as the Sounder station, and the KC Metro I Line bus stops. DP-T.12 Prioritize safety improvements identified in the City’s Local Road Safety Plan and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. DP-T.13 Facilitate access to Veterans Memorial Park, particularly for new mixed-use nodes in North Downtown. DP-T.14 Update design and/or engineering standards to encourage non- motorized connections within new mixed-use development areas, particularly in North Downtown. Page 147 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-16 DP-T.15 Address sidewalk gaps in key areas through redevelopment, to support overall development and improvement. DP-T.16 Provide complete streets with all new street projects downtown, when feasible. DP-T.17 Promote streetscape improvements and coordinate with local businesses and redevelopment to support activation, pedestrian comfort, and economic development along key corridors. DP-T.18 With future ADA transition plan updates, prioritize removing barriers and improving access for people with limited mobility into and around Downtown. Consider programmatic solutions (i.e. shuttle) where physical improvements are not feasible. Transit, Vehicle Circulation, and Parking The City of Auburn does not administer transit service. The City coordinates service with King County Metro Transit, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit, and Muckleshoot Tribal (MIT) transit. Transit in the city operates at local service (30- minute headways in the peak period) and frequent/express service (less than 30-minute headways in the peak period). Service is also offered through DART (Dial-A-Ride Transit) which arranges transit service on demand. As noted above, the City of Auburn has a rail station, which is served by Sound Transit’s Sounder train, which runs primarily during peak AM/PM weekday hours. Map 6-8 shows the existing transit network. RapidRide I Line will upgrade Route 160 (previously Route 180, combined with former Route 169) connecting the cities of Auburn, Kent, and Renton. The service will start at Auburn Station and run along A St SW, 1st St NE, Auburn Ave, and Auburn Way N Serving Kent and ending at Renton Transit Center. When RapidRide I Line launches in Fall 2026: • Buses will come more often and more reliably for one route service. • Metro will add service at night and on weekends for one route service. • Stations will be removed, moved, added and be built to the Rapid Ride standards along the Rapid Ride route. • All-door boarding and ORCA card readers on buses will mean faster loading and unloading for all passengers if implemented by Metro on the Rapid Ride route. • Improved sidewalks and street crossings will make it easier and more comfortable to get to/from bus stations along the Rapid Ride Route. Page 148 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-17 Map 6-8 Transit Service Page 149 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-18 Access to Transit Stations and Stops The Sounder Station is a key destination within Downtown Auburn. Parking lots around the station support commuters arriving by car. Recent sidewalk improvements and the public plaza at the station also support people walking to and from the station. Increased uses of the station plaza (special events, seasonal performances, etc.) could help activate the area and foster a stronger connection between the station and downtown. Access to bus stops within downtown could be improved by coordinating with the transit agency to increase lighting and expanding space to provide more comfort for people waiting for the bus. Within the study area, the top three bus stops, in terms of boardings and alightings, are at the Auburn Sounder Station for routes 184, 160, and 181 (Auburn Sounder Station & 1st St SW13*). The City will continue to explore opportunities to increase access to transit by making improvements identified in City-wide plans, improving pedestrian facilities with redevelopment and public investments, and will coordinate with KC Metro to identify strategies that promote safety and comfort around bus stops. Auburn Sounder Station 13 Source: Fehr & Peers, Spring 2022 Page 150 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-19 Vehicle Circulation and Traffic Operations While the City aspires to provide a connected, multimodal system that provides residents, employees, and visitors with robust options, private automobiles will continue to be an important mode that serves many trips. As such, this 2024 Downtown Plan seeks to maintain a basic level of vehicle mobility, even as Auburn grows. As of the 2021 comprehensive plan, the City uses a single-mode level-of-service (LOS) system to measure conditions for vehicular travel. Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E. All other arterial and collector corridors in the city must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated. The City measures vehicle mobility during the weekday PM peak hour, the time when Auburn’s streets are busiest, unless there are unique conditions present. The EIS analysis found that potential traffic impacts from land use changes proposed in the 2024 Downtown Plan could be mitigated by making improvements in key locations. The City will monitor change and consider future improvements as redevelopment occurs. See EIS for more details. See the transportation analysis in the EIS for more details. Parking According to the Comprehensive Downtown Parking Management Plan (CDPMP), adopted January 2014, there were a total of 4,879 parking spaces in the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) as of December 2011. This includes on- street public parking, off-street public parking, and off-street private parking. Map 6-9 Parking shows the locations of parking lots downtown. Other parking is included on-street with time limits. Sound Transit is also planning a new parking structure within Downtown to provide additional parking capacity for the Sounder. The City will continue to monitor and evaluate parking needs as conditions evolve. Auburn Station Park and Ride Garage Page 151 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-20 Map 6-9 Parking Page 152 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-21 New Mobility and Future Needs As Downtown grows, beyond accommodating traditional modes like walking, biking, and transit, the public right of way will also need to accommodate the needs of emerging roadway uses like drop offs and pickups associated with ride hailing companies, electric vehicle charging in off-street parking areas, as well as increased demands for freight loading associated with online shopping and associated deliveries. To ensure Downtown is ready to accommodate these new roadway users, the 2024 Downtown Plan recommends that the City adopt practices recommended in national guidance, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Curbside Management Practitioner’s Guide14 and by the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Street Design Guide15. Image showing diverse use of curb space in a downtown area. 14 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Curbside Management PR actioner’s Guide. 2017. https://s23705.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ITE-Kerbside-Curbside- Management-Guide.pdf 15 National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. Accessed April, 2023. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design- guide/ Page 153 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Transportation | March 2025 6-22 Transit, Vehicle Circulation and Parking Recommendations DP-T.19 Coordinate with KC Metro (and other partners) to identify bus stop improvement projects, including lighting, CPTED principles to enhance safety and comfort for people waiting for buses. DP-T.20 Enhance E-W connection between Sounder station and plaza and Downtown Core with redevelopment, through multimodal access and streetscape improvements, art themes, etc. (See also Chapter 4|Land Use & Urban Design) DP-T.21 Review and identify curb space management needs in downtown and consider the following: a. Incorporate a survey of downtown curb space management needs (ride-share drop off, food pick-up, etc.) into upcoming parking study (or other near-term study). b. Adopt practices recommended in national guidance (ICE, NACTO) such as a prioritization framework for downtown that balances multiple needs on downtown streets. c. Establish a parking management strategy that addresses supply of parking, on-street parking, and mitigating the effects of parking. DP-T.22 Promote transition to electric vehicles within Auburn by and consider the following: a. Review guidance on location, type, and amount of EV charging infrastructure (i.e. charging hubs, public and publicly accessible lots, private parking areas) b. Review existing EV charging infrastructure with all new development projects to ensure adequate infrastructure in place (particularly near multiunit buildings.) c. Review retrofits for new charging in existing buildings and consider opportunities for streamlining. Page 154 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Parks & Public Spaces | March 2025 7-1 7|Parks & Public Spaces The core of Downtown Auburn includes several public plazas that provide opportunities for gatherings, festivals, recreation, public art, and performances. The 2024 Downtown Plan seeks to build on this strong foundation by promoting activity and use of existing spaces and increasing access to green open spaces. Green Space The 2024 Downtown Plan promotes access to green space in downtown by recommending the City invest in a new public park, promote open space with redevelopment, and improve access to existing green spaces, specifically Veterans Memorial Park. New Green Spaces Downtown Auburn lacks green open space, and siting a new park/plaza Downtown has been a goal of the City Parks Recreation, Open Space, & TrailsPlan. The City’s acquisition of property near the Auburn Theater site, close to the Postmark Center for the Arts, creates an opportunity to build on this community asset hub while offering green space, shade, and places for resting, small gatherings, and play. Beyond this public investment, 2024 Downtown Plan also recommends promoting privately owned public spaces with redevelopment, particularly on larger sites. Open spaces connected to streets should incorporate trees for shade, and provide amenities that benefit both residents and people visiting downtown, such as creative play features, or small dog parks. Trees providing shade in urban plazas and privately owned public spaces. Page 155 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Parks & Public Spaces | March 2025 7-2 Map 7-1 Park and Open Space Improvements Page 156 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Parks & Public Spaces | March 2025 7-3 Green Infrastructure and Shade In addition to new parks and pocket plazas, redevelopment can provide opportunities for functional open space, such as green stormwater infrastructure, that help manage runoff while also providing helpful co-benefits for reducing urban heat impacts, and providing shade. Maximizing benefits public benefits from GSI features should be considered with future redevelopment, particularly on large sites where there could be significant benefits. Increasing tree canopy where there are opportunities is another important goal for Auburn, particularly given the extent of impervious surface coverage in the area surrounding downtown, and the trends toward more urban heat island impacts. The 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan recommends promoting street trees (including on-site trees along the street) and canopy cover wherever feasible, to reduce temperatures and increase resilience in the city. Redevelopment in North Downtown may provide particular opportunities for increasing tree canopy cover and shade. Access to Existing Green Space Expanding the northern border of downtown provides an opportunity to build stronger connections between downtown and Veterans Memorial Park, and significant open space asset in the city. While the park is relatively accessible from residential areas east of downtown, it is a longer distance from the core area, and requires crossing larger arterials. Providing crossings of Auburn Ave from North Downtown will be critical to ensuring future residents have comfortable access to the park’s green space and recreation benefits. Bioswale and trees provide amenity to adjacent sidewalk and businesses. Page 157 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Parks & Public Spaces | March 2025 7-4 Green Space Recommendations DP-P.1 Construct a new public plaza connecting Postmark to Main Street and the B-street plaza. DP-P.2 Encourage the inclusion of publicly-accessible green open space with large redevelopment. DP-P.3 Increase tree canopy where feasible on downtown streets and public spaces, to increase opportunities for shade and reduce urban temperatures. a. Consider green street treatments around larger sites and redevelopment areas that utilize both street trees and GSI to manage stormwater, reduce urban temperatures, help slow traffic, and help connect people living in urban environments to natural systems. DP-P.4 Improve access to Veterans Memorial Park from the downtown core and North Downtown by providing stronger non-motorized connections. Streetscape and urban plaza elements can encourage play and exploration for all ages. Page 158 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Parks & Public Spaces | March 2025 7-5 Public Space Opportunities Activation Activating existing public spaces in downtown is a key priority for the near-term to encourage use, increase eyes on the street to promote safety and security, and support overall economic benefits by increasing the vibrancy of downtown. The 2024 Downtown Plan identified a number of strategies that could help increase activity and use of the city’s existing spaces. • Recurring Events. Supporting recurring events located downtown, such as monthly art walks, summer street fairs, craft markets, and cultural celebrations, can help increase activity, and attract new visitors to the city center. • Lighting Improvements. Conducting a lighting audit and identifying areas for more lights were need to promote security and comfort at night was noted as a key need by several local business owners. • E Main St Activation. E Main St has a distinct character within downtown, and is a hub of local shops and businesses. Promoting more activity in this area can help businesses attract new customers, and encourage more people to spend time downtown. • Arts Activation. Arts events can help activate underutilized public spaces. This strategy could also be utilized if there are vacant commercial spaces adjacent to plazas, or along key corridors, as temporary gallery spaces and/or performances can benefit property owners by helping to market existing spaces. Property-owners should cover cost of this type of installation. Page 159 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Parks & Public Spaces | March 2025 7-6 Cultural Connections Public spaces within a downtown area can also play an important role in communicating the history and culture of a place through art, design, and elements included in the space. The 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan considered how the City could continue to infuse downtown with a sense of place, even as redevelopment changes the urban fabric of the area. • Cultural Themes. Working with local community members to identify important themes and build on those through downtown Auburn is one way to strengthen community connections. • Cultural Themes. Auburn is a diverse community, and public spaces within downtown reflect and celebrate that diversity through design elements, art features, and events. Public Space Recommendations DP-P.5 Promote recurring events downtown to increase activity and attract new people to the area. DP-P.6 Assess lighting needs and make improvements to increase comfort and security at night. DP-P.7 Promote E Main St as a center for special events and activities, and help attract more customers to local businesses. Work with local business district to identify additional activation strategies. DP-P.8 Consider how temporary arts installations and/or events can help activate public and private spaces. DP-P.9 Continue to use public space elements and art to strengthen the sense of place within downtown and honor the diverse cultural community of Auburn. Recently renovated Postmark Center for the Arts is a public space asset that will help activate downtown. Photo courtesy of Will Austin Photography. Page 160 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Utilities | March 2025 8-1 8|Utilities To support growth and evolution of Downtown Auburn, future planning, coordination, and investments will be needed to ensure City utility services meet future demands and align with current regulations and guidance. Water and Sanitary Sewer Service The Water System Plan developed for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update considered land use changes consistent with the 2024 Downtown Plan. Though the downtown area generally has adequate water service and can meet future demands, water system improvements were identified in the Water System Plan to address specific deficiencies over the planning period. The City will continue to implement utility improvements to address identified deficiencies over the planning period that are needed to support future redevelopment in downtown. • The Water System Plan identified areas where there is some limitation in water service currently and includes a prioritized list of improvements to address those limitations over the 20-year planning period. • The Comprehensive Sewer Plan identified areas with key conveyance deficiencies and included those areas in a list of capital improvements over the 20-year planning period. In addition to investments identified in the plans noted above, the City could also support future redevelopment by identifying grants for public investments to upgrade sewer and wastewater infrastructure where redevelopment may require cost prohibitive upgrades. The City could also explore new funding opportunities, such as Tax Increment Financing to support infrastructure improvements. See Programs, Funding, and Incentives in Chapter 5| Housing & Redevelopment for more details. Stormwater Management Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI), such as rain gardens, bioretention swales, provides multiple benefits to Downtown Auburn by treating runoff, improving water quality, reducing the urban heat island effect, and increasing trees and landscape areas. The City will encourage the implementation of GSI as redevelopment occurs downtown, and will consider flexibility with private landscape requirements. Page 161 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Utilities | March 2025 8-2 Utility Recommendations DP-U.1 Implement planned projects identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan to continue to improve water and sewer capacity in Downtown. DP-U.2 Use strategic public infrastructure to stimulate private investment in economic development and redevelopment activities in the planning area such as TIF, LID, latecomers agreements, and system oversizing. City-owned and operated utilities should continue to pursue federal, state, and private grants to finance infrastructure. Examples of green stormwater infrastructure integrated with private development (at left) and incorporated into a streetscape (at right). Page 162 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Implementation | March 2025 9-1 9|Implementation This element provides an overview of implementation steps and provides a high-level framework to guide the City’s actions over the duration of the plan. This is intended to be a general framework, which can evolve and change as the city evolves. The following chart provides a high-level overview of recommended actions, and an estimate of the timing when action may occur, as well as key roles and potential resources or funding uses for implementation. These are estimates only – changes to implementation timing, roles, and funding may evolve as opportunities arise and as resources allow. Implementation Chart Key Timing ▪ Short (S) – 1-5 years ▪ Medium (M) – 5-10 years ▪ Long (L) – 10-20 years ▪ Ongoing (S-L) – a continuous action over time ▪ Opportunistic (O) – as funding or opportunity arises Role (Responsible Party) ▪ City Council (CC) ▪ Community Development (Planning, Community Services) (CD) ▪ Economic Development (ED) ▪ Parks, Art, & Recreation (PCR) ▪ Public Works (PW) ▪ King County Metro (KCM) ▪ Sound Transit (ST) ▪ Utility providers (Utilities) Potential Resources /Funding ▪ Public – staff resources, public funds, public grant funds ▪ Private – required with redevelopment, private partner involvement Page 163 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Implementation | March 2025 9-2 Table 9-1 Implementation Summary Table Action Timing Role Potential Resources/ Funding LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS DP-LU.1 Provide more opportunities for growth within Downtown Auburn and align with regional growth strategies by coordinating with PSRC to expand the Regional Growth Center boundary. S CD Public DP-LU.2 Adopt proposed zoning changes described in 2024 Downtown Plan (See Zoning Recommendations for more details.) S CD Public DP-LU.3 Review and update design standards to ensure regulations promote compatibility between adjacent land uses. (See Zoning Recommendations for more details.) S CD Public DP-LU.4 Where feasible, consider landscape buffers between new housing and freeways, and utilize this space for green infrastructure (GSI, urban heat mitigation, etc.) Ongoing CD Public/Private DP-LU.5 Update DUC design standards with consideration for areas in North Downtown. S CD, PW Public DP-LU.6 Update Pedestrian Streets designations. (See Urban Form Recommendations for more details.) S CD, PW Public DP-LU.7 Require redevelopment to provide strong connections for people walking, biking, and using transit through the construction of new, complete streets, street improvements, and/or new through block connections. Ongoing CD, PW Private DP-LU.8 Support decarbonization of existing buildings and new development to align with Auburn’s climate change goals. (See Green Building and Resilience Recommendations for more details.) Ongoing CD Public/Private DP-LU.9 Promote efficient water use in buildings and landscapes within downtown. (See Green Building and Resilience Recommendations for more details.) Ongoing CD, PW Private DP-LU.10 Require water-efficient landscape with new buildings. Ongoing CD, PW Private Page 164 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Implementation | March 2025 9-3 DP-LU.11 Reduce the urban heat island effect by: a. Expanding tree canopy cover outside of right- of-way and increasing green space within Downtown. b. Update development standards to promote passive cooling, reflective and/or cooling building materials, and other design strategies. Ongoing CD, PW Private DP-LU.12 Provide a resilience hub in Downtown, that provide access to cool spaces and air filtration during periods of extreme heat and/or wildfire smoke. M CD, PAR Public/Private DP-LU.13 Support the transition to electric vehicles within downtown. (See Green Building and Resilience Recommendations for more details.) Ongoing CD/PW Public/Private HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS DP-H-1 Update the Downtown Urban Center Zone to encourage more affordable housing (See Housing Recommendations for more details.) S CD Public DP-H-2 Revise citywide residential zoning through the comprehensive plan process to incorporate middle housing types and apply appropriate zones in downtown. S CD Public DP-H-3 Implement HAPI recommendations generally, including updated definitions, zone intent, permitted uses tables, dimensional standards, parking requirements, and internal conversions. S CD Public DP-H-4 Ensure zoning updates allow apartments in all downtown residential zones. S CD Public DP-H-5 Update the City’s MFTE program to encourage greater flexibility and use. (See Housing Recommendations for more details.) S CD Public DP-H-6 Continue using the Affordable and Supportive Housing Sales Tax Credit Fund for acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction of affordable housing; operations and maintenance costs of new affordable or supportive housing units; and rental assistance provisions to tenants. S CD Public DP-H-7 Continue to promote development sites and seek partners. Ongoing CD Public Page 165 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Implementation | March 2025 9-4 DP-H-8 In the medium-term the City should define a plan for redevelopment. Begin to seek grant funds, and/or nonprofit or private development partners in order to implement the defined and desired development. If one or more stand-alone arts venues are not being pursued, then other options should be considered and implemented to avoid long-term vacancy of the sites. S CD Public/Private DP-H-9 Market the benefits of the Planned Action SEIS such as reduced SEPA review and risk for developers. S CD, ED Public DP-H-10 Highlight importance of Arts to Downtown Auburn by: a. Continuing to support local public art program. b. Fostering Arts Commission to generate local interest and opportunities for the arts. c. Explore potential for forming an Arts District in downtown by creating a local district, or pursuing state programs. d. Build on recent investments around the Postmark Center for the Arts. e. Pursue mixed-use project that combines affordable housing and arts and/or performance space on City- owned properties in this area. f. Leverage Main Street traffic revisions to accommodate more active art events in this space. g. Work with local partners and businesses to support arts- themed events (Sound Transit, MultiCare, etc.) Ongoing CD, PAR Public/Private DP-H-11 Encourage new types of businesses in Downtown that provide new activities, including new restaurants, arts-related spaces, etc. Ongoing CD, ED Public/Private DP-H-12 Continue to monitor redevelopment and permit activity and work with developers to ensure the 2024 Auburn Downtown Plan’s goals are being met by new development in the area. Ongoing CD, ED Public DP-H-13 Actively facilitate project in key locations. (See Promoting Redevelopment Recommendations for more details.) S-M CD, ED, CC Public DP-H-14 Develop a plan to prioritize action on other City-owned sites. (See Promoting Redevelopment Recommendations for more details.) S CD, ED, PAR, PW Public DP-H-15 Promote Medical-Wellness hub around MultiCare. (See Promoting Redevelopment Recommendations for more details.) M CD, ED Public/Private DP-H-16 Update design standards to promote more flexibility, particularly for ground floor commercial spaces, to promote a wider range of businesses. (See Promoting Redevelopment Recommendations for more details.) S CD, ED, PW Public DP-H-17 Consider using TIF as a funding mechanism in the Downtown for specific projects. S-M CD, CC Public Page 166 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Implementation | March 2025 9-5 DP-H-18 Maintain and expand existing City programs to support local businesses and address storefront vacancies. (See Programs, Funding, and Incentive Recommendations for more details.) S-M CD, ED Public DP-H-19 Consider participating in state programs that align with the key goals of specific areas within downtown. S-M CD Public DP-H-20 Apply for Downtown Auburn to become a designated creative district through ArtsWA. (See Programs, Funding, and Incentive Recommendations for more details.) S-M CD, PAR Public DP-H-21 Coordinate with the Downtown Auburn Cooperative, and other organizations, and seek to develop partnerships to improve security and promote new economic opportunities. Ongoing PAR Public DP-H-22 Continue to seek coordination and partnership opportunities with other major employers, institutions, and Tribes located in and around downtown Auburn. Ongoing CD, ED Public/Private DP-H-23 Identify best strategies to reduce commercial displacement risks. S-M CD Public TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS DP-T.1 Implement recommended improvements at the C St NW & 3rd St NW intersection identified in the FEIS to reduce traffic impacts as downtown redevelopment occurs. O PW Public DP-T.2 Make improvements address roadway and intersection safety at key locations highlighted in the City’s Local Road Safety Plan and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. O PW Public DP-T.3 Consider strategies to reduce traffic speeds in downtown to improve safety. O PW Public DP-T.4 Consider the need for connectivity for both vehicle and non-motorized traffic with new development within the limits allowed. Update design and/or engineering standards to encourage non-motorized connections in mixed-use nodes. O PW Public DP-T.5 Consider how to facilitate crossing of the BNSF/Sounder rail corridor at W Main St. M-L PW Public DP-T.6 Whenever feasible meet ACC 12.06.030 Complete streets infrastructure and provide complete streets with all new street projects downtown. Ongoing PW Public DP-T.7 Implement planned bike improvements within downtown in the near-term. Over time, improve facilities in key locations to class II or I bikeways, when feasible. (See Active Transportation Improvements Recommendations for more details.) S-M PW Public/Private Page 167 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Implementation | March 2025 9-6 DP-T.8 Implement planned ped/bike improvements on priority routes, such as E Main St, that provide access to downtown. O PW Public/Private DP-T.9 Implement planned utility, street, and streetscape improvements that support future development in Downtown and enhance ped/bike access. (See Active Transportation Improvements Recommendations for more details.) S-M PW Public DP-T.10 Seek opportunities to provide new bike routes as redevelopment occurs over time, and expand bike circulation through downtown. (See Active Transportation Improvements Recommendations for more details.) O and Ongoing PW Public/Private DP-T.11 Identify key pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, to improve circulation and access to transit resources, such as the Sounder station, and the KC Metro I Line bus stops. O and Ongoing PW Public/Private DP-T.12 Prioritize safety improvements identified in the City’s Local Road Safety Plan and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. Ongoing PW Public DP-T.13 Facilitate access to Veterans Memorial Park, particularly for new mixed-use nodes in North Downtown. O and Ongoing PW. PAR Public/Private DP-T.14 Update design and/or engineering standards to encourage non-motorized connections within new mixed-use development areas, particularly in North Downtown. S PW, CD Public/Private DP-T.15 Address sidewalk gaps in key areas through redevelopment, to support overall development and improvement.Error! Bookmark not defined. O and Ongoing PW, CD Public/Private DP-T.16 Provide complete streets with all new street projects downtown, when feasible. Ongoing PW, CD Public/Private DP-T.17 Promote streetscape improvements and coordinate with local businesses and redevelopment to support activation, pedestrian comfort, and economic development along key corridors. O PW, CD, PAR Public/Private DP-T.18 With future ADA transition plan updates, prioritize removing barriers and improving access for people with limited mobility into and around Downtown. Consider programmatic solutions (i.e. shuttle) where physical improvements are not feasible. M PW Public/Private DP-T.19 Coordinate with KC Metro (and other partners) to identify bus stop improvement projects, including lighting, CPTED principles to enhance safety and comfort for people waiting for buses. S-M PW. CD Public Page 168 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Implementation | March 2025 9-7 DP-T.20 Enhance E-W connection between Sounder station and plaza and Downtown Core with redevelopment, through multimodal access and streetscape improvements, art themes, etc. Ongoing CD, PAR, PW Public/Private DP-T.21 Review and identify curb space management needs in downtown. (See Transit, Vehicle Circulation and Parking Recommendations for more details.) O CD, PW Public DP-T.22 Promote transition to electric vehicles within Auburn. (See Transit, Vehicle Circulation and Parking Recommendations for more details.) O CD, PW Public/Private PARKS AND OPEN SPACE RECOMMENDATIONS DP-P.1 Construct a new public plaza connecting Postmark to Main Street and the B-street plaza. M PAR, CD Public DP-P.2 Encourage the inclusion of publicly-accessible green open space with large redevelopment. O CD, PAR Public/Private DP-P.3 Increase tree canopy where feasible on downtown streets and public spaces, to increase opportunities for shade and reduce urban temperatures. (See Green Space Recommendations for more details.) O CD, PAR, PW Public/Private DP-P.4 Improve access to Veterans Memorial Park from the downtown core and North Downtown by providing stronger non- motorized connections. O CD, PAR, PW Public/Private DP-P.5 Promote recurring events downtown to increase activity and attract new people to the area. Ongoing CD, ED, PAR Public/Private DP-P.6 Assess lighting needs and make improvements to increase comfort and security at night. S CD, PW, PAR Public DP-P.7 Promote E Main St as a center for special events and activities, and help attract more customers to local businesses. Work with local business district to identify additional activation strategies. S-M CD, PW, PAR Public DP-P.8 Consider how temporary arts installations and/or events can help activate public and private spaces. Ongoing CD, ED, PAR Public/Private DP-P.9 Continue to use public space elements and art to strengthen the sense of place within downtown, an honor the diverse cultural community of Auburn. Ongoing CD, ED, PAR Public/Private Page 169 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE – Implementation | March 2025 9-8 UTILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS DP-U.1 Implement planned projects identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan to continue to improve water and sewer capacity in Downtown. Ongoing CD, PW Public DP-U.2 Use strategic public infrastructure to stimulate private investment in economic development and redevelopment activities in the planning area such as TIF, LID, latecomers agreements, and system oversizing. City-owned and operated utilities should continue to pursue federal, state, and private grants to finance infrastructure. Ongoing CD, PW Public Page 170 of 528 October 2025 2024 AUBURN DOWNTOWN SUBAREA PLAN UPDATE | 10-1 10|Appendices Appendix A Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Appendix B Baseline Report Page 171 of 528 T18 DOWNTOWN Map ID: 6354 Printed On: 10/3/2025 EXHIBIT A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP UPDATE 0 0.25 0.5 MILES 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. DOWNTOWN T18 EXISTING PROPOSED Ord. No. 6997 Commercial Downtown Urban Center Neighborhood Residential Two Neighborhood Residential Three Open Space Public/Quasi-Public Mixed-Use Industrial Existing Downtown Urban Center Expanded Downtown Urban Center Proposed Downtown Urban Center Page 172 of 528 T18 DOWNTOWN EXHIBIT B COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP UPDATE DOWNTOWN T18 Map ID: 6355 Printed On: 10/3/2025 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. 0 0.25 0.5 Miles EXISTING PROPOSED DUC - Downtown Urban Center C-1 - Light Commercial C-2 - Heavy Commercial I - Institutional M-1 - Light Industrial M-2 - Heavy Industrial Open Space P-1 - Public Use R-2 - Residential Low R-3 - Residential Moderate R-4 - Residential High R-NM - Neighborhood Mixed Use R-F - Residential Flex Existing Downtown Urban Center Expanded Downtown Urban Center Ord. No. 6997 DUC - Core 125 DUC - Core 75 DUC - FR Flex-Residential DUC - Health & Wellness 125 DUC - C-2 Heavy Commercial DUC - C-1 Light Commercial DUC - M-1 Light Industrial DUC - NR Neighborhood Residential Proposed Downtown Urban Center Page 173 of 528 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Meeting Date: Auburn School District Comprehensive Map Amendment & Rezone (Reed) Public Hearing for the public testimony and Planning Commission deliberation on the Auburn School District Comprehensive Map Amendment & Rezone to change the land use designation for 15 parcels to Public/Quasi Public and to rezone the 15 parcels to P-1 Public Use District. October 21, 2025 Department: Attachments: Budget Impact: Community Development Auburn School District Map Amendment Staff Report, Exhibit 1 PowerPoint Presentation, Exhibit 2 Land Use Map Amendment, Exhibit 3 Zoning Map Amendment, Exhibit 4 Auburn School District Application, Exhibit 5 Public Comments Administrative Recommendation: Background for Motion: Background Summary: See attached Staff Report Councilmember: Staff: Jason Krum Page 174 of 528 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA SUBJECT/TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone CITY FILE NO.: CPA25-0004 APPLICANT: Camie Anderson, President and Managing Principal Shockey Planning Group 1426 35th Street Everett, WA 98201 OWNER: Jeff Grose, Executive Director-Capital Projects Auburn School District No. 408 915 4th Street NE Auburn, WA 98002 REQUEST: Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment of fifteen (15) parcels from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public and to Rezone fourteen (14) parcels from Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area - PUD to P-1 Public Use District and one (1) parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use District. LOCATION: Located in the Lakeland Hills south area, south of the intersection of Lake Tapps Parkway SE and Sumner Tapps Highway E. The subject parcels include the following Pierce County Parcel Nos: 0520053001, 0520053006, 0520053013, 0520053014, 0520053015, 0520053016, 0520053034, 0520053035, 0520053036, 0520053040, 0520053041, 0520053046, 0520053055, 0520053060, and 0520054081. The Auburn School District’s compilation of parcels is bisected by Pierce County parcel 0520053025, which is a pipeline/powerline right-of-way owned by Northwest Pipeline Corporation, and parcel 0520053072, containing a water tower owned by the City of Bonney Lake. These two parcels are not a part of the application. NOTIFICATION: Hearing Notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet, published in the Seattle Times, posted on the City’s Land Use Notice webpage and physically posted at City Hall and City Hall Annex on October 6, 2025. The property is also posted on site. HEARING DATE: October 21, 2025 Page 175 of 528 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Page 2 of 10 SEPA STATUS: An application was received on June 3, 2025. A SEPA Environmental Checklist – Non Project Action, and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Rezone Exhibit were submitted and reviewed with the application. A DNS using the Optional process was issued on September 23, 2025, with the appeal period expiring on October 21, 2025. EXISTING LAND USE: Neighborhood Residential Two EXISTING ZONING: Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area - PUD (14 parcels), R-2 Residential Low (1 parcel) STAFF: Dinah Reed, Senior Planner, Dept. of Community Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission to deliberate and take action to recommend to City Council approval of the Auburn School District request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment to change the map designation of fifteen Pierce County parcels from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public and to rezone fourteen parcels from Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area - PUD to P-1 Public Use District and to rezone one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use District. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Camie Anderson, President and Managing Principal of Shockey Planning Group (Applicant), on behalf of Auburn School District (District), submitted a major amendment to the Lakeland Hill South PUD Boundary in conjunction with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Rezones. The application was submitted on June 3, 2025. The PUD boundary amendment was approved by the City Council and adopted by Ordinance No. 6988 on September 15, 2025. 2. In accordance with Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.76.090( B) the application submittal included an environmental checklist, a conceptual design of the public facilities, and a site plan. 3. The District owns 15 contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 46 acres, located south of the intersection of Lake Tapps Parkway SE and Sumner Tapps Highway E in the City of Auburn. The area was created to provide enhanced flexibility and alternative residential development for a mix of residential densities; however, the site is no longer intended for residential development. The District intends to develop these parcels into a new middle school. 4. City File No. CPA25-0004 includes amending the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate all the subject parcels to Public/Quasi-Public use to support the development of the new middle school, and to rezone 14 of the subject parcels from Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area - PUD zoning to P-1 Public Use District and one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use District. Page 176 of 528 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Page 3 of 10 5. The site is bordered to the north by Four Lakes Apartments, to the east by vacant land owned by the Auburn School District, to the south by vacant land owned by Puget Sound Energy, and the west by undeveloped/vegetated land and a large parcel with a single family home. 6. The current Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the sites and surrounding properties are as follows: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning classification Current Land Use Project Site Neighborhood Residential Two Lakeland Hills South Special Plan – PUD & R-2 Residential Low Vacant North Neighborhood Residential Two R-2 Residential Low Multifamily South Moderate Density Single Family (Unincorporated Pierce County) Suburban Residential (Unincorporated Pierce County) Vacant East Neighborhood Residential Two Lakeland Hills South PUD Vacant West Neighborhood Residential Two & Public/Quasi -Public Lakeland Hills South PUD Environmentally sensitive parcels/Vacant Vicinity Map Page 177 of 528 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Page 4 of 10 LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 7. Chapter 14.22, “Comprehensive Plan” of the Auburn City Code (ACC) 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). 8. 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 calendar year. The annual limitation and exceptions are also restated in city code at ACC 14.22.060. 9. Per Chapter 14.22 ACC), privately-initiated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall have at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission who then forward a recommendation to the City Council. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs prior to the end of the year. 10. ACC 18.68.030(A)(2) states A “Site-Specific Rezone, Category 2” is an application requesting to rezone a property to a zoning district that does not implement (i.e., is in conflict with) the existing comprehensive plan land use map designation applied to the property, and a concurrent comprehensive plan amendment application must be submitted. This type of rezone shall be processed as a legislative nonproject decision, consistent with ACC 14.03.060. Page 178 of 528 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Page 5 of 10 11. Chapter 14.22 ACC outlines the process for submittal of private initiated amendments and the processing of Comprehensive Plan amendments as follows: “ACC 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; 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.)” 12. The intent of the “P-1 Public Use Zone” states, The P-1 Public Use 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. A broader list of public and quasi-public uses may be allowed to develop. 13. The Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application seeks to change the designation of fifteen (15) parcels, Pierce County Parcel Nos. 0520053001, 0520053006, 0520053013, 0520053014, 0520053015, 0520053016, 0520053034, 0520053035, 0520053036, 0520053040, 0520053041, 0520053046, 0520053055, 0520053060, and 0520054081 from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public. CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS 14. The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policy guidance that support the redesignation to Public/Quasi-Public Designation as follows: • Land Use (LU)-111 The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited. • LU-112 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, police stations, and fire stations. Page 179 of 528 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Page 6 of 10 • LU-113 Innovative strategies to integrate the uses and sites into the areas where they are sited is encouraged. These strategies should maximize use of the site while minimizing fiscal impacts and impacts to adjacent areas. • LU-119 Coordination with other Institutional entities is essential in the implementation of the Public/Quasi-Public land use designation. • LU-127 Build on partnerships with school districts to expand public use of school facilities for recreation and exercise, and to improve public access to facilities for this purpose, as appropriate. • Capital Facilities (CF)-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner. • CF-5 Provide additional public facility capacity when existing facilities are used to their maximum level of efficiency (consistent with adopted standards for level of service). • C-10 Establish land use patterns that optimize the use of public facilities. 15. 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. “ 16. 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 – 6 as outlined in the “Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Related- Conclusions”. CONFORMANCE WITH THE CRITERIA FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS (criteria in italics) 17. 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: The proposed change from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public aligns with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element and Capital Facilities Element of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan 2024 update, adopted on December 16, 2024. The proposed change is consistent with goals and policies to support a new middle school as intended by the site. 18. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; Staff analysis: The development will include frontage improvements per city code, construction of a single-land roundabout at Sumner Tapps Highway E and the middle school access, including a right Page 180 of 528 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Page 7 of 10 turn lane into the school, new gated driveway at 16th Street E and Sumner Tapps Highway E Easement for school bus access. Additionally, an estimated $518,056 traffic impact fee will be assessed for the new development. 19. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; Staff analysis: The current land use designation is Neighborhood Residential Two which implements residential uses. The District acquired 15 parcels of the subject site area with the intention of building a new middle school. Amending the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate 15 parcels to Public/Quasi-Public which implements the P-1 Public Use District which will allow for the development of Middle School No. 5. 20. 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 subject site area was originally intended for the development of a variety of housing densities, however, the site is now needed for the development of a new middle school. The District serves a rapidly growing population across Auburn, Algona, Pacific and unincorporated King County. The comprehensive plan land use map amendment request supports the development of Middle School No. 5, which is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. 21. 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; Staff analysis: The change, if approved, would continue to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), the Countywide Planning Policies of Pierce County and “Vision 2050: Growth and Transportation Strategy for the Puget Sound Region”. The proposal is consistent because it provides land suitable for a new middle school. Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies states in, Education Policy ED-3 “Coordinate with other institutions or governmental entities responsible for providing education services, in order to ensure the provision of educational facilities along with other necessary public facilities and services and long with established and planned growth patterns through: 3.1 The capital facilities plan element; 3.2 The land use element; 3.3 School Site location decisions; 3.4 Coordination and, if necessary, formal interlocal agreements between school districts and other governmental entities exercising land use planning, regulation, and capital improvement planning functions…” 22. 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. Page 181 of 528 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Page 8 of 10 Staff analysis: The proposal is consistent with findings (b) and (c). The subject parcels are bordered by properties with the Neighborhood Residential Two land use designation to the north, east and west within the City of Auburn. Land to the south is unincorporated Pierce County and the land use designation is Suburban Residential. It is appropriate to have a new middle school that is surrounded by residential development providing opportunities for recreational and sport opportunities, and vehicular and pedestrian connections. CONFORMANCE WITH THE CRITERIA FOR REZONE (criteria in italics) 23. The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan; or. Staff analysis: Rezoning the fifteen parcels to P-1 Public Use supports the policies of the Comprehensive Plan by aligning the rezone with the request for the land use redesignation of Public/Quasi-Public. 24. The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning; and Staff analysis: The proposed rezone is necessary for the future proposal for a new middle school development. Schools are not an allowed use in the existing zoning of R-2, Residential Low zone. 25. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff analysis: As stated in the applicant’s narrative, the District serves a rapidly growing population across Auburn, Algona, Pacific and unincorporated King County. The rezone request supports the development of Middle School No. 5, which is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. The new middle school will serve grades 6 through 8 and accommodate approximately 800 students in permanent facilities, along with an additional 250 students in 10 portable classrooms. New recreational fields for track and field, lacrosse, football, soccer, softball and baseball are also planned for the development. The conceptual site plan for the school is sensitive to development needs and protection of the wetland critical area on the west side of the site, as well as retention of dense tree populations along the west, south, and eastern boundaries. The new school will increase student capacity, meet current education al and facility standards, incorporate advanced technology systems, and expand opportunities for community use, providing for public health, safety, and welfare of the students and residents of the City of Auburn and Auburn School District. PROCEDURAL STEPS 26. The City of Auburn established a June 15, 2025 submittal deadline for comprehensive plan amendments for the year 2025. 27. The proposed map amendment and rezone was presented to the Planning Commission at a special meeting on September 16, 2025. Page 182 of 528 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Page 9 of 10 28. Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A, the map amendment was transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on August 6, 2025. The 60-day notice period ended on October 5, 2025. 29. ACC 14.22.100 outlines the public hearing requirements by planning commission. Amendments to the Periodic Comprehensive Plan generally comply with “area-wide” requirements. 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. 30. A Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) was issued on October 6, 2025. Pursuant to ACC 14.22.100, the following methods of noticing for the Planning Commission public hearing were conducted: a. The NOH was published in the Seattle Times on October 6, 2025. b. The NOH was posted in two general public locations (City Hall and City Annex). c. The NOH was posted on City’s Public Land Use Notice webpage. 31. A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), the environmental review decision required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), for the application for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Rezone was noticed under City File No. SEP25-0010 on September 24, 2025. 32. A public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2025. Page 183 of 528 Staff Member: Reed Date: October 6, 2025 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBITS 1. PowerPoint Presentation 2. Land Use Map Amendment 3. Zoning Map Amendment 4. Auburn School District Application 5. Public Comments Page 184 of 528 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 PLANNING COMMISSION AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT PRIVATE-INITIATED LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT CPA25-0004 PRESENTED BY DINAH REED, SENIOR PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OCTOBER 21, 2025 Department of Community Development Planning Building Development Engineering Permit Center Economic Development Code Enforcement EXHIBIT 1 Page 185 of 528 PRIVATE-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION •Private initiated map amendment •Change land use designation & rezone •City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6988 Vicinity Map Page 186 of 528 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION EXISTING Neighborhood Residential Two PROPOSED Public/Quasi Public Page 187 of 528 ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION EXISTING R-2 Residential Low (1 parcel) Existing- Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area - PUD (14 parcels) PROPOSED P-1 Public Use District for all 15 parcels Page 188 of 528 STAFF RECOMMENDATION SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATION Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of the Auburn School District request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment (CPA25-0004) to change the map designation of fifteen Pierce County parcels from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi Public, and to rezone fourteen parcels from Lakeland Hills South Special Plan Area PUD to P-1 Public Use District and to rezone one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use District. Page 189 of 528 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 Department of Community Development Planning Building Development Engineering Permit Center Economic Development Code Enforcement Thank you for your time. Any questions? Page 190 of 528 EXHIBIT 2 Page 191 of 528 EXHIBIT 3 Page 192 of 528 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF AUBURN Land Use Application #1661262 - ASD-MS5 COMP PLAN & REZONE EXHIBIT 4 Page 193 of 528 Project Contact Company Name:Shockey Planning Group Name:Camie Anderson Email:canderson@shockeyplanning.com Address:1426 35th Street Phone #:(425)258-9308 Everett WA 98201 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New None Comprehensive Plan Amendment Project Name:ASD-MS5 COMP PLAN &REZONE Description of Work: Comprehensive Plan Amendment:Under the Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan Update 2024, the current land use designation for the subject site is Neighborhood Residential Two,which is intended to accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types.This category includes R-2 Residential Low and R-3 Residential Moderate as implementing zoning districts,neither of which permit public schools.As such,the District is requesting an amendment to the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate all of the subject parcels to Public Quasi-Public land use to support the development of Middle School No.5,and to implement the P-1 Public Use District zoning.Rezone:Concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,the District is requesting to rezone 14 of the subject parcels from their current PUD zoning to P-1,and to rezone the remaining parcel (currently zoned R-2 Residential Low)to P-1 as well.These three actions are necessary to align the land use framework with the construction of the new middle school. Project Details Development Type Map Amendment Additional Parcels: 0520053001,0520053006,0520053013,0520053014,0520053015,0520053016,0520053034,0520053035, 0520053036,0520053040,0520053041,0520053046,0520053055,0520053060 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF AUBURN Land Use Application #1661262 - ASD-MS5 COMP PLAN & REZONE Page 194 of 528 LAKE TAPPS PKWY SETH O M AS AVE SE 66TH ST SE SU MN E R -TA PP S H W Y E 72ND ST SE CHARLOTTE AVE SE7 3 R D S T S E 63RD ST SE 63RD PL SE69TH ST SEUDALL AVE SESTUART AVE SE67TH ST SE ELAINE AVE SE6 5 T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEDOUGLAS AVE SE67TH CT SEPERRY AVE SEUDALL PL SEOLIVE AVE SE72ND CT SE 67TH ST SE 6 9 T H S T S E Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community 0 500250Feet Legend Overall Project Site ´ Map Date: 5/9/2025 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,USGS, Intermap, INCREMENTP, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China (Hong Kong), EsriKorea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC,(c) OpenStreetMap#PROJECT SITE 0 52.5 Miles A U B U R NAUBURN ´ L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p s Vicinity Map City Limits City LimitsC i t y o fCity o fAuburnAuburn U n i n c o r p o r a t e dUnincorporatedPierce C o u n t yPierce C o u n t y Comprehensive Plan and Rezone Page 195 of 528 LA KE TAP P S PK W Y S E 62ND ST SE T H O M A S AV E S E 66TH ST SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SESU MNER-TAPPS HWY E 7 3 R D S T S E 61ST ST SE 63RD ST SE LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEUDALL AVE SESTUART PL SEQUINCY AVE SEELAINE AVE SE67TH ST SE 67TH CT SE6 5 T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEREBECCA AVE SE ANNETTE AVE SE6 3 R D P L S E 6 9 T H S T S E PERRY AVE SEOLIVE AVE SESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, andthe GIS User Community 0 500 1,000250Feet Existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Map Date: 4/28/2025 L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p s F T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits Land Use COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL THREE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TWO OPEN SPACE PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC Existing Land Use: Neighborhood Residential Two Figure 4 Page 196 of 528 LA KE TAP P S PK W Y S E 62ND ST SE T H O M A S AV E S E 66TH ST SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SESU MNER-TAPPS HWY E 7 3 R D S T S E 61ST ST SE 63RD ST SE LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEUDALL AVE SESTUART PL SEQUINCY AVE SEELAINE AVE SE67TH ST SE 67TH CT SE6 5 T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEREBECCA AVE SE ANNETTE AVE SE6 3 R D P L S E 6 9 T H S T S E PERRY AVE SEOLIVE AVE SESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, andthe GIS User Community 0 500 1,000250Feet Existing Zoning Map Map Date: 4/25/2025 L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p s F L A K E L A N DHILLS P U D T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits Zoning Lakeland Hills PUD I- Institutional R-2 - Residential Low OS- Open Space Existing Zoning: Lakeland Hills PUD and R-2 Residential Low Figure 6 Page 197 of 528 LA KE TAP P S PK W Y S E 62ND ST SE T H O M A S AV E S E 66TH ST SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SESU MNER-TAPPS HWY E 7 3 R D S T S E 61ST ST SE 63RD ST SE LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEUDALL AVE SESTUART PL SEQUINCY AVE SEELAINE AVE SE67TH ST SE 67TH CT SE6 5 T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEREBECCA AVE SE ANNETTE AVE SE6 3 R D P L S E 6 9 T H S T S E PERRY AVE SEOLIVE AVE SESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, andthe GIS User Community 0 500 1,000250Feet Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Map Date: 4/28/2025 L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p s F T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits Land Use COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL THREE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TWO OPEN SPACE PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC Proposed Land Use: Public/Quasi-Public Figure 5 Page 198 of 528 LA KE TAP P S PK W Y S E 62ND ST SE T H O M A S AV E S E 66TH ST SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SESU MNER-TAPPS HWY E 7 3 R D S T S E 61ST ST SE 63RD ST SE LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEUDALL AVE SESTUART PL SEQUINCY AVE SEELAINE AVE SE67TH ST SE 67TH CT SE6 5 T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEREBECCA AVE SE ANNETTE AVE SE6 3 R D P L S E 6 9 T H S T S E PERRY AVE SEOLIVE AVE SE0 500 1,000250Feet Proposed Zoning Map Map Date: 4/28/2025 L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p s F L A K E L A N DHILLS P U D T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits Zoning I- Institutional R-2 - Residential Low OS- Open Space Lakeland Hills PUD P-1 - Public/Quasi-Public Proposed Zoning: P-1 Public Use Figure 7 P-1 Public Use Page 199 of 528 Major Amendment to the Lakeland Hills South PUD Boundary, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment, and Rezones Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District Middle School No. 5 June 3, 2025 On behalf of Auburn School District (District), the following requests are submitted: 1- Major Amendment to the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit Development (PUD) Boundary 2- Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Amendment of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Land Use Map from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public and 3- Two rezone actions: Zoning Map Amendment from Lakeland Hills South PUD to P-1 Public Use & Zoning Map Amendment from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use Background & Land Use Requests: The District owns 15 contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 46 acres, located south of the intersection of Lake Tapps Parkway SE and Sumner Tapps Highway East in the City of Auburn. The District intends to develop these parcels into a new middle school, referred to as Middle School No. 5. To develop the future Middle School No. 5, various land use requests are proposed to align with the educational facility project. Request 1 – Amend the boundary of the existing Lakeland Hills PUD to extract 14 of 15 of the District’s parcels out of the Lakeland Hills South PUD through a Major PUD Amendment. Most of the subject parcels (except for one parcel, Pierce County Tax Parcel No. 0520053013, which is zoned R-2) are currently located within the Lakeland Hills South PUD zoning district, originally established in the 1990s. The Lakeland Hills South PUD district encompasses a large area in the southern section of Auburn and was created to provide enhanced flexibility and alternative residential development standards for a mix of residential densities. However, the subject site is no longer intended for residential subdivision development, as the proposed use is a new middle school. Therefore, the boundary of the existing Lakeland Hills PUD district should be amended to allow the establishment of the appropriate zoning. The area proposed for removal from the overall 768.79-acre Lakeland Hills South PUD is approximately 43.6 acres and would result in zero dwelling units, as it is designated for future middle school development. Page 200 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -2 Request 2 – Amend the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate all the subject parcels to Public/Quasi-Public land use to support the development of Middle School No. 5, and to implement the P-1 Public Use District zoning. Under the Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan Update 2024, the current land use designation for the subject site is Neighborhood Residential Two, which is intended to accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types. This category includes R-2 Residential Low and R-3 Residential Moderate as implementing zoning districts, neither of which permit public schools. Request 3 – Concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezone 14 of the subject parcels from their current PUD zoning to P-1 Public Use, and rezone the remaining parcel (currently zoned R-2 Residential Low) to P-1 Public Use. These three actions are necessary to align the land use framework with the construction of the new middle school. Figure 1 - Vicinity Map: All District owned parcels shown with a black boundary. Source: Pierce County GIS Page 201 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -3 Figure 2 – Aerial Map: All District owned parcels shown with a black boundary. Source: Pierce County GIS Subject Property Description: The subject parcels include the following Pierce County Tax Parcel Numbers: 0520053001, 0520053006, 0520053013 (only parcel currently zoned R-2 as opposed to PUD), 0520053014, 0520053015, 0520053016, 0520053034, 0520053035, 0520053036, 0520053040, 0520053041, 0520053046, 0520053055, 0520053060, and 0520054081. The District’s compilation of parcels is bisected by Pierce County parcel 0520053025, which is a pipeline/powerline right-of-way owned by Northwest Pipeline Corporation, and parcel 0520053072, which contains a water tower owned by the City of Bonney Lake. These two parcels are not a part of the application. The total site encompasses approximately 46 acres and is currently vacant. It consists primarily of open, vegetated areas, with dense forest located in the western and southern portions. Power lines and gas lines run across portions of the site. Historically, the property included residential Page 202 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -4 homesites and areas used for commercial equipment storage. The homes were removed in 2006, and the equipment storage use ceased by 2009. Two wetlands, identified in the Critical Areas Report as Wetland A and Wetland B, are both depressional Category III wetlands. Historically, these wetlands may have been connected prior to land development activities that altered the landscape. Wetland A is located along the western boundary of the site and extends south toward Lake Tapps. Wetland B is situated to the west of the site. The subject site is bordered by Sumner Tapps Highway East along its northern and eastern edges. Directly across the highway to the north are the existing Four Lakes Apartment Homes, while to the east lies a densely forested area. Beyond the forested area are single-family residences and Lake Tapps Elementary School, situated within unincorporated Pierce County. To the west and south of the site is undeveloped land characterized by dense tree cover, wetlands, and overhead powerlines. The area directly south of the site also falls within unincorporated Pierce County. Requested Actions: Please see the Major PUD Amendment Map (Figure 3), Existing and Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Maps (Figure 4 and Figure 5), and Existing and Proposed Zoning District Amendment Maps (Figure 6 and Figure 7) that illustrate the proposed changes. Page 203 of 528 32210590583221059057 3221059016 3221059056 LAKE TAPPS PKWY SE 62ND ST SE T H O M A S A V E S E 66TH ST SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SESUMNER-TAPPS HWY E 7 3 R D ST S E 61ST ST SE 63RD ST SE LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEUDALL AVE SESTUART PL SEQUINCY AVE SEELAINE AVE SE67TH ST SE 67TH CT SE65T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEREBECCA AVE SE ANNETTE AVE SE6 3 R D P L S E 6 9 T H S T S E PERRY AVE SEOLIVE AVE SESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 0.50.25 Miles Major PUD Amenendment Map Map Date: 4/28/2025 L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p sF L A K E L A N D H I L L S P U D T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . Legend Tax Parcel Parcels to Extract City Limits Lakeland Hills PUD Major PUD Boundary Amendment Map Figure 3 Page 204 of 528 LAKE TAPPS PKW Y SE 62ND ST SE T H O M A S A V E S E 66TH ST SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SESUMNER-TAPPS HWY E 7 3 R D S T S E 61ST ST SE 63RD ST SE LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEUDALL AVE SESTUART PL SEQUINCY AVE SEELAINE AVE SE67TH ST SE 67TH CT SE6 5 T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEREBECCA AVE SE ANNETTE AVE SE6 3 R D P L S E 6 9 T H S T S E PERRY AVE SEOLIVE AVE SESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 500 1,000250Feet Existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Map Date: 4/28/2025 L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p s F T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits Land Use COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL THREE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TWO OPEN SPACE PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC Existing Land Use: Neighborhood Residential Two Figure 4 Page 205 of 528 LAKE TAPPS PKW Y SE 62ND ST SE T H O M A S A V E S E 66TH ST SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SESUMNER-TAPPS HWY E 7 3 R D S T S E 61ST ST SE 63RD ST SE LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEUDALL AVE SESTUART PL SEQUINCY AVE SEELAINE AVE SE67TH ST SE 67TH CT SE6 5 T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEREBECCA AVE SE ANNETTE AVE SE6 3 R D P L S E 6 9 T H S T S E PERRY AVE SEOLIVE AVE SESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 500 1,000250Feet Proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Map Date: 4/28/2025 L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p s F T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits Land Use COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL THREE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL TWO OPEN SPACE PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC Proposed Land Use: Public/Quasi-Public Figure 5 Page 206 of 528 LAKE TAPPS PKW Y SE 62ND ST SE T H O M A S A V E S E 66TH ST SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SESUMNER-TAPPS HWY E 7 3 R D S T S E 61ST ST SE 63RD ST SE LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEUDALL AVE SESTUART PL SEQUINCY AVE SEELAINE AVE SE67TH ST SE 67TH CT SE6 5 T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEREBECCA AVE SE ANNETTE AVE SE6 3 R D P L S E 6 9 T H S T S E PERRY AVE SEOLIVE AVE SESources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 0 500 1,000250Feet Existing Zoning Map Map Date: 4/25/2025 L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p s F L A K E L A N D H I L L S P U D T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits Zoning Lakeland Hills PUD I- Institutional R-2 - Residential Low OS- Open Space Existing Zoning: Lakeland Hills PUD and R-2 Residential Low Figure 6 Page 207 of 528 LAKE TAPPS PKW Y SE 62ND ST SE T H O M A S A V E S E 66TH ST SE LAKE TAPPS PKWY SESUMNER-TAPPS HWY E 7 3 R D S T S E 61ST ST SE 63RD ST SE LAKELAND HILLS WAY SEUDALL AVE SESTUART PL SEQUINCY AVE SEELAINE AVE SE67TH ST SE 67TH CT SE6 5 T H S T S E VICTORIA AVE SEREBECCA AVE SE ANNETTE AVE SE6 3 R D P L S E 6 9 T H S T S E PERRY AVE SEOLIVE AVE SE0 500 1,000250Feet Proposed Zoning Map Map Date: 4/28/2025 L a k e T a p p sLake T a p p s F L A K E L A N D H I L L S P U D T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y T h i s m a p i s f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s o n l y a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . Legend Tax Parcel Parcels Of Interest City Limits Zoning I- Institutional R-2 - Residential Low OS- Open Space Lakeland Hills PUD P-1 - Public/Quasi-Public Proposed Zoning: P-1 Public Use Figure 7 P-1 Public Use Page 208 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -10 Proposed Middle School Description: The District has provided a preliminary site plan drawing for reference purposes with this application. The FAC permit for the construction of the site and infrastructure has been submitted to the City of Auburn. Full site plan and design details can be found within that project file. The new middle school will serve grades 6-8 and accommodate approximately 800 students in permanent facilities, along with an additional 250 students in 10 portable classrooms. The main school building will be centrally located on the site and is proposed to be approximately 118,000 square feet in size. It will include spaces for administration, specialists, commons, a library, food services, and community use. Primary access to the site will be from Sumner Tapps Highway East, along the northern edge of the property, via a new single-lane roundabout located directly across from the Four Lakes Apartment Homes. A secondary, gated, and access-controlled bus entrance and exit will be provided at 16th Street East, along the eastern boundary, forming a new fourth leg of the existing signalized intersection. Vehicular access from Sumner Tapps Highway East will lead to two parking areas designated for visitors, parents, staff, and event attendees. Located south of the parking areas, the main school building will be accompanied by 10 portable classrooms, hardscaped play areas, and a designated bus drop-off and pick-up zone. To the west of the building and parking lots, two athletic fields are planned: the northern field will accommodate track and field events, football, soccer, and lacrosse, while the southern field will support ball fields and additional soccer and lacrosse use. In accordance with Auburn Municipal Code 18.52.020, 1.20 parking spaces are required per teaching station. With 40 teaching stations planned, 48 parking spaces are required; however, the project will provide approximately 292 on-site parking spaces, significantly exceeding the minimum requirement. The 15 parcels will be later be combined through a boundary line elimination. Pending approval of a capital bond, the new middle school is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. Page 209 of 528 PLAN TRUE NORTH '""'� ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Scale:1"z8(1'-0' ZONING REQUIREMENTS ZQIIOG:LMEIHtJ...i.sSOllfHM!lll,C-1 �PROl'EllTYZQIINQlllf<OI/Se 1..c:casl81.EP-SP.-cESPIIO'IOE0,101'1lEJSP,0::$1Si:.clliOlTEOTO -- ,,/ / ,' I/,, ,/ I/ ,,/ ✓ r / / / / SITE PLAN NOTES SEE91£ETM».TOLOCATE-NOIT- t !!E[ffm,:,,»,IAA»,F(ll:t�!IITEEI.EVATl(Hl,� #tJDOAUIIO.lJOllfG:--...008'Gltffl'ICII.PCll'tl-'I.GATE COl!M<S,>KISEIMC£�.«IW..U. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TIEIIOIITHltM.FOFTIE�(lWl.l'EROfTIE$(ll.J'lllU,$fQ\WO'Bt Ol'TIE$OIJTIN0TQUNfrEIIOl'ECTl(lll�ro,,lllll>20J!OlnH,IWIGEi EOCTOFM�IIEffDl,,lflJIP,EIICl;.OCU<ll',-OII SIJW,TEII TIEOOIJKilOFl'l<IICl,,SlATEOFWASIMGTOII llEIIOIITHll,CFIEIFTIEEMl"ll1CRUOFTl£IIOIITH�M:RESIFT!f'Nl;RIH 10ACl'ESOFT1£NQRTIMilTQllMTEROFIIEIIQllTIIEAl!l"QIJMTEROFTIE SOl,IIIMUl(1.llrRTEROF9ECTKII� TOWNSIF:IOHORTH.IWtQ"IEASTIF TIEl'll.lHETTEIIEROIN<, 11t,NlllTH1AC/a;OfTJl,WJ2/ril'.aSOFIIE901.rJHIIICllESOFT11,l�IICRESOF Tl£NORTIMESTQ\INll"SlOfll£!IWIIEM'TIIIW!l'EROFTIIE !ill.lTIWIUT\IWITEROF�� fOfjN911'20�,!til,GEIWT01' M-� AU.-TPORT�OFIIE50l/THIW.FOFIIENlf!TIMU'TWOIITEIIOF1HE !IOJll£Ail1QIMIER01'11£5IJIJTIOSl"IIIIM!tROFTl£90UTIMUI" QlWITER<FSCl;lll;ll��:IIINQRl!f,R"10JE6i:.o.,T,MJN.ETTE IElllllN,IESCRIIEO/ol,F<IJ.� ll£IICl!Nlll!HfNl'1rEMTAOISl"IINCEOFl2.\IIFEEI TOTl£EMIUEOF MID!iUDV\SION; lle«:EIXWTffUIOGNlllTHINnrWT.oLCWGTl£NlllTHLKOFTIIE SOOTHIW.FOF111EN0RTIIIIUTQUMT&IOFTl£SOUll£Al'IQIJNITEROF ll£50UTl£Ml"QIIMTIROFTl£!0UIHl'IUl"lllWMRDFMIDSCCIDIIA 11$TMCEDFi:12.11 FEET TOIIEEASIUNETIEREOF: Tl£NCEIIWIH02'<1''2"wt:STH,o,c;MIDEMTUEOFMIDSUBOOIISIOIIA lUINtCEDFtll.l'lfEElllllltEIIORllNIESTEfU-UNE01'™T PQUICl!c:,:w.a'EOTOaP,',80M1UW.�C0.9YCEEllPElt�fl.E II0.2'11� TIENCfllOIITH•J'(111'51fWES'JH.!IIQIIM)IO:)ll'Tlf•¥E$1'£lUIIOI.NOAA"fA l:Ul.lffCl:Ol'tOl ,'3 FEETTO Tl£llOOTl1UEOl'IIA.OlJIJlOOll,iott TIEJtOE.ft.()N(l$1,iO!IWTHUEIIOIITHIJN?IIO'WESTA0.STIINCEOI'�,, FEETIOTHi,JRUr:POll"TOFIEGII- SIJW,TEII TIEOOIJKilOFl'l<IICl,,SlATEOFWASIMGTOII llENIRTHIW.FOFTIESOVTH'IIHTQIWITEROl'llE!IWIIEM'TQIWITER OfTIES)IJIIE,\ij'IQIW!IEROFSECIKlllTOI\NSIF211NQRTH.RNt;EIWT OFTIEVIIU.J,',lrn£M� .. PIEIICECOU'ITT,-ll,TOII. 8EGWtlfGATTltE$Cl!Jl'l£03TCORIER(lf!I.Ol0-™K<I.F(lfTltE SOUTlfllaTQIW!1t!IQ"TltE!IOIJTHE0,$10J,lflTE�(lfTIE,o,JTINEST ..... 11£11C1!SO\IIHIN2WM51.ol.l)f;(ITIESOU!HL11£(1fi111D!IUIDM5IIIIA IISTNtCEOf'"-IJFEI': 1!£IICl!Nlfl!HOP1TSl"WESTACIISl'NICl!Cff1.1'fEE'T: 1!£IICl!Nlfl!Hil2'!nl"EMTAOISTIINCEOf'IU2FEET: TIEICENlfl!HINl'IPEMTAOl5TNICEQf't2.IFE£TTOIIEEAl!ILIEOf' Slll!III.IDWIIIII; lltill,S0\11Hl11'311118"Mfl.ol.0!i08lll!LKADISTlNCE(lflfl.1tFEETT0 8lll)!OJTJEASrOOlflcRN/O T11,P0iNTOFIIEGNIING smJATEINIIECOLfITT(lff'lERCE,STATEOf'WASIMGTIII l012,"5-llllkllYE'IN0.131:l,FElllf<IIRECOHD.uEl,1rlilNIIOII< 1'0f'�AIPIIGl:1:l,IIECOAIIIOf'l'lERCECOlJITT,u;,rJOft TOGmEIVIITH™TP'CIUIONrE!I.OIOSIJl¥El'OElJIEl,TE0"5EffilY<G �- LOT1,"5-0NSlll¥El'N0.131J,FLEOftflRECOROJIJl£1,lfflllllOII< 1,0f'IIIIM:llATPNJE1l�rEPERCECQlffi'AIDTOR. smJATEINMCOlJITTIFPflE(:E.SIATE(lf-lQN. LOT:1,"5-0NSlll¥El'N0.131:l,FE.OfWRECIIOOJIJIEl,111711NIIOII< 1•1F�AIP.u:iE1:l,Rro:IRll$(1fl'lEIICECOlJITTM.OIIW. Sll\lATEINTIEOO!JNTY(lfPIEIICE,STATEOf'- Tlt!NIJIIHHoll.FOf'TIENORTIMUTII\JNITTR(lfllESOUll£ASTQUN!Tel Of'IIE90IJll£MTQIW!1t!IIFTltEIIOIIIHW[STQIW!1ERQ"SCCOOIII TO'M191FZIINIRTlf.lWIGEIEM'T(lfllE'M.J.AIETTE�IIPIEH;E COIJITT,w.o.lHiGTQN. Sll\ll,TEINTIEOOUNT'IOfPIEIICE,STATEDl'--.roN. EXCEPTTltATPCffllONOJff'/rl'EOTOaPMO,..,I\JW.GM�SYDEEO l»,TE0�8ER211,11J11,RECOlilED$EPTEN8Elt21 .11J11,l.lClER"'-OT!ln Fl.EN0,2,tll,Mt SIJIJATEINTIEOOl.lfmOFPERCE,STATEOFWASIIGTOII 8EGINIMGATTltEll)R1lfl'O£STCOINEROf'TIE EMTUJTE£10f'™T PIRIKIIDl'TltENQR1H'3 0FEETOf'TIESOUIH9111fEETOf'IIESOIJIHH,ll.f Of'llECTIONf,TOWNSHP20NIRIH,IW<,;EIEAl!IOf'TfEMJ.ANETTE l'EROWt,UW,C\flES!Of'TIE�FO'llel..a,mlSTl'J,TIONRIGttlOf' W,,Y,"5GIWflEOTOT1tE'-"TE05TATESOf�8Y"'9'1-li:ECOFUOfE811\1/Rf%>1,1N1.__.._l21 ... � Tl£NCESWll1EIU.<LONG Tl£1'<ESTLJ£(1f!I.OIDEASTDIFEET,A ClSTNfCE (lf160FEEI': TIEICENIIITIIMITUlY,.._ONGAITIWGHTlffTOT1£PLM:EIF8EGINIMG. EXCEPTllEREflUil™TP<11110N,;a<YEYEDTOB.PMTO,..,I\JW.COW'lf'jy9YDfE1lRfCOIIPEOIEPTEN8ER'O,ll11-IIECOAPlfGJl-'«R 2'11ZM:l,llfCOflCIIOfPIEIICl:COlJITT,-QN. $11\lATEINTIE<XIIJNTYOfPIEIICE,STATEDI'- TOGmEl\'IHHNIEASEIM"fORACCUSANDCWINAGl;fACUIEA9SET FOK1HIIIISTRLIEfTRECQIDEO-REClHIEON0.2Vllll:llOlllffl. smJATEINIIE<XIIJNTYOf'PIEIICE,STATEOf'WASIMGTtlN REVISIONS >z � £l. 0 � 0 z C) vi w 0 al' 0 0 N/\C ARCHITECTURAL SITEPLAN A1.3.1 Figure 8 Page 210 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -12 Major PUD Amendment ACC 18.76.140 Findings of Fact: Applications for a major amendment to a PUD shall only be approved if sufficient findings of facts are drawn to support the following: A.Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for schools. The proposed Major Lakeland Hills South PUD Amendment, which would remove 14 of the District’s 15 parcels from the PUD boundary, will continue to provide, and improve, public facilities and infrastructure serving the site. The future middle school will provide code-compliant street frontage improvements and utility extensions. Primary vehicular access will be from Sumner Tapps Highway East, aligned with the entrance to Four Lakes Apartment Homes, via a new single-lane roundabout. In addition, a gated, access-controlled bus entrance and exit will be located on 16th Street East, forming the new fourth leg of the existing signalized intersection. Pedestrian and non-motorized access will be enhanced with a new 10-foot-wide sidewalk and upgraded lighting along the site’s entire street frontage. Open space proposed on-site includes perimeter landscaping, a track and field facility, soccer/football/lacrosse fields, baseball and softball fields, and a protected, undisturbed wetland area (Wetland A along the western boundary). B.The proposed major amendment to the PUD is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. To align the City of Auburn’s guiding documents, along with the Major PUD Amendment, a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment is proposed to change the designation of all subject parcels from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public. Additionally, the concurrent Rezone request would change the zoning of 14 parcels from PUD and one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use. These changes are intended to support the future development of Middle School No. 5. Please see Comprehensive Plan section of this narrative that speaks to the how the proposed land use map amendment addresses the goals, policies, and objectives of the Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan Update 2024. C.The major amendment is consistent with the purpose of this chapter, ACC 18.76.010, provides for the public benefits required of the development of PUDs and does not result in only Page 211 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -13 increasing the number of units that would otherwise be attained through a development using the existing zoning and subdivisions standards. The removal of the 14 affected parcels from the existing PUD boundary will not result in an increase in the number of permitted dwelling units. On the contrary, it will reduce the overall residential development potential, as the site is being repurposed for a much-needed public school rather than the higher-density residential use originally anticipated under the PUD. There are no dwelling units proposed with this Major PUD Amendment. D.The proposed major amendment to the PUD conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the city council. The proposed Major PUD Amendment, along with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone, establishes the necessary land use framework to support the development of a new middle school campus. This coordinated effort aligns with the overarching goals and policies adopted by the City Council, ensuring consistency across all applicable City plans and regulatory documents. E.The approval of the major amendment will have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding area than the approved Lakeland Hills South PUD as shown on the official Lakeland plan map. Approval of the Major PUD Amendment to remove the affected parcels from the Lakeland Hills South PUD, will not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding area. The area proposed for removal from the overall 768.79-acre Lakeland Hills South PUD is approximately 43.6 acres, leaving 725.19 acres as a part of the Lakeland Hills South PUD. The subject site would still be bordered by the broader PUD boundary, which includes existing residential and commercial development, and future allowances for additional residential density to keep up with market demands. ACC 18.76.090 Application for approval of major amendment to the PUD: a.The name of the proposed PUD or planning area and a general description of the proposed development requiring the major amendment, including descriptions of buildings, and other site improvements; The proposal is for extraction of 14 parcels, owned by the District, from the larger Lakeland Hills South PUD, for the purpose of a future middle school on the site. b.A proposed schedule that includes submittal of the site plan, preliminary plat, proposed phased developments, if any, and target dates for starting construction; Page 212 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -14 The proposed Major PUD Amendment, and associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone, will require review and recommendations from the Hearing Examiner and Planning Commission, followed by final consideration by the City Council. The full review process typically takes approximately six months and is anticipated to be completed by December 2025. The District, in anticipation of its capital bond approval, will submit separate applications for site design review and a boundary line elimination to consolidate all subject parcels. The new middle school is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. c.Proposed land uses including the type and amount or densities; Proposed land use is an approximately 118,000 square foot middle school. There is no proposed residential density. d.Number and types of dwelling units in the proposed development requiring the major amendment; There are no dwelling units proposed with the Major PUD Amendment. e.Total amount of open spaces, the designated or proposed use, and the amount of open space designated for public and private use; The middle school site plan designates open space areas, such as landscaped settings, athletic fields, and play area, which totals to approximately 11.33 acres of the overall 46.16 acre site. In addition to the planned open space settings, the protected wetland, dense trees, and natural landscaped areas total to approximately 24.8 acres of the overall 46.16 acre site. f.Plans for the perpetual maintenance and preservation of private spaces and private streets; The subject site is private property and will be maintained and preserved by the District. There are no private streets, such as tracts, proposed. There are internal driveways and drive aisles proposed for traffic circulation. g.Any requests for modifications to the street construction standards of the land division ordinance including substantiating information as to why the modifications are necessary; Not at this time. h.The gross acreage of the PUD or planning area, the net usable acreage, and the acreage of any nonbuildable areas; Page 213 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -15 The existing Lakeland Hills South PUD is approximately 768.79 acres. The area proposed for extraction from the existing PUD is 43.6 acres. i.The name and address of the applicant. All land within the PUD or planning area shall be under the ownership of the applicant. Applicants are defined as an individual, partnership, corporation, or groups of individuals, partnerships or corporations; and The applicant is the Auburn School District, who owns all the proposed parcels to be removed from the existing PUD. j.The name, address, stamp and signature of the professional engineer, professional architect or professional land surveyor who prepared the site plan. NAC Architects Attn: Karee Loghry Project Manager 2025 1st Ave Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98121 Phone: (206) 411-4522 Email: kloghry@nacarchitecture.com Page 214 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -16 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Overview: Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Existing Plan Designation Proposed Plan Designation Subject Site (14 of 15 parcels) Lakeland Hills South PUD Public Use District Neighborhood Residential Two Public/Quasi-Public Subject Site (1 of 15 parcels) Residential Low Public Use District Neighborhood Residential Two Public/Quasi-Public North Lakeland Hills South PUD n/a Neighborhood Residential Two n/a South Moderate Density Single Family (Unincorporate d Pierce County) n/a Suburban Residential (Unincorporated Pierce County) n/a East Lakeland Hills South PUD n/a Neighborhood Residential Two n/a West Lakeland Hills South PUD & Residential Low n/a Neighborhood Residential Two n/a Page 215 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -17 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Written Statement 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; The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, to change the land use category of the subject site from Neighborhood Residential Two to Public/Quasi-Public, aligns with the goals and policies of the Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan Update 2024, adopted on December 16, 2024, and overall project intent to use the site as a new middle school. The proposed change would result in internally consistent guiding documents and future development on site. Examples of Comprehensive Plan goals are addressed below. Land Use Element - Goals, Policies, and Land Use Characteristics - Public/Quasi-Public Designation LU-111 The primary purpose of this designation is to address public needs while taking advantage of synergies with the adjacent areas where they are sited. The District’s purpose is to provide educational services to students living within its District. Schools are typically placed in the residential neighborhoods they serve. The District acquired these parcels to ensure that Middle School No. 5 could be developed to better serve the needs of Auburn’s growing community and surrounding area. LU-112 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, police stations, and fire stations. The proposed land use designation, Public/Quasi-Public, is for the intention of a new public middle school. LU-127 Build on partnerships with school districts to expand public use of school facilities for recreation and exercise, and to improve public access to facilities for this purpose, as appropriate. The future middle school development will expand recreational opportunities for both students and residents (during non-school hours), through the construction of a track and field facility, soccer/football field, baseball and softball fields. Page 216 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -18 Capital Facilities Element - Goals and Policies - Goal 1: Keeping Pace with Growth CF-2 Encourage development where new public facilities can be provided in an efficient manner. CF-5 Provide additional public facility capacity when existing facilities are used to their maximum level of efficiency (consistent with adopted standards for level of service). CF-10 Establish land use patterns that optimize the use of public facilities. The adopted 2024 Comprehensive Plan recognizes and identifies the new middle school, Middle School No. 5, as a part of the District’s future projects to accommodate projected growth in the area. Approval of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to redesignate the site to Public-Quasi- Public allows the District to move forward with the middle school project which promotes land use patterns that make efficient use of public facilities. 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; Transportation wise, improvements proposed by the District include frontage improvements per city code, construction of a single-lane roundabout at Sumner Tapps Highway East and the middle school access, including a right turn lane into the school, new gated driveway at 16th Street East and Sumner Tapps Highway Easement for school bus access, and an estimated $518,056 traffic impact fee based on the 2025 fee schedule. The site plan will be designed to adhere to required fire department infrastructure (sprinklers, hydrants, etc.) and access throughout the project. Water and sewer extensions will be made from Sumner Tapps Highway East in accordance with Bonney Lake, for water, and City of Auburn for sewer. Educational services would be increased by allowing the Auburn School District to proceed with the new middle school development. 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid; The District acquired 14 of the 15 parcels in 2009 and the remaining parcel in 2023 and is now ready to proceed with the new middle school development. The current land use designation for the subject site is Neighborhood Residential Two, which is intended to accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types. This category includes R-2 Residential Low and R-3 Residential Moderate as implementing zoning districts, neither of which permit public schools. As such, the District is requesting an amendment to the 2024 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate all of the subject parcels to Public/Quasi-Public land use to support the development of Middle School No. 5, and to implement the P-1 Public Use District zoning. Page 217 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -19 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; See response to item number 3 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 2050; This is not applicable. 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; This is not applicable. 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; The subject site is bordered by properties with the Neighborhood Residential Two land use designation to the north, east, and west, within the City of Auburn. To the south, is unincorporated Pierce County land, with the Suburban Residential land use designation. These residential based Comprehensive Plan land use designations are compatible with the proposed Public/Quasi-Public land use designation because a middle school is an appropriate and logical land use within this context. The new middle school is intended to serve the surrounding community (and beyond) and locating a school within a residential area supports neighborhood cohesion, recreational and sport opportunities, vehicular and pedestrian connections, and everyday guardianship. c. There has been a change in conditions since the current land use designation came into effect. The District acquired the majority of the subject parcels in 2009 and the remaining parcel in 2023. At the time, the site was designated as Moderate Density Residential and Open Space in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. It was later reclassified as Single Family Residential in the 2015 Plan, and most recently as Neighborhood Residential Two in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan. With plans now underway for the development of Middle School No. 5, the District is requesting a land use redesignation to Public/Quasi-Public to support the proposed educational use. Page 218 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -20 Rezone Written Statement ACC 18.68.040 Rezone (zoning map amendment) approval criteria: A. The rezone implements the policies of the comprehensive plan; or The proposed rezone - which would rezone 14 of the 15 parcels from Lakeland Hills South PUD to P-1 Public Use, and one parcel from R-2 Residential Low to P-1 Public Use - supports the policies of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan by aligning with the associated Comprehensive Plan Land Use redesignation request for Public/Quasi-Public. The 2024 Comprehensive Plan lists the P-1 Public Use zoning district as an implementing zoning designation for the Public/Quasi-Public Designation. Land within the City of Auburn is assigned a land use designation and implementing zoning district, which builds from previously adopted Comprehensive Plan Maps, the existing land use pattern, adopted subarea plans, topography, natural features, and targeted goals for shifting the character of specified areas. B. The rezone is necessary due to a substantial change in circumstances since the current zoning; and The proposed rezone is a necessary and logical action to align the site with land use objectives for the new middle school development. The current zoning designation, Lakeland Hills South PUD zoning, is intended for a mix of residential densities and flexible development standards, and R-2 zoning does not permit schools as an allowed land use. C. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Auburn School District serves a rapidly growing population across Auburn, Algona, Pacific, and Unincorporated King County. The rezone request supports the development of Middle School No. 5, which is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2027. The new middle school will serve grades 6-8 and accommodate approximately 800 students in permanent facilities, along with an additional 250 students in 10 portable classrooms. The conceptual site plan for the school is sensitive to development needs and protection of critical areas. Key features include: • New parking facilities for visitors, staff, students, and parents • Designated bus pick up and drop off areas • Two new recreational fields: one for track and field, lacrosse, football, and soccer, and the other for lacrosse, softball, and baseball • Preservation of the existing wetland on the west side of the site • Retention of dense tree populations along the west, south, and eastern boundaries Page 219 of 528 Written Statements and Narrative Auburn School District - MS5 Page -21 The new school will increase student capacity, meet current educational and facility standards, incorporate advanced technology systems, and expand opportunities for community use. Consequently, the rezone has a substantial and positive relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare of the students and residents of the City of Auburn and Auburn School District. Page 220 of 528 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT – SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT Page 221 of 528 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT – SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT PREPARED FOR: AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 915 FOURTH ST. NE AUBURN, WA 98002 PREPARED BY: GRETTE ASSOCIATESLLC 2709 JAHN AVE. NW, STE. H5 GIG HARBOR, WA 98335-7999 (253) 573-9300 NOVEMBER 2023 ______________________________________ __________________ CHAD WALLIN, PWS DATE BIOLOGIST Page 222 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 i November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 2 FEATURE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1 3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 2 3.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 2 3.2 Local Critical Areas Inventory............................................................................ 2 3.3 National Wetlands Inventory .............................................................................. 3 3.4 Sensitive Wildlife and Plants .............................................................................. 3 3.5 State Water Classification System ...................................................................... 3 3.6 Soil Information .................................................................................................. 3 4 METHODS ................................................................................................................. 3 4.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation ...................................................................................... 4 4.2 Wetland Hydrology ............................................................................................. 4 4.3 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................................ 5 5 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 5 6 WETLAND RESULTS .............................................................................................. 5 6.1 Wetland A ........................................................................................................... 5 6.2 Wetland B ........................................................................................................... 6 6.3 Wetland Categorization ...................................................................................... 6 6.4 Regulatory Considerations .................................................................................. 7 6.5 Disclaimer ........................................................................................................... 7 7 BIOLOGIST QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................. 8 7.1 Chad Wallin ........................................................................................................ 8 8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 8 Page 223 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 ii November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity map .........................................................................................................1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Wetland delineation summary ..............................................................................2 Table 2. Definitions for USFWS plant indicator status ......................................................4 Table 3. WETS precipitation analysis ................................................................................5 Table 4. Wetland rating and categorization summary ........................................................6 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Wetland Delineation Map Appendix B. Wetland Summaries Appendix C. Wetland Datasheets Appendix D: Wetland Rating Form Appendix E: Queried Database Figures Page 224 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 1 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC 1 INTRODUCTION Grette Associates (Grette) is under contract with the Auburn School District to perform a wetland delineation and critical areas assessment at the Auburn School District’s property known as Site 35 (Pierce County parcels 0520053055, 3014, 3034, 3036, 3006, 3035, 3016, 3040, 3001, 3041, 3015, 4081, 4080, 3060, and 4079; 2412443; Figure 1). The purpose of this critical areas report is to document all wetlands, natural water features, and wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) that are located within 300 feet of the subject property. This report has been prepared in compliance with Chapter 16.10 of the Auburn Municipal Code (AMC) and is intended to serve as a baseline conditions report. Figure 1. Vicinity map (subject property highlighted in yellow) 2 FEATURE SUMMARY A Grette Associates qualified consultant visited the subject property on September 18, 2023 to conduct a critical areas reconnaissance within the subject property. In summary, two probable wetland features (Wetland A and Wetland B) were identified by Grette (Grette Associates 2023). Following the September 2023 reconnaissance, Grette completed a second site visit on October 25, 2023 to delineate the onsite wetland feature (Wetland A). No additional critical areas were identified during Grette’s site visits. Grette Associates collected wetland delineation data and delineated the onsite wetland feature (Wetland A; Appendix A) according to the procedures defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Federal Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and the USACE’s Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (2010). The offsite wetland feature (Wetland B) was visually evaluated using the USACE’s Regional Supplement Page 225 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 2 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC (2010). Wetlands were rated according to AMC 16.10.080 and the Washington State Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western WA – 2014 Update: Version 2 (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). Wetland delineation summaries, field datasheets and wetland rating forms are presented in Appendices B, C and D, respectively. A summary of the identified wetlands is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Wetland delineation summary Feature Cowardin Class1 Hydrology Modifier HGM Class Wetland Category Buffer Width2,3 A PEM/FO Seasonally Flooded and Saturated Depressional III 110 ft. B PEM/SS Seasonally Flooded and Saturated Depressional III 60 ft. 1 Classification based on Cowardin et al. (1979). 2 Buffers are based on AMC 16.10.090 and the habitat scores as determined from the rating form. The buffers also assume implementation of the mitigation measures in AMC 16.10.090(1)(a)(ii). 3 Wetland A has a moderate habitat score while Wetland B has a low habitat score (Hruby and Yahnke 2024). 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 Existing Conditions The subject property primarily consists of a large developed area that has historically consisted of a mix of residential homesites and commercial equipment storage areas. The residential homesites were removed in 2006, while the equipment storage was removed by 2009. Aerial imagery also shows that in 2009 the site was largely cleared and graded in preparation of site development. The 2009 development activities appear to include the construction of several stormwater ponds and ditches to manage runoff. Undeveloped areas within the subject property are native forest predominantly consisting of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with an understory dominated largely by salal (Gaultheria shallon) and sword fern (Polystichum munitum; Figures 1 and 2). Figure 2. General Forested Conditions 3.2 Local Critical Areas Inventory The City of Auburn’s online GIS database was queried to identify any potential critical areas on or within the vicinity of the subject property. This database did not have any critical area data available at the time of Grette’s inquiry so Grette utilized Pierce County’s Public GIS online database to identify any critical areas that are mapped at the local level. Page 226 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 3 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC According to Pierce County’s database, there are no critical areas mapped within the subject property (Appendix E). Offsite wetland features mapped by Pierce County include Wetland B and a small wetland area located south of the subject property. 3.3 National Wetlands Inventory The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was queried to determine if previously-identified wetlands are present within 300 feet of the subject property (USFWS 2023). According to the NWI Interactive Online Mapper, the southern portion of Wetland A and the general area of Wetland B are mapped by NWI (Appendix E). In addition, NWI maps two of the constructed stormwater ponds identified during Grette’s site assessments. 3.4 Sensitive Wildlife and Plants The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database on-line mapper was queried to determine if state or federally listed fish or wildlife species occur near the subject property (WDFW 2023). According to the PHS database, in addition to those features mapped by NWI, WDFW identifies the mapped wetland features as small waterfowl concentration areas (Appendix E). No additional PHS features (e.g., streams) are mapped in the vicinity of the subject property. The Washington Department of Natural Resources’ (WDNR) Wetlands of High Conservation Value mapper was queried to determine if the subject property occurs in a location reported to contain high quality natural heritage wetland occurrences or occurrences of natural heritage features commonly associated with wetlands (WDNR 2023a). According to WDNR’s mapper, there are no records of rare plants or high-quality native ecosystems occurring on or in the vicinity of the subject property (Appendix E). 3.5 State Water Classification System The WDNR’s Forest Practice Application Mapping Tool on-line mapper was queried to identify the water typing of any streams mapped by WDNR (WDNR 2023b). According to WDNR, the central portion of Wetland B is mapped to provide potential fish (i.e., Type- F) but does not map any other type of natural water feature (e.g., streams) in the vicinity of the subject property. 3.6 Soil Information According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2023a), the soils within the subject property consists of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (8-15 percent slopes) and Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (15-30 percent slopes; Appendix E). Neither of these soil units are mapped as hydric by the NRCS. 4 METHODS The identified onsite wetland was delineated according to the procedures described in the USACE’s Federal Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), and the USACE’s Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (2010). Paired data plots and soil test pits were excavated to evaluate wetland and upland conditions. Guidance from the USACE’s Regional Supplement was used to evaluate the data at each data point. Page 227 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 4 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC The boundary of the wetland was established based on changes in vegetation, field indicators of hydric soils, water levels at or below 12 inches, topographic changes, and best professional judgment. Data plots were established in and adjacent to the wetland. The location of the wetland boundary was defined by placement of florescent orange flagging tape. The location of each data plot was defined by the placement of pink flagging tape. The wetland boundary flagging was labeled alpha-numerically (i.e. A-2), where the letter designates the wetland and the number designates the specific flag angle point. Plants were determined to be more or less associated with wetlands based on their wetland indicator (FAC) status. The percent dominance for each plant strata was determined using the 50-20 Rule, which is the recommended method for selecting dominant species from a plant community in instances where quantitative data are available (USACE 2010). In utilizing this rule, dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively accounts for more than 50 percent of the total coverage of vegetation in the stratum plus any other species that, by itself accounts for at least 20 percent of the total. 4.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NWI have established a rating system that has been applied to commonly occurring plant species on the basis of their frequency of occurrence in wetlands (Table 3). Species indicator status expresses the range in which plants may occur in wetlands and non-wetlands (uplands). Under this system, vegetation is considered hydrophytic when there is an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW) or obligate wetland (OBL) (Table 2). The hydrophytic vegetation criterion for wetland determination is met when more than 50 percent of the dominant species in the plant community are FAC or wetter. The USACE’s National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2020) was used to determine vegetation indicator status. Table 2. Definitions for USFWS plant indicator status Plant Indicator Status Category Indicator Status Abbreviation Definition (Estimated Probability of Occurrence) Obligate Upland UPL Occur rarely (<1 percent) in wetlands, and almost always (>99 percent) in uplands Facultative Upland FACU Occur sometimes (1 percent to <33 percent) in wetlands, but occur more often (>67 percent to 99 percent) in uplands Facultative FAC Similar likelihood (33 percent to 67 percent) of occurring in both wetlands and uplands Facultative Wetland FACW Occur usually in wetlands (>67 percent to 99 percent), but also occur in uplands (1 percent to 33 percent) Obligate Wetland OBL Occur almost always (>99 percent) in wetlands, but rarely occur in uplands (<1 percent) Not Listed NL Not listed due to insufficient information to determine status 4.2 Wetland Hydrology Evidence of permanent or periodic inundation (water marks, drift lines, drainage patterns), or soil saturation to the surface for 14 consecutive days or more during the growing season meets the hydrology criterion. Oxidized root channels in the top 12 inches and hydrogen sulfide are primary indicators and water-stained leaves and geomorphic position are secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. Page 228 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 5 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC 4.3 Hydric Soils Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil horizons are considered hydric soils. Field indicators include histosols, the presence of a histic epipedon, a sulfidic odor, low soil chroma, and gleying. Soil conditions were compared to the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils detailed in the USACE’s Regional Supplement. 5 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS During the site assessment, the Tacoma #1 National Weather Station (NWS Station 458278) recorded 0.57 inches of rainfall (NRCS 2023b). In the 14 days preceding the site assessment, 1.49 inches of rainfall was recorded at the station (NRCS 2023b). The total precipitation recorded at the Tacoma station from October 1, 2022 through September 30,2023 (30.18 inches) was approximately 74 percent of the normal rainfall (40.81 inches) that occurs during the same time (NOAA 2023 and NRCS 2023b). Table 3 below presents an analysis of the appropriate NRCS WETS table (NRCS 2023b) for the three months preceding the field investigation. Table 3. WETS precipitation analysis Preceding Month WETS Rainfall Percentile (inches) Measured Rainfall1 (inches) Conditions2 Condition Value3 Month Weight Value 30% 70% October 2.50 4.76 2.67 Normal 2 3 6 September 0.59 1.78 2.49 Wet 3 2 6 August 0.27 0.85 0.26 Dry 1 1 1 Sum: 13 1 Observed rainfall for the month (NOAA 2016b) 2 Dry conditions are below 30% WETS table value, Normal conditions are between 30% and 70% of the WETS table values, Wet conditions are above 70% of the WETS table value. 3 Dry equals a value of 1, normal equals a value of 2, wet equals a value of 3 4 Due to the timing of the site assessment, October precipitation results were included in this analysis. Bins were established to evaluate the overall rainfall period during the field investigation; drier (sum is 6-9), normal (sum is 10-14), wet (sum is 15-18). A sum of 13 indicates that hydrologic conditions are normal. 6 WETLAND RESULTS 6.1 Wetland A Wetland A is a palustrine emergent and forested wetland that originates in the northwest portion of the subject property (Appendix A). This wetland feature contains both depressional and slope geomorphic and hydrologic wetland characteristics. Historically, Wetland A and Wetland B were potentially one contiguous feature; however, as land development activities began to occur overtime, a disconnection between these two wetland areas was established. Namely through historical clearing and grading and the construction of a maintenance access road. Page 229 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 6 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC Wetland A receives seasonal overflow from Wetland B through an approximate 18-inch culvert situated beneath a maintenance road that provides access to one of the constructed stormwater ponds within the subject property (Appendix A). Surface water discharged to Wetland A appears to sheet flow and infiltrate across the wetland. No defined channelization was observed within Wetland A during Grette’s site visits. Any seasonal ponding that occurs within Wetland A is likely limited to small depressional areas that are located throughout the wetland. Based on aerial imagery and Pierce County’s wetland database, Wetland A extends south of the subject property towards Lake Tapps. More specifically, Grette delineated the wetland boundary extending to the southern edge of the subject property where it continues downslope towards a previously delineated offsite wetland mapped by Pierce County (Appendix A). 6.2 Wetland B Wetland B is an offsite palustrine emergent/scrub-shrub wetland that is situated within a distinct topographic depression (Appendix A). Based on aerial imagery, the eastern portion of Wetland B contains an area of seasonal ponding that occurs for a large duration of the year and only appears to dry out during the peak of the summer season. The remaining wetland area appears to be seasonally saturated. Seasonal discharge from Wetland B appears to be conveyed to Wetland A from a ditch and through an approximately 18-inch culvert. As noted above, the area where these conveyance features are located appear to have been manipulated over time to manage seasonal surface water flows. According to lidar imagery (WDNR 2023b), there is a well- defined linear ditch that extends from the eastern portion of Wetland B to the culvert beneath the existing maintenance road (Appendix A). 6.3 Wetland Categorization To determine the categorization of the wetlands based on function, the wetland classification guidelines in Ecology’s wetland rating system (Hruby and Yahnke 2023) were used. Based on this guidance, each wetland was given a score for each of three functions: Water Quality, Hydrology, and Habitat (Table 4). Table 4. Wetland rating and categorization summary Feature Cowardin Class HGM Class Water Quality Hydrology Habitat Total Category Wetland A PEM/FO Depressional 7 6 6 19 III Wetland B PEM/SS Depressional 7 6 5 18 III Per Chapter 16.10 of the AMC, wetlands are subject to a buffer to protect the integrity and function of said feature and are based on the quality of the habitat function they provide. Wetland A provides moderate habitat function due to the special habitat features available within the wetland (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). However, while in close proximity, Wetland B does not have the diversity of special habitat features compared to Wetland A. As a result, Wetland B provides low habitat function. According to AMC 16.10.090, in addition to their habitat score, wetland buffers are also determined based on whether or not the mitigation measures outlined in AMC Page 230 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 7 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC 16.10.090(1)(a)(ii) are used. If the applicable measures are adopted in a proposed site design, a Category III wetland providing low habitat function would be subject to a 60-foot buffer and a Category III wetland providing moderate habitat function would be subject to a 110-foot buffer. In the event a proposed project does not include the applicable mitigation measures, the buffers would be 80 feet and 150 feet, respectively. 6.4 Regulatory Considerations Wetlands are regulated by agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. At the local level, wetlands and their associated buffers within the City of Auburn are regulated under their critical areas ordinance (Chapter 16.10 of the ACC). At the state level, wetlands are regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology through the federal Clean Water Act (Section 401) and the State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48). The requirement for a Water Quality Certification from Ecology for wetland impacts is triggered by an applicant’s applying for a federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the USACE. Ecology may also issue an Administrative Order through RCW 90.48, allowing them wetland regulatory authority without a federal nexus. Additionally, WDFW regulates work within state waters to protect fish life under the State’s Hydraulic Code (RCW 77.55) through the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) program. At the federal level, impacts (specifically dredging or filling) to wetlands are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency through the US Army Corps of Engineers. The USACE administers the federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) for projects involving dredging or filling in Waters of the US (lakes, streams, marine waters, and most non- isolated wetlands). While it is the regulatory agencies that make the final determination regarding jurisdictional status, project proponents can infer jurisdiction using the guidance provided by each agency or local government. This inference can be used to design a project based on the anticipated regulatory constraints within the project area. However, it is the project proponent’s responsibility to contact each potential regulating agency and confirm their regulatory status and requirements. 6.5 Disclaimer The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this proposed project site. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. Wetland boundaries are based on conditions present at the time of the site visit and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland and/or drainage boundaries are validated Page 231 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 8 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC by the appropriate jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the boundaries by the regulating agencies provide a certification, typically in writing, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a speci fic date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. Since wetlands are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. 7 BIOLOGIST QUALIFICATIONS 7.1 Chad Wallin Chad Wallin is a Biologist with extensive training in wetland science and ecology restoration. Chad also has professional experience in stream and fish restoration, marine monitoring, mitigation monitoring, and fish and wildlife assessments. Chad has earned a Bachelor’s of Arts degree in Environmental Studies from the University of Washington along with certificates in ecology restoration and wetland science and management. Chad is also a certified Professional Wetland Scientist through the Society of Wetland Scientists. For a list of representative projects, please contact him at Grette Associates. 8 REFERENCES Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats for the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Environmental Laboratory (Corps). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Grette Associates, LLC. 2023. Site 35 – Wetland Reconnaissance: Technical Memorandum. Prepared Auburn School District. September 18, 2023. Hruby, T. & Yahnke, A. 2023. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Version 2). Publication #23-06-009. Washington Department of Ecology. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2023. National Climate Data Center (NCDC). Normal Climatological Report: Water Year Data. Accessed October 26, 2023. URL: www.ncdc.noaa.gov Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023a. United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey [map online]. Queried October 30, 2023. URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018b. Climate Data for Pierce County, WA. National Water and Climate Center. Tacoma - No. 1 NWS Station (458278). Accessed October 26, 2023. URL: https://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=53053 Page 232 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 9 November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Wetland Mapper [map online]. National Wetlands Inventory Queried October 26, 2023. URL: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html Interactive Layer = “Wetlands”. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2023. PHS on the Web [map online]. Priority Habitats and Species Queried October 30, 2023. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2023a. Wetlands of High Conservation Value Mapper [map online]. Queried October 30, 2023. URL: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetlandviewer Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2023b. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool [map online]. Streams and Water Type Breaks. Queried October 30, 2023. URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/fpamt/index.html Page 233 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 A November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS – SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX A: WETLAND DELINEATION MAP Page 234 of 528 LAKE TAPPS PARKWAYSUMNER-TAPPS HIGHWAY EAST16TH STREET ENGRAPHIC SCALE080160 FEET1" = 80 FEET402215 North 30th Street, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98403253.383.2422TEL253.383.2572FAXwww.ahbl.comWEBTACOMA SEATTLE SPOKANE TRI-CITIES11/13/23 (SR) - ADDED WETLAND 110' BUFFER11/06/23 (FS) - ADDED WETLAND FLAGS AND BOUNDARY11DFFSFEBRUARY 6, 20232220870.50JEFFREY L. GROSE915 FOURTH STREET NEAUBURN, WA 98002-4499AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTNO. 408AUBURN SCHOOLDISTRICTSITE 36A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 & THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 & THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4OF SEC. 05, TWN. 20 N., RGE. 5 E. W.M.CITY OF AUBURN, PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON.AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT - SITE 361OVERALL PARCELANDTOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYWETLAND DATA11/13/2023Page 235 of 528 Auburn School District – Site 35 B November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS – SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX B: WETLAND SUMMARY Page 236 of 528 Auburn School Districts – Site 35 B November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC WETLAND A SUMMARY Approximate Size (sq. ft.): - Cowardin Classification1: PEM/FO HGM Classification2: Depressional Wetland Category3: III Wetland Buffer Width4: 110 ft./150 ft. Sample Plot Total5: 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present (Y/N)? Yes Hydric Soil Indicator? Depleted Matrix Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Summary of Findings Dominant Vegetation: The forested area predominately consists of a red alder (Alnus rubra) black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) with an understory of largely consisting of red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Soil Profile: The soils observed in the wetland consisted of a surface layer (0-5 inches) of very dark brown (10YR2/2) silty loam with a layer (5-18 inches) of brown (10YR4/2) sandy silt containing prominent strong brown (7.5YR4/6) redox concentrations beneath. Primary Hydrological Support: Hydrologic support for Wetland A is primarily provided by shallow groundwater and seasonal discharge from Wetland B. Wetland Data Plot: Upland Data Plot: Notes: 1 Classification based on Cowardin et al. (1979). 2 HGM classification based on Brinson, M.M. (1993) and Ecology’s rating system (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). 3 Wetland rating was determined based on the guidelines defined in the local municipal code. 4 Wetland buffer was determined based on the local municipal code. 5 Sample plot total includes the collective amount of wetland and upland samples plots examined to define the wetland boundary. Page 237 of 528 Auburn School Districts – Site 35 B November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC WETLAND B SUMMARY Approximate Size (sq. ft.): - Cowardin Classification1: PEM/SS HGM Classification2: Depressional Wetland Category3: III Wetland Buffer Width4: 60 ft./80 ft. Sample Plot Total5: N/A Hydrophytic Vegetation Present (Y/N)? Yes Hydric Soil Indicator? Not Evaluated Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Summary of Findings Dominant Vegetation: Based on aerial imagery, Wetland B appears to predominantly consist of emergent vegetation within patches of shrub vegetation intermixed throughout. Soil Profile: Given its offsite location, soils were not evaluated. Primary Hydrological Support: Hydrologic support for Wetland B appears to be direct precipitation and shallow groundwater. Additional support potentially includes stormwater discharge from the surrounding areas. Wetland Data Plot: Upland Data Plot: N/A N/A Notes: 1 Classification based on Cowardin et al. (1979). 2 HGM classification based on Brinson, M.M. (1993) and Ecology’s rating system (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). 3 Wetland rating was determined based on the guidelines defined in the local municipal code. 4 Wetland buffer was determined based on the local municipal code. 5 Sample plot total includes the collective amount of wetland and upland samples plots examined to define the wetland boundary. Page 238 of 528 Auburn School Districts – Site 35 C November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS – SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX C: WETLAND DATASHEETS Page 239 of 528 Page 240 of 528 Page 241 of 528 Page 242 of 528 Page 243 of 528 Page 244 of 528 Page 245 of 528 Auburn School Districts – Site 35 D November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS – SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX D: WETLAND RATING FORM Page 246 of 528 Page 247 of 528 Page 248 of 528 Page 249 of 528 Page 250 of 528 Page 251 of 528 Page 252 of 528 Page 253 of 528 Page 254 of 528 Page 255 of 528 Page 256 of 528 Page 257 of 528 Page 258 of 528 Page 259 of 528 Page 260 of 528 Page 261 of 528 Page 262 of 528 Page 263 of 528 Page 264 of 528 Page 265 of 528 Page 266 of 528 Page 267 of 528 Page 268 of 528 Page 269 of 528 Page 270 of 528 Page 271 of 528 Page 272 of 528 Page 273 of 528 Page 274 of 528 Page 275 of 528 Page 276 of 528 Page 277 of 528 Page 278 of 528 Auburn School Districts – Site 35 E November 2023 Critical Areas Report Grette Associates, LLC AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICTS – SITE 35 CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX E: QUERIED DATABASE FIGURES Page 279 of 528 3LHUFH&RXQW\6SDWLDO6HUYLFHV3LHUFH&RXQW\:$6SDWLDO6HUYLFHV 'DWH˛ˇ˛30 ˝˙˝˘ )HHW 'LVFODLPHU˛7KHPDSIHDWXUHVDUHDSSUR[LPDWHDQGKDYHQRWEHHQVXUYH\HG$GGLWLRQDOIHDWXUHVQRW\HWPDSSHGPD\EHSUHVHQW 3LHUFH&RXQW\DVVXPHVQROLDELOLW\IRUYDULDWLRQVDVFHUWDLQHGE\IRUPDOVXUYH\ ˛˙ m 3XEOLF*,6 Page 280 of 528 Wetlands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine October 26, 2023 0 0.2 0.40.1 mi 0 0.3 0.60.15 km 1:11,745 This page was produced by the NWI mapper National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Page 281 of 528 10/30/23, 11:36 AM PHS Report about:blank 1/5 PHS Species/Habitats Overview: Priority Habitats and Species on the Web Report Date: 10/30/2023 Page 282 of 528 10/30/23, 11:36 AM PHS Report about:blank 2/5 Occurence Name Federal Status State Status Sensitive Location Waterfowl Concentrations N/A N/A No Wetlands N/A N/A No Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland N/A N/A No Freshwater Pond N/A N/A No Page 283 of 528 10/30/23, 11:36 AM PHS Report about:blank 3/5 Freshwater Emergent Wetland N/A N/A No Waterfowl Concentrations Priority Area Regular Concentration Site Name PIERCE COUNTY - NON FARM Accuracy 1/4 mile (Quarter Section) Notes SMALL WATERFOWL CONCENTRATION AREAS, NON AGRICULTURAL. Source Record 902564 Source Dataset PHSREGION Source Name NAUER, DON WDW Source Entity WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS LISTED OCCURRENCE Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00026 Geometry Type Polygons Wetlands Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name LAKE TAPPS PLATAU WETLANDS Accuracy 1/4 mile (Quarter Section) Notes NUMEROUS WETLANDS EITHER SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE CONNECTED TO LAKE TAPPS WHICH PROVIDE QUALITY WILDLIFE HABITAT. Source Record 902565 Source Dataset PHSREGION Source Name NAUER, DON WDW Source Entity WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons PHS Species/Habitats Details: Page 284 of 528 10/30/23, 11:36 AM PHS Report about:blank 4/5 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - NWI Code: PFO6/7C Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Pond Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Pond - NWI Code: PUSC Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Page 285 of 528 10/30/23, 11:36 AM PHS Report about:blank 5/5 Freshwater Emergent Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Emergent Wetland - NWI Code: PEM1C Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons DISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to variation caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old. Page 286 of 528 ûúVW$YH6:1 RUWKHDVW 7DFRP D 5 LY H U 5 G (&DQ\RQ5G(ûQG 6W( :DOOHU )LIH 6XP P LW )HGHUDO:D\3X\DOOXS5LYHU6RXWK3UDLULH&UHHN:KLWH5LYHU/DNH 7DSSV 6(ýüÿWK 6W þúû 6 3 U D L U L H 5 G (úûûQG$YH((9DOOH\+Z\(9DOOH\ $YH( úû WK 6W(:RRGODQG$YH(úúûWK 6W(:9DOOH\+Z\(6KDZ5G(6(ü ýWK 6W ûýýWK$YH6(6(ýùùWK 6W 6X P Q H U ö %X F NOH\+Z \( 0 XFNOHVKRRW 5HVHUYDWLRQ %XFNOH\ (GJHZ RRG 6XP QHU 0 LOWRQ %RQQH\/DNH 3UDLULH 5LGJH 6RXWK +LOO 3X\DOOXS 1 YGOPIWLSSX 4VEMVMI *UHHQ 5LYHU *RUJH 6WDWH 3DUN &RQVHUYDWLRQ $UHD .UDLQ 8SSHU0 LOO (QXP FODZ 75(75ˇ( 75ˇ(75(75˘( 75˘( :1+35DUH3ODQWDQG(FRV\VWHP/RFDWLRQV (VUL1$6$1*$86*6.LQJ&RXQW\:$6WDWH3DUNV*,6(VUL+(5( *DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(3$ .QRZQ5DUH3ODQWVDQG5DUH+LJKTXDOLW\(FRV\VWHPV 5DUH3ODQW 5DUHDQGRU+LJK4XDOLW\(FRV\VWHP 3XEOLF/DQG6XUYH\7RZQVKLSV 6WDWH%RXQGDU\ &RXQW\%RXQGDULHV ˛ˇ˛$0 PL ˇ˘NP ˛˙˘˙ˆ :1+33ODQW(FRV\VWHP0DS9LHZHU .12:13/$17$1'(&26<67(0/2&$7,2165()/(&7.12:12&&855(1&(/2&$7,216%870$<1275()/(&7$//2&&855(1&(62)5$5(3/$17625(&26<67(06 Page 287 of 528 Page 288 of 528 AUBURN MIDDLE SCHOOL NO. 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF 15 PARCELS FOR THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND REZONE: 0520053055 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : N 1/2 OF N 5 AC OF NW OF SE OF SW ALSO N 1/2 OF FOLL BEG AT NE COR SW OF SW TH W 132 FT TH S 330 FT TH E 132 FT TH N TO BEG EXC POR CY TO P CO FOR SUMNER EXT R/W ETN W1001634 EASE OF RECORD OUT OF 3-004 SEG S0294 10/6/99MD 0520053014 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : S 1/2 OF N 5 AC OF NW OF SE OF SW ALSO S 1/2 OF FOLL BEG AT NE COR SW OF SW TH W 132 FT TH S 330 FT TH E 132 FT TH N TO BEG SUBJ TO EASE 0520053034 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : L 1 OF SURVEY # 1313 LY IN SE OF SW EASE OF RECORD OUT OF 3-005 SEG L-2906 NC EMS 0520053035 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : L 2 OF SURVEY # 1313 LY IN SE OF SW ALSO BEG NE COR OF LOT 2 TH N 33 DEG 41 MIN 56 SEC W 195.41 FT TH E 23.50 FT TH S 33 DEG 41 MIN 56 SEC E 184.90 FT TH S 23 DEG 20 MIN 06 SEC E 187.74 FT TH W 21.27 FT TO SE COR OF LOT 2 EASE OF RECORD OUT OF 3-005 SEG L-2906 NC EMS (DCLPJS6-18-80) 0520053036 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : LOT 3 OF SURVEY # 1313 LY IN SE OF SW EASE OF RECORD OUT OF 3-005 SEG L-2906 NC EMS 0520053006 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : N 1 AC OF E 2 AC OF S 5 AC OF N 10 AC OF NW OF SE OF SW SUBJ TO EASE 0520053016 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : S 1 AC OF E 2 AC OF S 5 AC OF N 10 AC OF NW OF SE OF SW SUBJ TO EASE 0520053040 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : PARCEL "A" DBLR 91-02-14-0148 DESC AS N 1/2 OF SW OF SE OF SW EXC POR DESC AS FOLL BEG SE COR OF N 1/2 OF SW OF SE OF SW TH W 55.37 FT TH N 08 DEG 17 MIN 33 SEC W 87.73 FT TH N 02 DEG 39 MIN 08 SEC E 78.72 FT TH N 87 DEG 48 MIN 19 SEC E 72.08 FT TO E LI SD SUBD TH S 166.16 FT TO SE COR SD SUBD & POB EASE OF REC OUT OF 3-002 SEG C1358MD 1/15/92BO Page 289 of 528 Auburn Middle School No. 5 Legal Descriptions Page -2 0520053001 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : N 1/2 OF NW OF SE OF SE OF SW SUBJ TO EASE 0520053041 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : PARCEL "B" DBLR 91-02-14-0148 DESC AS POR OF N 1/2 OF SW OF SE OF SW DESC AS FOLL BEG SE COR OF N 1/2 OF SW OF SE OF SW TH W 55.37 FT TH N 08 DEG 17 MIN 33 SEC W 87.73 FT TH N 02 DEG 39 MIN 08 SEC E 78.72 FT TH N 87 DEG 48 MIN 19 SEC E 72.08 FT TO E LI SD SUBD TH CON E ALG N LI OF S 1/2 OF NW OF SE OF SE OF SW 322.61 FT TO E LI SD SUBD TH S 02 DEG 48 MIN 42 SEC W 99.14 FT TO NWLY BDRY OF POR CYD TO EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO TH S 47 DEG 08 MIN 50 SEC W 101.83 FT TO S LI SD SUBD TH W 250.75 FT TO TRUE POB EASE OF REC OUT OF 3-012 & 3-002 SEG C1358MD 1/15/92BO 0520053015 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : S 1/2 OF FOLL DESC PROP W 1/2 OF SE OF SW EXC N 10 AC EXC RD EASE & RESERV OF RECORD 0520053013 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : SW OF SE OF SE OF SW EXC RDS SUBJ TO PRI RD & SUBJ TO R/W & EASE TO PAC NW PIPE CORP # 2392332 LESS THAT POR ACQUIRED BY EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO #2412443 0520053060 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 W 1/2 OF SW OF SE & NE OF SE OF SW & E 1/2 OF SE OF SE OF SW EXC THAT POR LY SLY OF NLY LI OF THAT LD CYD TO EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMP PER AFN 2412443 ALSO EXC E 330 FT OF N 405 FT OF S 1065 FT OF S 1/2 OF SEC LY W OF BONNEVILLE POWER ADMIN R/W PER AFN 1274447 ALSO EXC THAT POR LY NLY OF SLY R/W MAR OF SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E EXT CYD TO P CO PER ETN 1001634 APPROVED SUBD BY CY OF AUBURN PLANNING & BULDG COMM 04/04/07 OUT OF 4-074 SEG 2008-0017 07/05/07CL 0520053046 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 34 : BEG AT NW COR OF E 330 FT OF THAT POR OF N 330 FT OF S 990 FT OF S 1/2 OF SEC LY W OF BONNEVILLE POWER ADMIN R/W PER AFN 1274447 TH SLY ALG W LI SD POR 330 FT TO SW COR THEREOF TH ELY ALG S LI SD POR 150 FT TH NWLY ALG STRAIGHT LI TO POB LESS ANY POR LY IN EL PASO NAT GAS CO PIPELINE R/W OUT OF 3-030 SEG I-0774 JU 5/13/97JU 0520054081 Section 05 Township 20 Range 05 Quarter 43 W 1/2 OF SW OF SE & E 1/2 OF SE OF SE OF SW EXC THAT POR LY NLY OF SLY LI OF THAT LD CYD TO EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMP PER AFN 2412443 ALSO EXC THAT POR CYD TO P CO LY ELY OF WLY R/W MAR OF SUMNER-TAPPS HWY E EXT PER ETN 1001634 ALSO EXC THAT POR CYD TO P CO FOR ADDL R/W PER ETN 4021323 APPROVED SUBD BY CY OF AUBURN PLANNING & BULDG COMM 04/04/07 OUT OF 4-074 SEG 2008-0017 07/05/07CL Page 290 of 528 1 Dinah Reed From:Katie Posler <kposler@shockeyplanning.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 23, 2025 8:44 AM To:hanson.eric29@gmail.com Cc:Dinah Reed; Grose, Jeff; Camie Anderson; Nolan, Matthew (Matt) Subject:RE: question regarding project: Major PUD Amendment PLT-2250005 and SEP25-0010 CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Hi Eric, Thank you for your comments and for reviewing the SEPA Checklist. You are correct that trees will be removed for the proposed middle school development. A significant number of trees will remain along the west, south, and eastern borders of the property. In addition, new trees will be planted to meet code requirements. The proposed landscape plan exceeds the minimum 15% landscape coverage required in the P-1 zone, providing approximately 60% coverage. Portions of the proposed development will occur in areas of the site that are already disturbed, which helps avoid additional land disturbance beyond what is necessary. These tree plantings, retained buffers, and siting strategies are part of the project’s mitigation measures to minimize and offset potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife habitat. Please let us know if you have any other questions. Kind regards, Katie Posler Senior Planner Shockey Planning Group 1426 35th Street, Suite 1 Everett, Washington 98201 Phone: 206-480-8245 Celebrating over 45 Years of Excellence 1980-2025! EXHIBIT 5 Page 291 of 528 2 This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or distribute to anyone, the contents contained in the message. From: Eric Hanson <hanson.eric29@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2025 4:07 PM To: Dinah Reed <DReed@auburnwa.gov> Subject: Re: question regarding project: Major PUD Amendment PLT-2250005 and SEP25-0010 CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Greetings Ms. Reed, Thank you for your reply to my original email message. I am aware that a certain area of tree cover exists on the west and also the south end of the property to be developed, extending both within and outside the land parcels to be incorporated into the space designated for the prospective middle school. Based on diagrams displayed in the PUD Amendment's SEPA Checklist, I expect that some portion of these wooded sectors must be cleared to enable the full apportionment of the land appointed for the school to be utilized. May you kindly confirm whether this is indeed the case? If so, wildlife which relies on those arboreal zones for habitat shall invariably perish when the native flora is removed and replaced with concrete, cement, and other building materials. I understand that none of these species are likely endangered or listed as particularly threatened in terms of population sizes; nevertheless, I maintain that their demise should be mitigated as much as possible (no matter how much time and effort that entails) and, ideally, prevented altogether. Conceiving of and implementing a method to preserve or at least entirely replace elsewhere the vegetation itself should also be a focus at some point in the planning and/or undergoing of this construction operation. I would therefore kindly like to know what related ecological preservation measures (if any) have been proposed at any time in the past and through the present moment. Thank you again for your attention and consideration. Regards, Eric Hanson On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 10:11 AM Dinah Reed <DReed@auburnwa.gov> wrote: Good morning Eric, The SEPA checklist associated with the PUD Amendment only addresses the PUD Amendment. There will be another SEPA Checklist associated with the development of the property. Any environmental functions to be addressed will be mitigated during that process. The City has thorough regulations addressing wetlands. Buffers are required depending on the significance of the wetland. Page 292 of 528 3 I will add your name as a Party of Record so that you receive all noticing for the project in the future. Best regards, Dinah Reed 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 This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56. Planning or Land Use Questions? Book an online meeting: Virtual Permit Center - City of Auburn (auburnwa.gov) From: Eric Hanson <hanson.eric29@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 4:50 PM To: Dinah Reed <DReed@auburnwa.gov> Subject: question regarding project: Major PUD Amendment PLT-2250005 and SEP25-0010 CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Page 293 of 528 4 Good afternoon/evening Ms. Reed, As a member of the general community surrounding the site of the proposed Auburn School District middle school associated with Major PUD Amendment PLT-2250005 and SEP25-0010, I have a couple of questions about the project. I understand that the public comment period has now concluded, but, considering that I reside in a household which is partly responsible for funding the building of the school and all related tasks to be completed and which will also be impacted by the logistical and environmental effects of the institution's operations, I maintain that receiving answers to my queries here continues to be warranted. I have read through most of the SEPA Environmental Checklist applicable to this enterprise, and my inquiries are based on statements presented in that document. First, what precisely is planned to happen to the area of the property to be utilized for the middle school known as "Wetland A"? In other words, how exactly will this natural feature be changed from its current condition and situation once the proposed structure is fully assembled as well as during its construction? Second, are there any plans to mitigate the (probable or definitive) destruction of or substantial ecological damage to the habitat relied upon by the "small waterfowl" species that can be intermittently found in or near Wetland A according to the aforementioned Environmental Checklist? If so, what are the details of this prospective mitigation effort? I may wish to engage further at a later period about this major PUD undertaking, but the above questions being addressed can satisfy my initial objectives. You may also redirect this message to other Auburn municipality personnel (or, supplementally or alternately, inform me who those people are and how I can contact them myself) if that/those individual(s) might be more knowledgeable of the topics about which I am asking. I am also readily willing to answer any necessary or important questions you may now have for me. Thank you for your time and consideration; I look forward to receiving return correspondence soon. Regards, Mr. Eric Hanson hanson.eric29@gmail.com (primary contact method) 206.671.9390 (mobile/message) The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. The information contained in this electronic communication is personal, privileged and/or confidential information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity(ies) to which it has been addressed. If you read this communication and are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication, other than delivery to the intended Page 294 of 528 5 recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you. Page 295 of 528 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Meeting Date: 2025 City Initiated Annual Amendments (Clark) The City of Auburn Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive testimony and conduct deliberations regarding the proposed 2025 City-Initiated Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The scope of the amendments include: • Adoption of Capital Facilities Plans for the Auburn, Dieringer, Federal Way, and Kent School Districts. • Land Use Map Amendment: Redesignation of 23 parcels from Public/Quasi-Public to Residential Neighborhood Two. • Technical Corrections to the Capital Facilities Element, Housing Element, and Housing Needs Assessment to address minor errors and improve clarity. • Removal of the Core Plan as a reference document in the Comprehensive Plan update process. October 21, 2025 Department: Attachments: Budget Impact: Community Development 2025 Annual Amendments Staff Report, Exhibit 1 Powerpoint Presentation, Exhibit 2 PT No. 1- 8 Text Amendments, Exhibit 3 M No. 1 Land Use Map Amendment Administrative Recommendation: Background for Motion: Background Summary: See attached Staff Report Councilmember: Staff: Jason Krum Page 296 of 528 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA SUBJECT/TITLE: 2025 City-Initiated Annual Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan CITY FILE NO(s).: CPA25-0003, CPA25-0005, & CPA25-0006 APPLICANT/AGENT/OWNERS: City of Auburn REQUEST: Planning Commission to conduct public hearing and recommend to City Council approval of the 2025 City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Policy/Text Amendments). LOCATION: City-wide. CPA25-0006 includes the following Parcels: 8892900220, 8892900210, 8892900200, 8892900190, 8892900180, 8892900170, 8892900160, 8892900150, 8892900140, 8892900130, 8892900120, 8892900110, 8892900100, 8892900090, 8892900080, 8892900070, 8892900060, 8892900050, 8892900040, 8892900030, 8892900020, 8892900010, and 8892900230. NOTIFICATION: Hearing Notice was published in the Seattle Times and posted on the City’s Land Use Notice webpage and physically at City Hall and City Hall Annex on October 10, 2025. HEARING DATE: October 21, 2025 SEPA STATUS: Two SEPA Environmental Checklists – Non-Project Action, and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment were reviewed with the 2025 City-Initiated Annual Amendment Cycle. A DNS for SEP25- 0013 was issued on August 11, 2025, with the appeal period expiring on September 9, 2025. A second SEPA environmental checklist was prepared under City file number SEP25-0016. A DNS was issued on September 22, 2025, with the appeal period expiring on October 21, 2025. EXISTING LAND USE: CPA25-0005 includes the re-designation of 23 residentially used parcels incorrectly designated as Public/Quasi-Public. CPA25-0005 corrects this error by redesignating the 23 parcels to Neighborhood Residential Two, conforming to the existing land use activities occurring at the site. Page 297 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 2 of 11 STAFF: Gabriel Clark, Planner II, Dept. of Community Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission to deliberate and take action to recommend to City Council approval of the following Policy (P/T) and Map (M) amendments to comply with the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan: • P/T No. 1 Auburn School District 2025 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T No. 2 Dieringer School District 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T No. 3 Federal Way Public Schools 2026 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T No. 4 Kent School District 2024-2025 through 2030-2031 Capital Facilities Plan • P/T No. 5 Updates to the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element • P/T No. 6 Updates to the Housing Element • P/T No. 7 Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment • P/T No. 8 Removal of the Core Plan • M No. 1 Comprehensive Land Use Map Correction SUMMARY OF CODE CHANGES: 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 2024, 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: • Eight (8) policy/text (P/T) amendments o P/T No. 1 Auburn School District 2025 Capital Facilities Plan o P/T No. 2 Dieringer School District 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan o P/T No. 3 Federal Way Public Schools 2026 Capital Facilities Plan o P/T No. 4 Kent School District 2024-2025 through 2030-2031 Capital Facilities Plan o P/T No. 5 Updates to the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element o P/T No. 6 Updates to the Housing Element o P/T No. 7 Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment o P/T No. 8 Removal of the Core Plan • One (1) Land Use Map (M) Amendment o M No. 1 Comprehensive Land Use Map Correction In terms of process, the Comprehensive plan amendments are 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 prior to the end of the year. Page 298 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 3 of 11 Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments (File No. CPA24-0003 & CPA25-0006, City initiated) P/T No. 1 Incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2022 through 2031 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Auburn School District (District) has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering from 2025-2031. The CFP was prepared by the District staff and adopted by the Auburn School District School Board of Directors on June 9, 2025, 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 beha lf of the 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 • 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 P/T No. 2 Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031 into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its Capital Facilities Plan 2025-2031. The CFP was prepared by Dieringer School District Staff and adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors July, 2025. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the Dieringer School District. Information contained in the Dieringer School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the Dieringer School District. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Dieringer 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 Page 299 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 4 of 11 P/T No. 3 Incorporate the Federal Way School District 2026 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 2025. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board May 12, 2025. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the Federal Way School District. Information contained in the Federal Way School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the Federal Way School District. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Federal Way 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 P/T No. 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 2024-2025 to 2030-2031 Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board in June 2025 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS prepared by the Kent School District. Information contained in the Kent School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the Kent School District. The Planning Commission action is to incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan by reference. The CFP includes the following: • Six-year enrollment projection & history • District standard of service • Inventory, capacity & maps of existing schools • Six-year planning & construction plan • Projected classroom capacity • Finance Plan, cost basis and impact fee schedules Page 300 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 5 of 11 P/T No. 5 Incorporate updates to the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The Capital Facilities Element is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). GMA requires the Capital Facilities element to identify existing facilities, forecast future needs, and outline how those needs will be financed. It must also include policies to reassess the land use element if funding falls short, ensuring consistency and concurrency between development and public infrastructure.Updates to the Capital Facilities Element includes text revisions to Pg. CFE-22. These updates are based on the adopted Capital Facilities Plans provided by the four school districts which serve the students of Auburn. Revisions to include updated projects and timelines, as well as the removal of the text “and the associated school impact fees.” P/T No. 6 Incorporate updates to Table 1 in the Housing Element into the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion Updates to the Housing Element consist of minor changes to the text located on Table 1 – Housing Need by Income and County. These updates include revisions to table headings and revisions to the total new net need from 892 to 832 and >100%-120% from 1,235 to 1,305 units. P/T No. 7 Incorporate updates to Figure 34 in the Housing Needs Assessment of the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment consist of minor changes to the text located in Figure 34 – Housing Need by Income and County. These updates include revisions to the total new net need to PSH from 892 to 832 and >100%-120% from 1,235 to 1,305 units. P/T No. 8 Remove the Core Plan as a supporting document to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The core plan is intended to provide an assessment of the current conditions and characteristics occurring within the City of Auburn. Prepared in 2015, this document provides needed context and analysis to support the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This document also functions as a separate interface between studies such as the Housing Needs Assessment, Economic Development Strategic Plan, and the Buildable Lands report. In the attempt to refine administrative processes, analyses are now directly integrated with the Comprehensive Plan rather that producing a separate interface document to then incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan. The Core Plan is not a required document described in RCW 36.70A and has not been updated as a part of the 2024 periodic update schedule. Page 301 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 6 of 11 M No. 1 (File No. CPA25-0005) Incorporate updates to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Discussion As a result of the periodic update to the Comprehensive Plan, 23 parcels were incorrectly designated as Public/Quasi-Public Land Use. This neighborhood located off of I Street NE includes 23 residential structures with a zoning designation of R-2, Residential Low. Staff proposes CPA25-0005 to correct the land use designation to Residential Neighborhood Low. This change would allow conformance with the overlying zoning district and existing conditions of the neighborhood. FINDINGS OF FACT: Background Summary: 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 processed eight (8) policy/text annual updates to be included with the Comprehensive Plan. Four (4) school district Capital Facilities Plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn, the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element, Housing Element, Housing Needs Assessment, and the removal of the City of Auburn Core Plan. These updates are proposed to be incorporated by reference in the current Capital Facilities Element, of the current Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T) amendments and are captured by City File No. CPA25-0003 & CPA25-0006. 3. The City of Auburn proposes one (1) Land Use Map Amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Map (City File No. CPA25-0005). 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 under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the policy text amendments No. 5-7, and map amendment No. 1. City-initiated policy/text amendments resulted in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on August 11 (City File No. SEP25-0013). The comment period ended at 5:00 p.m. August 25th, 2025, and the appeal period ended at 5:00 p.m. September 9th, 2025. No comments on the proposed text amendments were received. 6. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for P/T No. 8. The City issued a DNS for P/T No. 8 on September 22nd, 2025 (City File No. SEP25-0016). The comment period ended at 5:00 p.m. October 7th, 2025. No comments on the proposed text amendments were received. Page 302 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 7 of 11 7. As provided in the City code, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are 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. 8. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in this staff report 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 July 25th, 2025, by Submittal ID No. 2025-S-9678 (CPA25-0003) and on August 22nd, 2025, by submittal ID No. 2025-S-9780 (CPA25-0006). 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 as No. 2024-S-7564 and ID No. 2024-S-7565 CONFORMANCE WITH THE CRITERIA FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS 1. The proposed change will further and be consistent with the goals and objectives of the plan and the plan will remain internally consistent. Discussion Proposed changes identified in P/T Nos. 1–8 and M No. 1 are intended to ensure alignment with the overarching goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and maintain internal consistency across its elements. P/T No. 1- No. 5 The acceptance of the School District’s Capital Facilities Plans, along with revisions to the Capital Facilities Element, enables full integration of the district’s growth and development targets. These updates also enhance coordination with the City’s infrastructure planning to support future school sites and capital projects. P/T No. 6 – No. 7 Revisions to the Housing Element and Housing Needs Assessment align the City’s planning framework with residential development targets established for 2044. These updates address an error in the Housing Need by Income and County Tables and Figure of the Housing Element and Housing Needs Assessment ensuring Auburn’s growth targets are correct within the tables. P/T No. 8 The removal of the Core Plan as a reference document is recommended to prevent reliance on outdated or inaccurate information. Although its removal does not directly affect the Comprehensive Plan, it was not updated as part of the 2024 Periodic Update. However, the value statements of the Core Plan are still carried through the Comprehensive Plan updated in 2024. . M No. 1 Finally, the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map is necessary to bring a specific neighborhood into conformance with its designated zoning district. This change resolves existing inconsistencies between residential and public land uses, promoting clarity, and regulatory alignment. Page 303 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 8 of 11 2. Whether the capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased. Discussion Proposed changes outlined in P/T Nos. 1–7 and M No. 1 identify key projects, goals, and policies aimed at enhancing and sustaining adequate public services throughout the City of Auburn. The Capital Facilities Plans submitted by the four school districts serving Auburn residents address the growing need for additional classrooms, service buildings, and educational facilities. These plans respond to projected population growth and are designed to maintain and improve the quality of educational services for Auburn’s students. Updates to the Housing Needs Assessment and Housing Element incorporate regional affordable housing targets established by King and Pierce Counties. When paired with the City’s Capital Facilities Element and Capital Facilities Plan, these revisions support a coordinated approach to planning and development, ensuring that public services keep pace with residential growth. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map directly affects the types of services permitted within designated neighborhoods. The application of R-2 Residential Low and Residential Neighborhood Low zoning designations removes policy barriers to future development and enables continued public investment in alignment with residential land uses. P/T No. 8 does not directly affect service capacity. The Core Plan, previously used as a reference document for integrating studies into the Comprehensive Plan, is no longer necessary. As relevant studies are now appended directly to the Comprehensive Plan, a separate interface document is redundant and may be retired without impacting coordination of public services. 3. Assumptions upon which the comprehensive plan is based are found to be invalid. Discussion As a result of updates to the Capital Facilities Plans (P/T Nos. 1–4), the information contained in the City’s Capital Facilities Element, specifically the “Public Institutions” section (P/T No. 5) no longer reflected current conditions. Revisions to the Capital Facilities Element were necessary to restore internal consistency and ensure alignment with present-day infrastructure planning. P/T Nos. 6 and 7 address inaccuracies within in the Housing Need by Income and County table and figure Correcting these figures enables the City to more accurately plan for and deliver services and facilities that support affordable housing development, in accordance with regional growth targets and the planning policies of King and Pierce Counties. P/T No. 8 proposes the removal of the Core Plan as a reference document within the Comprehensive Plan. This recommendation stems from the consolidation of outdated information that no longer supports the City’s adopted goals and policies. The Core Plan was not updated during the 2024 Periodic Update and retaining it as a reference, risks distorting future planning efforts by embedding obsolete data into the Comprehensive Plan. Page 304 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 9 of 11 M No. 1 corrects a mapping error that misclassified 23 parcels containing single-unit detached homes as Public/Quasi-Public, thereby conflicting with the underlying R-2 Residential Low zoning designation. The proposed amendment restores the appropriate land use designation of Residential Neighborhood Two, bringing the map into conformance with existing conditions and ensuring consistency with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies. 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. Discussion All proposed amendments reflect a clear determination of change in conditions or circumstances since the last update to the relevant sections of the Comprehensive Plan. P/T Nos. 1–4 propose updates to the Capital Facilities Plans submitted by the four school districts serving Auburn residents. • Auburn School District anticipates continued growth and expansion of educational services. • Dieringer School District seeks reconfiguration to address social constraints and the need for permanent facilities. • Federal Way Public Schools is evaluating future residential demand driven by the Federal Way Town Center and Link Light Rail expansion. • Kent School District is responding to declining enrollment and evolving student needs. P/T No. 5 addresses direct changes to project timelines and completion status and revises administrative language to guide future annual amendments to school district Capital Facilities Plans. P/T Nos. 6–7 revise affordable housing allocations in accordance with Vision 2050 and Countywide Planning Policies. These updates ensure the City remains compliant with regional housing targets and accurately reflects growth projections in the Housing Element and Housing Needs Assessment. P/T No. 8 recommends removal of the Core Plan, an advisory document that was not updated during the 2024 Periodic Update and therefore contains outdated information. M No. 1 corrects a mapping error that misclassified 23 parcels containing single unit detached homes as Public/Quasi-Public. The proposed re-designation to Residential Neighborhood Two restores consistency with the R-2 Residential Low zoning district and supports the preservation of neighborhood character and permitted land uses. 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. Discussion Among the proposed amendments, P/T Nos. 6–7 are the only text revisions that directly address policy consistency between the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan and the legislative frameworks Page 305 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 10 of 11 established by the King and Pierce Countywide Planning Policies and Vision 2050. Specifically, updates to Table 1 of the Housing Element and Figure 34 of the Housing Needs Assessment currently misrepresent the total affordable housing allotment required to meet regional housing needs through 2044. These amendments correct that discrepancy and ensure alignment with adopted regional growth strategies. In contrast, P/T Nos. 1–5, 8, and M No. 1 do not resolve direct inconsistencies with regional planning policies. Instead, these amendments focus on correcting internal documentation, updating public service provisions, and improving alignment with existing conditions and administrative processes within the City’s planning framework. 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. Discussion M No. 1 represents the sole amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Map and addresses a mapping error introduced during the periodic update process. The proposed correction redesignates 23 parcels from Public/Quasi-Public to Residential Neighborhood Two, restoring consistency with the existing R-2 Residential Low zoning and the established character of the neighborhood. This amendment is not based on a change in external conditions since the adoption of the current designation. Rather, it corrects a mis-designation that conflicts with both the zoning district and permitted land uses. The proposes designation aligns with the existing zoning, character of the neighborhood, and with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Procedural Steps: 7. The proposed text amendment (zoning code update) has been discussed with the Planning Commission previously at a special meeting on September 16, 2025. 8. Pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A, the text and map amendments were transmitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce on July 25th, 2025 and August 22nd, 2025. The 60-day notice period ended on October 21st, 2025. 9. ACC 14.22.100 outlines the public hearing requirements by planning commission. Amendments to the Periodic Comprehensive Plan generally comply with “area-wide” requirements. Page 306 of 528 Staff Member: Clark Date: 10/3/2025 Page 11 of 11 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. 10. A Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) will be issued on October 10, 2025. Pursuant to ACC 14.22.100, the following methods of noticing for the Planning Commission public hearing were conducted: a. The NOH was published in the Seattle Times on October 10, 2025. b. The NOH was posted in two general public locations (City Hall and City Annex). c. The NOH was posted on City’s Public Land Use Notice webpage. d. In regard to CPA25-0005 Comprehensive Land Use Map updates, a mailed notice was delivered to properties within a 300-foot radius of the affected properties. 11. A public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2025. EXHIBITS: 1. PowerPoint Presentation 2. P/T No. 1 – 8 Text Amendments 3. M No. 1 Land Use Map Amendment Page 307 of 528 AUBURN V ALUES 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 NPLANNING COMMISSION2025 CITY-INITIATED ANNUAL AMENDMENTSPRESENTED BYGABRIEL CLARK, PLANNER IIOCTOBER 21, 2025Department of Community DevelopmentP lanning Building Development Engineering Permit Center Economic Development Code Enforcement EXHIBIT 1 Page 308 of 528 SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANSSERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONPage 310 of 528 HOUSING ELEMENT AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONPage 311 of 528 Neighborhood Residential ThreePublic/Quasi-PublicCOMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP UPDATESERVICE ENVIRONMENT ECONOMY CHARACTER SUSTAINABILITY WELLNESS CELEBRATIONNeighborhood Residential ThreePublic/Quasi-PublicNeighborhood Residential TwoPage 312 of 528 RecommendationStaff requests Planning Commission to recommend approval toCity Council of the 2025 City Initiated Annual AmendmentsP/T No. 1 – P/T No. 8 and Land Use Map Amendment M No. 1.RECOMMENDATION Page 313 of 528 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 NDepartment of Community DevelopmentPlanning Building Development Engineering Permit CenterEconomic Development Code EnforcementThank you! Page 314 of 528 EXHIBIT 2 P/T No. 1 Page 315 of 528 Page 316 of 528 Page 317 of 528 Page 318 of 528 Page 319 of 528 Page 320 of 528 Page 321 of 528 Page 322 of 528 Page 323 of 528 Page 324 of 528 Page 325 of 528 Page 326 of 528 Page 327 of 528 Page 328 of 528 Page 329 of 528 Page 330 of 528 Page 331 of 528 Page 332 of 528 Page 333 of 528 Page 334 of 528 Page 335 of 528 James P. Fugate Administration Building • 915 Fourth Street NE • Auburn, WA 98002-4499 • 253-931-4900 May 23, 2025 (SENT VIA EMAIL) Honorable Nancy Backus Mayor City of Auburn 25 W Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 nbackus@auburnwa.gov Dear Mayor Backus: Enclosed are the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) and Environmental Checklist for the adoption of Auburn School District’s 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan. The comment period on the DNS expires at 4:30 p.m. on June 6, 2025. Sincerely, Jeffrey L. Grose Executive Director, Capital Projects Enclosures: 2025 SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS), 5/23/2025, 2 Pages SEPA Environmental Checklist, 5/23/2025, 26 Pages Cc: Gabriel Clark – City of Auburn (GClark@auburnwa.gov) Alexandria Teague – City of Auburn (ATeague@auburnwa.gov) Page 336 of 528 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 2025-2031 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 2025-2031 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 2025-2031 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 6, 2025. 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 Page 337 of 528 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 6, 2025, to: Jeffrey L. Grose, Executive Director, Capital Projects, Auburn School District No. 408, 915 4th Street NE, Auburn, WA 98002. Date of Issue: May 23, 2025 Date Published: May 23, 2025 Page 338 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 1 of 26 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. Page 339 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 2 of 26 A. Background Find help answering background questions 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The adoption of the Auburn School District's (the “District”) 2025 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 2025 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 Jeffrey L. Grose, Executive Director, Capital Projects (253) 931-4826 4. Date checklist prepared: May 15, 2025 5. Agency requesting checklist: Page 340 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 3 of 26 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 2025 CFP is scheduled to be considered for adoption by the District School Board on or about June 9, 2025. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2025 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 2025 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, and subject to funding, the District plans to replace Alpac Elementary School, replace Cascade Middle School, and construct a new middle school (Middle School #5) to address student capacity needs. The District is also plans for miscellaneous improvements at 22 existing facilities. Portables may also be added at or relocated to existing school sites within the next six years. 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 2025 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. 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 and no known third party applications for any of the sites for which a specific development project is identified. The District did recently submit a civil construction permit for work on the Middle School #5 project. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. As a non-project planning document, the 2025 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 2025 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. Page 341 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 4 of 26 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 2025-2031 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 2025 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 2025 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. The 2025 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 Page 342 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 5 of 26 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 2025 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 individual sites of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 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 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, will assess this component during project-level environmental review at the appropriate time Page 343 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 6 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 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 2025 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. Page 344 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 7 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 CFP, if proposed for action, 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. 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 2025 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. Page 345 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 8 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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. 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 2025 CFP may have stormwater runoff consequences. Specific information regarding the stormwater impacts Page 346 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 9 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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. ☐ 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 2025 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. Page 347 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 10 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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. 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 2025 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. Page 348 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 11 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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. 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 2025 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. Page 349 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 12 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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. This is a non-project action. The potential projects referenced in the 2025 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 Page 350 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 13 of 26 the 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 CFP may create typical construction noises that will exist on a short-term basis. The projects could increase construction-related 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 2025 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. Page 351 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 14 of 26 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 2025 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 potential projects referenced in the 2025 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. For replacement school projects, including at Cascade Middle School and Alpac Elementary School, the existing school structures are located on each site and any demolition or proposed alteration will be reviewed as a part of project-level review. 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? Page 352 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 15 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 CFP will be evaluated during project-specific environmental review when appropriate. To the extent any of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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. 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 2025 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 Auburn School District student enrollment for the 2024-25 school year is 17,312. In-District enrollment is expected to increase to approximately 17,532 by the 2029-2031 school year. The District employs approximately 1,700 people. Page 353 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 16 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 CFP has been developed consistent with RCW 36.70A and RCW 82.02.020. If the Board of Directors approves and adopts the 2025 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 2025 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- 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 2025 CFP would not involve the provision of new housing units. Page 354 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 17 of 26 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 2025 CFP, if proposed, will eliminate any housing units. The impacts of the potential projects referenced in the 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 CFP that may be proposed for development will be determined on a project-specific basis, when appropriate. 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 2025 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. Page 355 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 18 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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. 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 2025 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 Page 356 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 19 of 26 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 2025 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. 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 2025 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. Page 357 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 20 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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? 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 2025 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. Page 358 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 21 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 CFP. Other utilities are either available or the District will apply for approval of alternative sewage disposal systems/procedures. The types of utilities available at specific project sites will be addressed in detail during project-specific environmental review at the time of formal proposal when project details are fully known. 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. Utility revisions and construction needs will be identified during project- specific environmental review when project details are fully known. Page 359 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 22 of 26 C. Signature Find help about who should sign 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. Type name of signee: Jeffrey L Grose Position and agency/organization: Executive Director, Capital Projects, Auburn School District Date submitted: 5/23/2025 Page 360 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 23 of 26 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 2025 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 2025 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 Page 361 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 24 of 26 local and state standards once when project details are known and able to be analyzed, and impacts will be mitigated appropriately. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The 2025 CFP is an educational facilities non-project planning document and will not itself direct regulation or serve as the basis for approval any particular use. The potential projects included in the 2025 CFP are not likely to generate significant impacts to plants, animals, fish, or marine life. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 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. Applicable code and regulatory provisions protecting/conserving plants, animals, fish, or marine life will be followed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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: 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. Page 362 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 25 of 26 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 2025 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. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: This 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 2025 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 15 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. Page 363 of 528 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) September 2023 Page 26 of 26 To evaluate if a proposed project identified in the 2025 CFP may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment, the District will, at a minimum and commencing as early as possible, review project proposal details against all applicable laws and regulations; obtain input and studies, as appropriate or required, from qualified consultants; coordinate and, as required, consult with the permitting jurisdiction and affected agencies; and consider appropriate mitigation measures and/or alternatives. Page 364 of 528 1 | Page CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2025-2031 Dieringer School District #343 1320 178th Ave E, Lake Tapps, WA 98391 P/T No. 2 Page 365 of 528 2 | Page 2025-2031 Capital Facilities Plan Dieringer School District #343 1320 178th Ave E Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Board of Directors Megan Bearor Greg Johnson Devin Craig Superintendent Paula Dawson, Ed.D. Prepared by: Laura Marcoe Executive Director of Business Services lmarcoe@dieringer.wednet.edu (253) 826-7008 Page 366 of 528 3 | Page Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Mission, Vision, Strategic Directions 4 Introduction 5 MAP 1: District Boundary Map 6 Emerging Issues 6 Building Condition Assessment Study 6 Capital Levy Planning Committee 7 NTMS Portable 7 Birth Rate Trend 7 Grade Configuration 7 Inventory of School and Support Facilities 8 TABLE 1: Inventory of Current School Facilities 8 TABLE 2: Inventory of Support Facilities 8 TABLE 3: School Building Square Feet and Site Acreage 8 Enrollment History and Projections 9 Enrollment History 9 TABLE 4: Historical Enrollment by Grade 9 GRAPH 1: Historical Enrollment Elementary Only 10 GRAPH 2: Historical Enrollment Middle School Only 10 Enrollment Projection 11 TABLE 5: Six Year Enrollment Projection 11 Enrollment Impacts – New Construction 12 TABLE 6: Housing Development – Active Permits 12 TABLE 7: Six Year Enrollment and Capacity Projections 13 Standard of Service 13 Capital Facilities & Financing Plan 14 Impact Fee Calculation 15 Page 367 of 528 4 | Page Executive Summary The Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan (the “plan”) is a six-year plan intended to be reviewed and revised annually. It has been prepared by district staff to support the use of school impact fees as provided for under the Washington State Growth Management Act. This plan supports the implementation of school impact fees as have been authorized by Pierce County. This plan will also provide a basis for mitigation under the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) or the State Subdivision Act. Our Mission: Educating every child for confidence today and contribution tomorrow. Our Vision: The Dieringer School District will provide all students with appropriate high-quality programs in a safe, challenging and inclusive school environment. This mission will be undertaken with respect for and in partnership with families and the community. Strategic Directions: The Dieringer School District’s Strategic Directions are anchored in three foundational priorities: • Foundation 1: Educate the Whole Child emphasizes rigorous academic standards, critical and innovative thinking skills, culturally responsive and inclusive practices, and a welcoming environment to foster academic, social, emotional, and physical well- being. • Foundation 2: Innovative Systems includes structures and practices that enhance teaching, learning, and operational efficiency which focus on a growth centered and safe workplace, continuous professional learning, fiscal stewardship and strategic plan alignment, and ensuring a skilled workforce. • Foundation 3: Community Engagement strengthens partnerships with families and the broader community through fostering a welcoming environment for parent and community members, preparing students for their future in conjunction with the community, and providing opportunities for authentic voice, ensuring collaboration and shared responsibility in supporting student success. Together, these foundations guide the district’s commitment to excellence, equity, and continuous improvement. Page 368 of 528 5 | Page Introduction The Dieringer School District (the “district”) was established in 1890 and consolidated with Lake Tapps School District in 1936. Established in 1890, Dieringer School District (the “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 1,411 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 completed on an addition in September 2017. Dieringer Heights Elementary opened in the fall of 2000, with an addition completed in 2008, and is home to students in kindergarten, fourth and fifth grade. Dieringer Heights Elementary also houses two preschool classrooms and one Transition to Kindergarten classroom. Originally constructed in 1992 and added on to in 1998 and 2009, North Tapps Middle School houses students in grades sixth through eighth. The district supports an additional 614 high school students who may select to attend any public high school. The majority choose 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, and 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 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, and/or technology capital expenditures. Page 369 of 528 6 | Page Emerging Issues Building Condition Assessment Study In the summer of 2025, the school district will conduct a comprehensive Building Condition Assessment Study to evaluate the physical state of all district-owned facilities. This study will be carried out by qualified professionals and will include detailed inspections of structural systems, roofing, mechanical and electrical systems, plumbing, interior finishes, and site conditions. The assessment will identify maintenance needs, code compliance issues, and potential safety concerns, while also estimating the remaining useful life of major building components. The findings from this study will provide critical data to support long-range planning efforts and inform the work of the Capital Levy Planning Committee as it develops recommendations for the 2027–2030 replacement capital levy. MAP 1: District Boundary Map Page 370 of 528 7 | Page Capital Levy Planning Committee The district plans to convene a Capital Levy Planning Committee in the fall of 2025 to evaluate current and future facility needs and develop recommendations for inclusion in a replacement capital levy for the 2027-2030 cycle. This committee will consist of district staff, school board representatives, community members, and subject matter experts, who will work collaboratively to assess the condition of existing infrastructure, enrollment trends, educational program requirements, and safety and accessibility standards. The committee’s analysis will guide the prioritization of projects to ensure alignment with long- term district goals and community expectations. Final recommendations will inform the proposed levy package, which will be presented to voters for approval most likely in February 2026. NTMS Portable To address the lack of available classroom space within the main building at North Tapps Middle School, the district will install single portable classroom in Summer 2025. Prior to this addition, one classroom was being held on the stage, highlighting the need for additional instructional space. The portable classroom provides a more appropriate and functional learning environment and supports the school’s ability to meet current enrollment needs without compromising educational quality. Birth Rate Trend From 2016 through 2023, Pierce County saw birth counts decreased from 11,757 to 10,443. This information is relevant to K-12 school districts, as annual birth counts are viewed as a leading indicator of future kindergarten enrollment. The district will continue to monitor annual birth counts in Pierce County for future enrollment projections. Grade Configuration The district has planned a changed in grade configuration scheduled for the 2026–27 school year. Currently, Lake Tapps Elementary serves grades 1, 2, and 3, while Dieringer Heights Elementary houses kindergarten, grade 5, and grade 6. The district plans to transition to a new configuration in which one school will serve kindergarten through grade 2, and the other will serve grades 3 through 5. This reconfiguration aims to better align instructional practices, foster more cohesive academic progression, and streamline transitions for students. While the shift supports long-term educational goals, it also presents immediate facility implications, including classroom utilization, potential remodeling, and transportation logistics, all of which must be addressed in future planning Page 371 of 528 8 | Page Support Facility Location Jurisdiction District Office 1320 178th Ave E, Lake Tapps Pierce County Transportation 1320 178th Ave E, Lake Tapps Pierce County Maintenance/Grounds Warehouse 1320 178th Ave E, Lake Tapps Pierce County TABLE 2 - Inventory of Support Faciltiies Inventory of School and Support Facilities The Dieringer School District maintains almost 200,000 square feet of building space and owns over 29 acres of property. The following tables provide a summary of: • Inventory of Current School Facilities (Table 1) • Inventory of Support Facilities (Table 2) • School Building Square Feet and Site Acreage (Table 3) TABLE 1 - Inventory of Current School Facilities School Location Jurisdiction Capacity Lake Tapps Elementary 1320 178th Ave E, Lake Tapps Pierce County 490 Dieringer Heights Elementary 21727 34th St E, Lake Tapps Pierce County 520 North Tapps Middle School 20029 12th St E, Lake Tapps Pierce County 545 TOTAL 1555 Site Site Size (Acres) Permanent Square Feet Number of Portable Classrooms Portable Square Feet Lake Tapps Elementary 9.77 59,483 3 2,466 Dieringer Heights Elementary 5.56 57,028 North Tapps Middle School 13.78 79,235 1* 896 TOTAL 29.11 195,746 4 3,362 *NTMS portable is expected to be installed in July 2025 TABLE 3 - School Building Square Feet and Site Acreage Page 372 of 528 9 | Page Enrollment History and Projections The information below examines the district’s student enrollment history over the past seven school years and the district’s enrollment projections through the 2030-31 school year. The data excludes enrollment in the Transition to Kindergarten program. A series of graphs is provided to display the district’s enrollment data. Enrollment History Table 4 displays historical enrollment by grade and indicates a gradual decline in Kindergarten class sizes over time. However, enrollment tends to recover in the later grades, suggesting that some families may be opting for alternative Kindergarten programs or moving into the district after the early elementary years. This trend may be influenced by the higher-than-average home values in the Dieringer service area, which could delay family relocation until later stages of a child's education. Birth Year School Year Live Births DSD % of Births K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T otal Student Gain/Loss 2008-09 2014-15 183 86.34%158 207 170 167 165 165 173 153 181 1,539 2009-10 2015-16 189 73.02%138 225 155 177 174 168 187 173 148 1,545 6 2010-11 2016-17 187 50.27%94 187 144 162 161 175 177 168 160 1,428 (117) 2011-12 2017-18 192 71.35%137 141 171 157 171 162 193 171 161 1,464 36 2012-13 2018-19 106 133.02%141 145 157 181 153 174 168 195 164 1,478 14 2013-14 2019-20 92 156.52%144 159 156 170 189 161 183 166 197 1,525 47 2014-15 2020-21 112 101.79%114 130 147 143 158 179 155 163 157 1,346 (179) 2015-16 2021-22 115 117.39%135 121 146 150 150 155 178 167 169 1,371 25 2016-17 2022-23 100 128.00%128 159 138 158 155 154 173 181 168 1,414 43 2017-18 2023-24 115 106.09%122 144 165 142 158 159 162 170 179 1,401 (13) 2019-20 2024-25 88 132.95%117 130 158 177 142 164 177 172 173 1,410 9 Table 4 - Historical Enrollment By Grade Page 373 of 528 10 | Page Graph 1 shows the enrollment history at the elementary level only. Enrollment was increasing slightly through 2019-20 with a high of 979 students. Coinciding with the pandemic, the following two years saw a combined decrease of 122 students with a rebound of 35 students in 2022-23. Enrollment has remained fairly steady with slight increases since the rebound in 2022-23, but has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Graph 2 shows the enrollment history at the middle school level. Similar to elementary, enrollment was increasing slightly through 2019-20 with a high of 546 students. Coinciding with the pandemic, the 2020-21 school year saw a decrease of 71 students with a rebound of 39 students in 2021-22. Enrollment has remained fairly steady for the past four years. GRAPH 1 – Historical Enrollment Elementary Only GRAPH 2 – Historical Enrollment – Middle School Only Page 374 of 528 11 | Page Enrollment Projection Projecting enrollment is a complex endeavor subject to variables and uncertainties. Forecasting typically considers past trends to help predict future trends using a “Cohort Survival” method. The shorter the forecast, the more likely it is that is underlying assumptions and predictions will be accurate. The enrollment fluctuations over the course of the pandemic have made recent enrollment trends less reliable in projecting enrollment. When planning for adequate school facilities, the district uses more inclusive and growth- responsive enrollment projections than those used for budget and funding purposes. These projections account for potential increases in student population and ensure that facility capacity is sufficient to meet both current and future needs. By planning for higher enrollment than conservative funding estimates might suggest, the district can better prevent overcrowding, support evolving instructional programs, and maintain flexibility as the community grows. This forward-thinking approach helps ensure facilities are aligned with actual student needs over time. Table 5 presents a six-year enrollment projection for the Dieringer School District indicating that student enrollment is expected to remain steady, with numbers consistently hovering near or above the district’s current maximum facility capacity. This trend suggests that while significant enrollment growth is not anticipated, existing facilities will continue to operate at or near their limits, underscoring the importance of ongoing planning to ensure the district can continue to meet student needs without exceeding available space. Birth Year School Year Live Births DSD % of Births K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T otal Student Gain/Loss 2020-21 2025-26 102 110.00% 112 125 143 169 177 147 183 188 175 1,419 9 2021-22 2026-27 116 110.00% 128 120 137 153 169 184 164 194 191 1,439 20 2022-23 2027-28 112 110.00% 123 136 131 147 153 176 205 174 197 1,442 3 2023-24 2028-29 98 110.00% 108 131 149 141 147 159 196 217 177 1,425 (17) 2024-25 2029-30 105 110.00% 116 115 144 160 141 152 177 208 221 1,433 8 2025-26 2030-31 105 110.00% 116 123 126 155 160 146 170 188 212 1,394 (39) Table 5 - Six Year Enrollment Projection Page 375 of 528 12 | Page Enrollment Impacts – New Construction The table below provides information on active housing permits within the district, representing residential construction projects that are currently underway or have received approval to begin. These active permits serve as the most immediate and reliable indicator of potential short-term enrollment growth. While there are several larger, planned housing developments under consideration or in earlier stages of the permitting process, their timelines remain uncertain and may not impact enrollment for several years. As these projects progress, the district will continue to monitor their status to assess potential long- term impacts on facility needs and capacity planning. Parcel 0520141023 Construct 2-story 4-bedroom single family residence 5070200261 Construct 1-story 3-bedroom single family residence 5075001490 Construct 2-story 4-bedroom single family residence with garage attached via breezeway 5060000110 Construct a 3-story 3-bedroom single family residence 7002030270 Construct 3-story 5-bedroom single family residence 8996020390 Construct 2-story 3-bdrm single family residence to replace demolished single family residence 5050200110 Construct 2-story 3-bdrm single family residence to replace demolished house 5070000100 Construct a 2-story, 1-bedroom, single family residence 0520232035 Construct 2-story 3-bedroom single family residence 0520055019 Construct 1-story 1-bedroom accessory dwelling unit 8996030650 Construct 2-story 3-bedroom single family residence 0520153023 Construct 2-story 4-bedroom single family residence to replace fire damaged/demolished SFR 0520056024 Construct 1-story 3-bedroom single family residence with an attached a 1-story ADU 5070000405 Construct 3-story 3-bedroom single family residence with basement and attached Garage 5075000620 Construct 1-story 3-bdrm single family residence to replace demolished house 5075000410 Construct detached garage with workout area & bathroom & 2nd story 1-bdrm ADU 0520054087 Construct 2-story 4-bdrm single family residence 17 Total Active Housing Permits (Single Family Residence) 0 Total Active Housing Permits (Multi Family Residence) Elementary Student Generation (.3516)5.9772 Middle School Student Generation (.1080)1.836 Estimated Enrollment Impact from New Housing Development 7.8132 Table 6 - Housing Development - Active Permits Projection Description Page 376 of 528 13 | Page Projected Enrollment vs School Capacity Standard of Service The Standard of service is based on class size and program decisions adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors. At the elementary level, the district plans to maximize the use of state funding available for reducing class sizes to meet the K-3rd grade districtwide class size targets specified by the legislature at 17. Actual class sizes are larger because the state formula includes specialists (e.g. music and physical education) and a portion of special education teachers in the calculation of districtwide class average. Fourth through sixth grade class size target is 27 and seventh through eighth grade is 28. These class sizes have an impact on facilities, and the permanent capacity of each school reflects these class sizes. In the District, rooms designated and assigned for special use are not counted as capacity classrooms. At the elementary level students are provided music instruction and physical education in non-capacity classrooms. Special education and intervention programs are provided 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 providing 5/6 (84%) capacity to accommodate teacher planning time in the instructional space. Student generation rates are based on an average of Sumner-Bonney Lake and Auburn 2025 rates. Projected Enrollment Deficit/ Surplus Projected Enrollment Deficit/ Surplus Projected Enrollment Deficit/ Surplus Lake Tapps Elem 490 437 53 384 106 390 100 Dieringer Heights Elem 520 437 83 506 14 476 44 North Tapps Middle School 545 546 (1)549 (4)576 (31) Projected Enrollment Deficit/ Surplus Projected Enrollment Deficit/ Surplus Projected Enrollment Deficit/ Surplus Lake Tapps Elem 490 388 102 374 116 365 125 Dieringer Heights Elem 520 446 74 453 67 461 59 North Tapps Middle School 545 590 (45)606 (61)569 (24) *Assumes grade configuration at LTES of grades K,1,2 and grades 3,4,5 at DHES School Site Capacity School Site Capacity Table 7 - Six Year Enrollment and Capacity Projections 2025-26 2026-27*2027-28* 2028-29*2029-30*2030-31* Page 377 of 528 14 | Page Capital Facilities & Financing Plan Site Current Capacity 6-Year Capacity Total Capacity 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Lake Tapps Elementary 490 490 Dieringer Heights Elementary 520 520 Elementary #3 400 400 400 North Tapps Middle School 545 112 657 112 TOTAL 1,555 512 2,067 TABLE 8 -Permanent Capacity Projects Projects Estimated Project Cost Levy/Bond Unrestricted Impact Fees Levy/Bond Unrestricted Impact Fees Capacity Projects Elementary #3 38,177,090 36,677,090 1,500,000 NTMS Addition 3,846,312 3,246,312 600,000 Total 42,023,402 39,923,402 - - - 1,500,000 600,000 Non-Capacity Projects NTMS Turf Track, Roof, District HVAC 10,651,802 10,651,802 Building Modernization & Updates 17,193,000 17,193,000 Technology 10,350,000 6,900,000 3,450,000 Total 38,194,802 24,093,000 - - 3,450,000 - - Total Projects 2025-2031 80,218,204 64,016,402 3,450,000 1,500,000 600,000 Unsecured Sources of Funds Secured Sources of Funds TABLE 9 - Capital Finance Plan 2025 - 2031 Page 378 of 528 15 | Page School Site Acquisition Cost Facility Acreage Cost/Acre Facility Capacity Student Generation Rate SFR Student Generation Rate MFR Cost/SFR Cost/MFR Elementary #3 12 613,107 433 0.3516 0.3011 5,974 5,116 School Construction Cost Facility Cost Facility Capacity Student Generation Rate SFR Student Generation Rate MFR Cost/SFR Cost/MFR Elementary #3 30,819,806 433 0.3516 0.3011 25,026 21,432 NTMS Classroom Addition 3,846,312 112 0.1080 0.1131 3,709 3,884 28,735 25,316 Temporary Facility Cost $ Temp/Total Sq Ft Facility Cost Facility Size Student Generation Rate SFR Student Generation Rate MFR Cost/SFR Cost/MFR State Matching Credit Construction Cost Allowance OSPI SF Per Student State Match % State Match Per Student Student Generation Rate SFR Student Generation Rate MFR Cost/SFR Cost/MFR Elementary 375.00 90 0.5069 17,107.88 0.3516 0.3011 6,015 5,151 Middle School 375.00 108 0.5069 20,529.45 0.1080 0.1131 2,217 2,322 8,232 7,473 Tax Payment Credit SFR MFR Average Assessed Value 947,500 615,875 Capital Bond Interest Rate 4.30% 4.30% Net Present Value of Average Dwelling 7,571,574 4,921,523 Years Amortized 10 10 2025 Property Tax Levy Rate 1.5600 1.5600 Present Value of Revenue Stream 11,812 7,678 Fee Summary SFR MFR Site Acquisition Costs 5,974 5,116 Permanent Facility Cost 28,735 25,316 Temporary Facility Cost - - State Match Credit (8,232) (7,473) Tax Payment Credit (11,812) (7,678) Fee Obligation 14,665 15,281 Fee with Discount of 50%7,333 7,641 Maximum Fee Obligation per Pierce County Code 4A.30.030 8,054 4,545 Final Proposed Impact Fee (Lesser of 50% of Fee Obligation or Pierce County Maximum)7,333 4,545 TABLE 10 - Single Family (SFR) and Multi-Family (MFR) Impact Fee Calculation Impact Fee Calculation Page 379 of 528 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.Page 380 of 528 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. Page 381 of 528 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. Page 382 of 528 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 Page 383 of 528 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.Page 384 of 528 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.Page 385 of 528 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.Page 386 of 528 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,Page 387 of 528 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.Page 388 of 528 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"Page 389 of 528 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.Page 390 of 528 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.Page 391 of 528 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.Page 392 of 528 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.UtilitiesPage 393 of 528 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 Page 394 of 528 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 EliminationPage 395 of 528 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 PlanPage 396 of 528 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.Page 397 of 528 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2026 Lake Grove Elementary Wildwood Elementary Mirror Lake Elementary Memorial Field Renovation Thomas Jefferson High School Star Lake Elementary/ Evergreen Middle School Olympic View K-8 School Illahee Middle School P/T No. 3 Page 398 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN May 12, 2025 BOARD OF EDUCATION Dr. Jennifer Jones, President Trudy Davis, Vice President Luckisha Phillips, Legislative Representative Quentin Morris, WIAA Representative Joan Marie Murphy, Board Director SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Dani Pfeiffer Prepared by: Rob Bryant, Chief Finance & Operations Officer Michael Swartz, Executive Director of Capital Projects Jennifer Thomas, Student & Demographic Forecaster Page 399 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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 Ten Year Bond/Capital Activity Summary 10 SECTION 2 MAPS Introduction 11 Map – City and County Jurisdictions 12 SECTION 3 SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Introduction 13 Building Capacities 14-16 Portable Locations 16-17 Student Forecast 18-20 SECTION 4 KING COUNTY, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, AND CITY OF KENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Introduction 21 Capacity Summaries 22-26 Impact Fee Calculation 27-28 Student Generation Rates 29 Changes Summary from 2025 to 2026 30 Page 400 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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 2025. This plan will be submitted for consideration to each of the jurisdictions located within 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 mitigation 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 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, Wildwood Elementary, Olympic View K-8 and Memorial Field. Illahee Middle School is currently about 95% complete and will be ready to move in once school is out in June 2025. Page 401 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 3 INTRODUCTION, continued The rebuilding of the schools has and will continue to 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. We have seen similar growth in the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, although we have not yet reached our Pre-Covid enrollment numbers. We are anticipating 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 2026 Capital Facilities Plan shows fairly flat enrollment; however, we will monitor and adjust accordingly our projections yearly based on new housing developments currently being proposed to open in 2027 and beyond. Page 402 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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. Page 403 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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 ECEAP (Former Headstart Bldg) 31457 28th Ave S Federal Way 98003 Page 404 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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. Page 405 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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 Replaced Existing Building, Increase Capacity Voter Approved Capital bond II Memorial Stadium Replaced 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 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 Page 406 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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 has secured the title to the building. The building will only be available for preschool activities. Page 407 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 9 SIX YEAR FINANCE PLAN Secured Funding Sources Impact Fees (1)$196,285 Land Sale Funds (2)$6,114,000 Bond or Levy Funds (3)$11,014,000 K3-Class Size Reduction (4)$5,064,000 School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) (5)$25,533,000 TOTAL $47,921,285 Projected Revenue Sources School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) (6)$18,827,000 K-3 Class Size Reduction (7)$0 Bond Funds (8)$0 Land Fund Sales (9)$0 Impact Fees (10)$0 TOTAL $18,827,000 Actual and Planned Expenditures Total Secured Funding and Projected Revenue $66,748,285 Estimated and Budget 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Total Cost Prior Years 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028 2028-2029 2029-2030 2030-2031 2031-2032 2025-2032 MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION Lake Grove Elementary (11)$39,780,000 $0 $39,780,000 Mirror Lake Elementary (11)$42,200,000 $0 $42,200,000 Star Lake Elementary (11)$39,623,000 $0 $39,623,000 Wildwood Elementary (11)$41,290,000 $0 $41,290,000 Olympic View K-8 School (11)$46,350,000 $0 $46,350,000 Thomas Jefferson High School (11)$122,938,000 $1,790,000 $1,790,000 $124,728,000 Evergreen Middle School (11)$65,688,000 $0 $65,688,000 Illahee Middle School (11)$69,022,000 $19,851,000 $19,851,000 $88,873,000 Memorial Stadium (11)$29,772,000 $178,000 $178,000 $29,950,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 SITE ACQUISITION Former DeVry/ES 24 (12)$30,314,000 $1,422,000 $1,424,000 $1,422,000 $1,423,000 $5,691,000 $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 $530,477,000 $23,741,000 $1,924,000 $1,922,000 $1,923,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $31,010,000 $561,487,000 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 year end balance on 12/31/24. 2. This is year end balance on 12/31/24. 3. This is the 12/31/24 balance of bond funds and capital levy funds. This figure includes interest earnings. 4. This represents the K3-CSR revnue received but not spent as of 12/31/2024. 5. This represents the balance of SCAP funding but no spent as of 12/31/2024. 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. All bonds authorized have been issued. 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 2024. 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 capcity 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. NEW SCHOOLS Page 408 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 10 TEN-YEAR BOND/CAPTIAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Year Dollars Budgeted Items Budgeted 2024 $78,050,000.00 Illahee MS, Thomas Jefferson HS, Memorial Stadium, Former DeVry/ES24, Portables 2023 $55,743,000.00 Illahee MS, Memorial Stadium, Former DeVry/ES24, Portables 2022 $87,237,500.00 Olympic View K-8, Thomas Jefferson HS, Illahee MS, Former DeVry/ES 24, Portables 2021 $69,823,750.00 Star Lake ES, Olympic View K-8, Thomas Jefferson HS, Evergreen MS, Illahee MS, Former DeVry ES/ES24, Portables 2020 $132,038,500.00 Lake Grove ES, Mirror Lake ES, Star Lake ES, Wildwood ES, Thomas Jefferson HS, Evergreen MS, Former DeVry/ES24 2019 $116,740,000.00 Lake Grove ES, Mirror Lake ES, Star Lake ES, Wildwood ES, Thomas Jefferson HS, Evergreen MS, Former DeVry/ES24, Norman Center, Portables 2018 $11,935,000.00 Lake Grove ES, Mirror Lake ES, Wildwood ES, Thomas Jefferson HS, Norman Center, Portables 2017 $75,625,000.00 Federal Way HS, Lake Grove ES, Mirror Lake ES, Star Lake ES, Wildwood ES, Norman Center, Portables 2016 $30,420,000.00 Federal Way HS, Norman Center, Portables 2015 $47,815,000.00 Federal Way HS, Norman Center, Portables Page 409 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 11 SECTION 2 - MAPS As of September 2024, 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 serve 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 developments have major impacts 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 Page 410 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 12 MAP – CITY AND COUNTY JURISDICTIONS FWPS boundaries is 100% Urban Growth Area Page 411 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 13 SECTION 3 - SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION Building Capacities - The Education Program Portable Locations Student Forecast – 2026 through 2032 Page 412 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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. Page 413 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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 site). 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. Page 414 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 16 BUILDING CAPACITIES, continued ELEMENTARY BUILDING MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING PROGRAM CAPACITY PROGRAM CAPACITY School Name Headcount 1 Preschool School Name Headcount Adelaide 392 30 Illahee 855 Brigadoon 408 30 Kilo 779 Camelot 378 30 Lakota 786 Enterprise 524 15 Sacajawea 694 Green Gables 439 Sequoyah 585 Lake Dolloff 535 Evergreen 795 Lake Grove 558 30 TAF @ Saghalie 598 Lakeland 455 Federal Way Public Academy 183 Mark Twain 515 TOTAL 5,275 Meredith Hill 606 15 Mirror Lake 514 30 *Middle School Average 727 Nautilus (K-8)512 Olympic View (K-8)429 HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING Panther Lake 501 15 PROGRAM CAPACITY Rainier View 607 30 Sherwood Forest 451 6 School Name Headcount Silver Lake 476 Decatur 1243 Star Lake 544 30 Federal Way 1684 Sunnycrest 636 Thomas Jefferson 1600 Twin Lakes 413 30 Todd Beamer 1085 Valhalla 598 TAF @ Saghalie 155 Wildwood 597 30 Career Academy at Truman 159 Woodmont (K-8)474 Federal Way Public Academy 116 TOTAL 11,562 321 Employment Transition Program 48 TOTAL 6,090 Elementary Average 503 2 High School Average 1,403 Notes: 1 Preschool enrollment reduces capacity for K-5 students. 15 preschool students in one classroom. 2 Federal Way Public Academy, Career Academy at Truman High School, and Employment Transition Program and TAF @ Saghalie for the high school school grade span (9-12) are non-boundary schools. These schools are not used in the calculated averages. Page 415 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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. Page 416 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 18 PORTABLE LOCATIONS, continued PORTABLES LOCATED PORTABLES LOCATED AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AT HIGH SCHOOLS NON NON INS TRUCTIONAL INS TRUCTIONAL*INS TRUCTIONAL INS TRUCTIONAL Adelaide 1 2 Decatur 8 Brigadoon 1 Federal Way Camelot 1 Thomas Jefferson Enterprise 3 Todd Beamer 8 Green Gables 1 TOTAL 16 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 2 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 2 Wildwood Evergreen Woodmont 3 Total 2 TOTAL 47 10 PORTABLES LOCATED AT MIDDLE SCHOOLS NON INS TRUCTIONAL INS TRUCTIONAL Illahee Kilo 1 6 Lakota Sacajawea 5 Sequoyah 2 Evergreen TAF@ Saghalie 4 TOTAL 10 8 Page 417 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 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 February 2025, 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. The difference between projected enrollment and actual for Fall 2024 was less than 1% in the positive with 20,690 projected and 21,148 actual. Page 418 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 20 STUDENT FORECAST, CON’T Page 419 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 21 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 2034. This model produces a projection that is between 20,933 to 23,730 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. 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. Page 420 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 22 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 Page 421 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 23 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. Page 422 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 24 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – All Grades Page 423 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 25 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – Elementary Schools Actual Budget Calendar Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 CAPACITY School Year 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 BUILDING PROGRAM HEAD COUNT CAPACITY 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 12,174 12,174 Add/Subtract capacity total 0 0 0 0 0 612 0 0 Add capacity at 1: De Vry 612 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 11,562 12,174 12,174 12,174 ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrollment 9,612 9,618 9,628 9,637 9,647 9,443 9,453 9,462 Internet Academy Headcount 2 (20)(20)(20)(20)(20)(20)(20)(20) Basic Headcount Enrollment without Internet Academy 9,592 9,598 9,608 9,617 9,627 9,423 9,433 9,442 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY 1,970 1,964 1,954 1,945 1,935 2,751 2,741 2,732 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY3 Current Portable Capacity 931 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 Add/Subtract portable capacity (42)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add portable capacity at: Subtract portable capacity at: Olympic View K-8 (42) Adjusted Portable Capacity 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 889 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 2,859 2,853 2,843 2,834 2,824 3,640 3,630 3,621 NOTES: 1 2 3 - - Projected - - Capacity increases are projected based on a design to accommodate 525 students. Increased capacity is currently stated as the difference between current calculated capacity and the projected design. In order to reduce elementary class size, Devry capacity is calculated at 17 scholars per classroom. 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 21. The actual number of portables that will be used will be based on actual student population needs. Page 424 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 26 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – Middle Schools Actual Budget Calendar Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 CAPACITY School Year 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 Add/Subtract capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Add capacity at: Illahee 1 Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 5,275 ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrollment 4,893 4,714 4,749 4,754 4,759 4,763 4,768 4,768 Internet Academy 2 (55)(55)(55)(55)(55)(55)(55)(55) Basic Enrollment without Internet Academy 4,838 4,659 4,694 4,699 4,704 4,708 4,713 4,713 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY 437 616 581 576 571 567 562 562 RELOCATABLE CAPACITY3 Current Portable Capacity 338 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 Add/Subtract portable capacity (50)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Illahee Middle School (50) Adjusted Portable Capacity 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY 725 904 869 864 859 855 850 850 NOTES: 1 2 3 - - Projected - - Illahee Middle Schools currently have capacity for 850 students, so no new capacity is anticipated with the rebuild of these older buildings. 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. Page 425 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 27 CAPACITY SUMMARIES, Continued Capacity Summary – High Schools Actual Budget Calendar Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 CAPACITY School Year 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 BUILDING PROGRAM HEADCOUNT CAPACITY 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 Add/Subtract capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thomas Jefferson High School Adjusted Program Headcount Capacity 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 6,090 ENROLLMENT Basic Headcount Enrollment 6,643 6,521 6,526 6,533 6,539 6,546 6,552 6,559 Internet Academy 1 (180)(180)(180)(180)(180)(180)(180)(180) Basic Ed without Internet Academy 6,463 6,341 6,346 6,353 6,359 6,366 6,372 6,379 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM CAPACITY (373)(251)(256)(263)(269)(276)(282)(289) RELOCATABLE CAPACITY2 Current Portable Capacity 416 416 416 520 624 728 832 936 Add/Subtract portable capacity 0 0 52 52 52 52 52 0 As Needed on High School Campuses 52 52 52 52 52 Adjusted Portable Capacity 416 416 520 624 728 832 936 936 SURPLUS OR (UNHOUSED) PROGRAM AND RELOCATABLE CAPACITY3 43 165 264 361 459 556 654 647 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. Page 426 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 28 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 a proportionate share of the costs of growth-related facilities, the District uses a formula first adopted by King County. The formula uses growth related facilities costs, and provides credits for any anticipated State School Construction Assistance Program funds related to the project, and a credit for the anticipated property taxes that would be assessed against the unit for the costs of the same improvement. The final unfunded need is then discounted by 50% based on the code requirement. 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 2025 Plan Year 2026 Single Family Units $0 $0 Multi-Family Units $0 $0 Page 427 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 29 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION, CON’T SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST FACILITIES CAPACITY Permanent Facility Capacity: Changes to the Building Program Capacities calculation are found on page 15. 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 22-26. 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 2026 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 16 and 17. Page 428 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 30 STUDENT GENERATION RATES New Construction 2020-2024 Single family - Year Built Homes KG 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ES Total 6th 7th 8th MS Total 9th 10th 11th 12th HS Total Total 2020 45 7 10 7 7 5 9 45 2 7 3 12 3 5 3 4 15 72 2021 27 3 10 5 2 4 3 27 2 4 2 8 3 1 2 2 8 43 2022 15 1 0 1 4 1 2 9 1 5 1 7 3 3 1 2 9 25 2023 18 2 5 2 1 3 2 15 2 2 5 9 1 1 1 3 6 30 2024 10 3 1 2 1 3 1 11 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 4 15 Total 115 16 26 17 15 16 17 107 7 18 11 36 12 11 7 12 42 185 Multi family Units KG 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th ES Total 6th 7th 8th MS Total 9th 10th 11th 12th HS Total Total 21-Watermark (650)221 30 23 31 25 24 26 159 23 27 28 78 22 30 25 26 103 340 24-Trouve (450)233 4 4 2 5 1 16 1 2 3 1 3 4 8 27 24-Redondo Heights (2310)202 17 19 19 18 16 18 107 9 9 7 25 6 4 1 1 12 144 Total 656 51 46 52 48 41 44 282 33 36 37 106 29 37 26 31 123 511 Single family Homes ES MS HS Total ES SGR MS SGR HS SGR Total SGR 2020 45 45 12 15 72 1.0000 0.2667 0.3333 1.6000 2021 27 27 8 8 43 1.0000 0.2963 0.2963 1.5926 2022 15 9 7 9 25 0.6000 0.4667 0.6000 1.6667 2023 18 15 9 6 30 0.8333 0.5000 0.3333 1.6667 2024 10 11 0 4 15 1.1000 0.0000 0.4000 1.5000 Total 115 107 36 42 185 0.9304 0.3130 0.3652 1.6087 Multi family Units ES MS HS Total ES SGR MS SGR HS SGR Total SGR 21-Watermark (650)221 159 78 103 340 0.7195 0.3529 0.4661 1.5385 24-Trouve (450)233 16 3 8 27 0.0687 0.1875 2.6667 0.1159 24-Redondo Heights (2310)202 107 25 12 144 0.5297 0.2336 0.4800 0.7129 Total 656 282 106 123 511 0.4299 0.1616 0.1875 0.7790 Page 429 of 528 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 31 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CHANGES FROM 2025 to 2026 Item From/To Comment Percent of Permanent Facilities 97.68% to 97.62%Report #3 OSPI Percent Temporary Facilities 2.32% to 2.38%Updated portable inventory Average Cost of Portable $231,523 to $400,000 Cost of last portable purchased. Classrooms Construction Cost Allocation $271.61 to $375.00 Change effective July 2024 State Match 63.86% to 67.34%Change effective February 2024 Average Assessed Value Per King County Assessor's Office SFR- $536,791 to $593,412 Single-family residences (taxable) MFR- $203,026 to $197,757 Apartments/Condos (taxable) Capital Bond Interest Rate 3.48% to 4.15%Market Rate Property Tax Levy Rate $1.53 to $1.06 King County Treasury Division Student Generation Factors Updated Housing Inventory Single-Family Elementary 0.9649 to 0.9304 Middle School 0.4035 to 0.3130 High School 0.4211 to 0.3652 Multi-Family Elementary 0.3855 to 0.4299 Middle School 0.1740 to 0.1616 High School 0.2070 to 0.1875 Impact Fee1 SFR- $0 to $0 Single-Family Residential based on the updated calculation MFR -$0 to $0 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. Page 430 of 528 Page 431 of 528 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan 2024-2025 through 2030-2031 June 2025 Kent School District No. 415 12033 SE 256th Street Kent, Washington 98030-6643 (253) 373-7526 BOARD of DIRECTORS Ms. Meghin Margel, President Mr. Donald Cook, Vice President Mr. Tim Clark, Legislative Representative Mr. Andy Song, Director Ms. Teresa Gregory, Director ADMINISTRATION Israel Vela Superintendent of Schools Dr. Wade Barringer, Deputy Superintendent Dave Bussard, Executive Director Operations Raul Parungao, Executive Director of Finance Gordon Cook, Director of Facilities Brett Scribner, Assistant Director Capital Projects P/T No. 4 Page 432 of 528 Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table of Contents I - Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection ............................................................................. 4 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 ........................................................................................... 21 VII - Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity ............................................................... 25 VIII - Finance Plan ..................................................................................................... 30 IX - Summary of Changes to June 2024 Capital Facilities Plan ..................................... 34 X - Appendices .......................................................................................................... 35 Page 433 of 528 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 2025 for the 2024-2025 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 Page 434 of 528 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 (See Table 1). 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 progress funded primarily by the Kent School District’s 2016 Bond, the 2018 Capital Levy, and our newly passed 2024 Capital and Tech 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 2025 Capital Facilities Plan). 2 Page 435 of 528 Description/Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 King County Live Births 24,630 25,032 24,910 25,348 25,487 26,011 25,274 24,337 24,090 23,638 Increase/(Decrease)402 (122)438 139 524 (737)(937)(247)(452) Kindergarten/Birth (%)8.3%8.0%8.2%7.8%7.9%6.5%7.3%7.7%7.3%7.7% Source: https://doh.wa.gov/data-and-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/county-all-births-dashboard Grade/Fiscal Year 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 K 2,045 2,013 2,037 1,989 2,010 1,703 1,836 1,874 1,761 1,811 1 2,131 2,067 2,056 2,061 2,036 1,882 1,768 1,945 1,931 1,793 2 2,163 2,163 2,077 2,008 2,091 1,980 1,818 1,840 1,965 1,958 3 2,176 2,195 2,143 2,043 1,995 2,001 1,938 1,887 1,878 1,970 4 2,089 2,195 2,218 2,118 2,038 1,912 1,924 1,953 1,924 1,945 5 1,958 2,103 2,189 2,170 2,120 1,937 1,872 1,953 1,973 1,924 6 2,058 1,952 2,119 2,184 2,164 2,024 1,893 1,962 1,948 1,928 7 1,974 2,021 1,922 2,044 2,166 2,010 1,925 1,906 1,949 1,951 8 2,100 2,021 2,043 1,882 2,073 2,086 1,937 1,956 1,922 1,936 9 2,093 2,105 2,006 2,003 1,888 2,001 2,042 2,010 1,955 1,922 10 2,165 2,099 2,080 1,946 2,034 1,811 1,959 2,048 2,000 1,947 11 1,818 1,865 1,823 1,732 1,663 1,743 1,584 1,679 1,729 1,782 12 1,742 1,730 1,810 1,653 1,634 1,453 1,655 1,467 1,500 1,565 Total Enrollment 26,512 26,529 26,523 25,833 25,912 24,543 24,151 24,480 24,435 24,432 Yearly Increase/ (Decrease)(211)17 (6)(690)79 (1,369)(392)329 (45)(3) Cumulative Increase/ (Decrease)(211)(194)(200)(890)(811)(2,180)(2,572)(2,243)(2,288)(2,291) Source: https://ospi.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/school-apportionment/safs-report (1251H Headcount.pdf) King County Live Births Enrollment KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 ENROLLMENT HISTORY 26,512 26,529 26,523 25,833 25,912 24,543 24,151 24,480 24,435 24,432 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Enrollment TABLE 1 3 Page 436 of 528 II - Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, enrollment 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 used data from OSPI Information and Condition of Schools (ICOS), Report 1049. 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). 7.5% of 23,390 King County live births in 2021 is projected for 1,755 students expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2025. This is a decrease of 248 live births in King County over the previous year. The District’s enrollment from 2025-26 to 2030-31 is projected to decrease by an average of 1.5% each year or a total of 2,089 students. The projected enrollment for 2030-31 is 22,343. Early Childhood Education students (also identified as “ECE”), “Early Childhood Special Education (“ECSE”) students are forecasted 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. Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact on 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. 4 Page 437 of 528 STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR "Student Generation 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 0.222 Middle 0.092 High 0.116 Total 0.430 Multi-Family Elementary 0.075 Middle 0.030 High 0.032 Total 0.137 The student generation factor is based on 1,927 new SFD (Single Family Detached) units built between 2018 and 2023. The student generation factor is based on 1,908 new MF (Multi- Family) units built during the same period. The multi-family units consisted of 1,590 apartment units and 318 townhome units. The District sees an average of 43 students for every 100 single family units that are built and an average of 14 students for every 100 multi-family units that are built. The rate for apartment units is higher than for townhome units. The rate for apartments can vary, depending on the affordability of the units and the number of bedrooms per unit for specific buildings. Many of the apartment units built between 2018 and 2023 have market rate rents and they tend to have fewer bedrooms per unit than some of the buildings that were completed in 2016 and 2017. The multi-family rate is lower this year than it was in March 2024 because the date range used in the analysis includes fewer affordable units and fewer multiple bedroom units. In preparing the 2024-2025 to 2030-2031 Capital Facilities Plan the District contracted with Educational Data Solutions, LLC led by Dr. Les Kendrick, a noted expert in demographic studies for school districts, to analyze and prepare the student generation factor. 5 Page 438 of 528 Description/Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 (Proj) 2025 (Proj) 2026 (Proj) King County Live Births 23,390 23,012 22,408 22,236 22,065 21,896 Increase/(Decrease)(248)(378)(604)(172)(171)(169) Kindergarten/Birth (%)7.5%7.5%7.6%7.6%7.5%7.5% Grade/Fiscal Year 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 K 1,755 1,732 1,710 1,687 1,665 1,643 1 1,841 1,784 1,760 1,738 1,714 1,692 2 1,794 1,842 1,785 1,761 1,739 1,715 3 1,956 1,793 1,841 1,784 1,760 1,738 4 1,963 1,949 1,787 1,834 1,778 1,754 5 1,928 1,946 1,932 1,771 1,818 1,762 6 1,906 1,910 1,928 1,914 1,755 1,801 7 1,882 1,861 1,865 1,882 1,868 1,713 8 1,929 1,861 1,840 1,844 1,861 1,847 9 1,930 1,924 1,856 1,835 1,839 1,856 10 1,895 1,902 1,896 1,829 1,808 1,812 11 1,684 1,639 1,645 1,639 1,582 1,563 12 1,631 1,540 1,499 1,504 1,499 1,447 Total Enrollment 24,094 23,683 23,344 23,022 22,686 22,343 Yearly Increase/ (Decrease)(338)(411)(339)(322)(336)(343) Cumulative Increase/ (Decrease)(338)(749)(1,088)(1,410)(1,746)(2,089) Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 ENROLLMENT PROJECTION King County Live Births Enrollment Projection Source: https://doh.wa.gov/data-and-statistical-reports/washington-tracking-network-wtn/county-all-births- dashboard TABLE 2 6 Page 439 of 528 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 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 24 students per class, not to exceed 26. •Class size ratio for grades 4 - 5 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: Career and Technical Education (CTE) – State Program Closing Educational Achievement Gaps (Title I – Part A) - Federal Program Highly Capable Students (HiCap) - State Program 7 Page 440 of 528 Learning Assistance Program (LAP) – State Program Multilingual Education (MLE) - State Program 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 6–8 is 28 students per class and 135 students per day, with a maximum daily class load/enrollment of 142 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 64% for secondary schools. Functional capacity at elementary schools reflects 56% utilization at the elementary level. 8 Page 441 of 528 IV - Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has a total functional capacity to house 39,705 students, which consists of a permanent functional capacity of 35,494 and interim (portable) capacity of 4,211. 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 89% - 11%. 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 2024. Calculations of Elementary, Middle School and High School capacities are set forth in Table 3. 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 340 students. Kent Virtual Academy - The Kent Virtual Academy is open to grades 6-12 and is currently serving 167 students. The virtual school offers a flexible learning experience designed to engage students when and where they work best. Each school day includes 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 Page 442 of 528 Year Opened Carriage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235 - 140th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 626 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 541 Covington Elementary 2018 CO 25811 156th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 744 Crestwood Elementary 1980 CW 25225 - 180th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 602 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street, Kent 98031 779 1999 EP 11800 SE 216th Street, Kent 98031 653 1969 FW 16600 - 148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 528 East Hill Elementary Emerald Park Elementary Fairwood Elementary George T. Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 640 Glenridge Elementary 1996 GR 19405 - 120th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 591 Grass Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700 - 191st Place SE, Kent 98042 595 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 - 144th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 634 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 26915 - 186th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 641 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700 - 64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 760 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660 - 142nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 725 Martin Sortun Elementary 1987 MS 12711 SE 248th Street, Kent 98030 768 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1994 MR 27710 - 108th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 706 Meridian Elementary 1939 ME 25621 - 140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 793 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270th Street, Kent 98030 688 Neely-O'Brien Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 864 Panther Lake Elementary 2009 PL 12022 SE 216th Street, Kent, 98031 744 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Street, Kent 98031 728 1967 PT 27825 - 118th Avenue SE, Kent 98030 732 1987 RW 18030 - 162nd Place SE, Renton 98058 661 2021 RR 22420 Military Rd. S., SeaTac, WA 98198 886 Park Orchard Elementary Pine Tree Elementary Ridgewood Elementary River Ridge Elementary Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135 - 228th Ave SE, Black Diamond 98010 549 1960 SH 837 1971 SC 591 1969 SB 730 1992 SR 719 20,055 1966 CR 1,110 1993 CH 1,140 1981 MA 1,020 1970 MK 1,230 1958 MM 1,110 2005 MC 1,200 Scenic Hill Elementary Soos Creek Elementary Springbrook Elementary Sunrise Elementary Elementary TOTAL 1996 NW 1,140 7,950 1951 KM 2,595 1997 KL 2,714 1968 KR 2,932 1981 KW 2,917 11,158 2021 KLA 542 Canyon Ridge Middle Cedar Heights Middle Mattson Middle Meeker Middle Meridian Middle Mill Creek Middle Northwood Middle Middle TOTAL Kent-Meridian High Kentlake High Kentridge High Kentwood High High TOTAL Kent Laboratory Academy DISTRICT TOTAL 39,705 2024-2025 Functional SCHOOL ABR ADDRESS 26025 Woodland Way South, Kent 98030 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 20035 - 100th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 22300 - 132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 11000 SE 264th Street, Kent 98030 19640 SE 272nd Street, Covington 98042 16400 SE 251st Street, Covington 98042 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 23480 - 120th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 17007 SE 184th Street, Renton 98058 10020 SE 256th Street, Kent 98030 21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 25800 - 164th Avenue SE, Covington 98042 105 SE 208th St., Kent, WA 98031 Table 3 10 Page 443 of 528 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 2024/2025 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 Page 444 of 528 Cedar Heights Mattson Meeker MeridianMill Creek Northwood Canyon Ridge King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA Middle Schools Cedar Heights Middle School Canyon Ridge Middle School Mattson Middle School Meeker Middle School Meridian Middle School Mill Creek Middle School Northwood Middle School Kent School District 2024/2025 School Year Middle School Boundaries 0 3.75 7.51.88 Miles Ü 12 Page 445 of 528 Carriage Crest Cedar ValleyCovington Crestwood East Hill Emerald Park Fairwood George T. Daniel Glenridge Grass Lake Horizon Jenkins Creek Kent Lake Youngs Martin Sortun Meadow Ridge Meridian Millennium Neely O Brien Panther Lake Park Orchard Pine Tree Ridgewood Sawyer Woods Scenic Hill Soos Creek Springbrook Sunrise River Ridge King County, WA State Parks GIS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA 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 Kent School District 2024/2025 School Year Elementary School Boundaries 0 3.75 7.51.88 Miles Ü 13 Page 446 of 528 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 schools 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 future schools and district use; the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan. Some funding is secured for the purchase of additional sites but may also 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 decisions will be reflected in each update of the Capital Facilities Plan. The Kent School District continues to make improvements to the facilities through completion of the 2016 Bond, 2018 Levy, and the recent voter approved 2024 Levy. At this moment the standing of the current measures are as follows: Measure Complete In Progress Not Started 2016 Bond 85% 13% 2% 2018 Levy 72% 13% 15% 2024 Levy 0% 14% 86% The Kent School District anticipates and is planning to run a Bond in 2028 for additional emergent needs, differed maintenance, tenant improvement projects, and possible facility replacement. 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. The Alexian Gateway Project is located on the corner of Military Road 14 Page 447 of 528 and Veterans Drive in Kent and began occupying its 283 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 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 five years and planned communities are now being recognized through the planning teams in multiple city and county jurisdictions we serve. 15 Page 448 of 528 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 & HIGH TEMPORARY FACILITIES Additional Capacity # on Map 2 OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Land Use Designation Type 16 White House - Kent 11027 SE Kent-Kangley Kent, WA 98030 Commercial Purchased 16a Green Building - Kent 11109 SE Kent-Kangley Kent, WA 98030 Commercial Purchased Notes: None King County Land Use Jurisdiction King County Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 May 2022 16 Page 449 of 528 © 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 17 4 5 1 2 10 12a KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE ACQUISITIONS 12b 9 16 16a Page 450 of 528 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 TOBOTTOM (FLOOR 1-4) ASINDICATED ON THE UNIT STACKONE 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 STREETNAME. THE BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE NO LESS THAN SIX (6) INCHES IN HEIGHT. THEBUILDING 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 CORRECTIONS2218Page 451 of 528 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, 2021119108819Page 452 of 528 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 BYOTHERS3646125720Page 453 of 528 VI - Portable Classrooms The Plan references use of portables as interim capacity for facilities. Currently, the District utilizes portables to house students in excess of 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 and maintained. The District's goal is to reduce the number of 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. 21 Page 454 of 528 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors - Single Family Student Generation Factors - Multi-Family Elementary (Grades K - 5)0.222 Elementary (Grades K - 5)0.075 Middle (Grades 6- 8)0.092 Middle (Grades 6- 8)0.030 Senior High (Grades 9 - 12)0.116 Senior High (Grades 9 - 12)0.032 Total 0.430 Total 0.137 Projected Increased Student Capacity OSPI - Square Footage per Student Elementary 0 Elementary 110 Middle 0 Middle 134 Senior High (Academy)0 Senior High 144 Special Education 153 Required Site Acreage per Facility Elementary (required)12 Average Site Cost / Acre Middle (required)25 Elementary $161,678 Senior High (required)40 Middle $0 Senior High $0 $68,000,000 Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost $155,000,000 Elementary @ 24 $315,000 $220,000,000 Middle @ 28 $315,000 Senior High @ 32 $315,000 State Funding Assistance Credit 123,702 District Funding Assistance Percentage 54.31% 10,256 21,296 155,254 Construction Cost Allocation CCA - Cost/Sq, Ft. $375.00 1,567,594 760,483 District Average Assessed Value 1,077,315 Single Family Residence $657,970 3,405,392 District Average Assessed Value 1,691,296 Multi-Family Residence $320,116 770,739 New Facility Construction Cost Elementary Middle Senior High Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary Middle Senior High Total 4.4% Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary Middle Senior High/Other Total 95.6% Total Facilities Square Footage Elementary Middle Senior High/Other 1,098,611 Total 3,560,646 Bond Levy Tax Rate/$1,000 $0.46 Current Rate / 1,000 Tax Rate 0.0005 Developer Provided Sites / Facilities Value 0 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Dwelling Units 0 Current Bond Interest Rate 4.37% CPI Inflation Factor 5.80% Budget Preparations | OSPI (www.k12.wa.us) * Reflects current facility construction (APPENDIX A) 22 Page 455 of 528 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS 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 0.222 A 2 (Middle)25 $0 0 0.092 A 3 (Senior High)40 $0 0 0.116 Total 77 $161,678 0 0.430 A 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 0.222 0.903 B 2 (Middle)$155,000,000 0 0.092 0.984 B 3 (Senior High)$220,000,000 0 0.116 0.998 Total $443,000,000 0 0.430 B a $0.00 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 0.222 0.097 $282.63 C 2 (Middle)$315,000 28 0.092 0.016 $15.99 C 3 (Senior High)$315,000 32 0.116 0.020 $23.57 Total $945,000 84 0.430 C a $322.20 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 AllocationSPI Sq. Ft. / Student Assistance %Student Factor D 1 (Elementary)$375.00 110 0.5431 0.222 $4,973.44 D 2 (Middle)$375.00 134 0.5431 0.092 $2,510.75 D 3 (Senior High)$375.00 144 0.5431 0.116 $3,401.98 D a $10,886.17 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residential Assessed Value (AAV)$657,970 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV)8.32 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r )0.05%TC a $2,534.98 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 4.37% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calculation 10 Developer Provided Facility Credit Facility / Site Value Dwelling Units 0 0 FC a 0 Fee Recap ** A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence $0.00 B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence $0.00 C = Temporary Facility Cost per Residence $322.20 Subtotal $322.20 D = State Match Credit per Residence $10,886.17 TC = Tax Credit per Residence $2,534.98 Subtotal $13,421.15 Total Unfunded Need ($13,098.95) 50% Developer Fee Obligation ($6,549) FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)$0 District Adjustment $6,549 Net Fee Obligation per Residence - Single Family $0.00 (APPENDIX B) 23 Page 456 of 528 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS 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 0.075 A 2 (Middle)25 $0 0 0.030 A 3 (Senior High)40 $0 0 0.032 Total 77 $161,678 0 0.137 2 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 0.075 0.903 B 2 (Middle)$155,000,000 0 0.030 0.984 B 3 (Senior High)$220,000,000 0 0.032 0.998 Total $443,000,000 0 0.137 B $0.00 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 0.075 0.097 $95.48 C 2 (Middle)$315,000 28 0.030 0.016 $5.21 C 3 (Senior High)$315,000 32 0.032 0.020 $6.50 Total $945,000 84 0.137 C $107.20 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)$375.00 110 0.5431 0.075 $1,680.22 D 2 (Middle)$375.00 134 0.5431 0.030 $818.72 D 3 (Senior High)$375.00 144 0.5431 0.032 $938.48 D $3,437.42 Tax Credit per Multi Family Residence Average MF Residential Assessed Value (AAV)$320,116 Net Present Value (per EQ) (NPV)8.32 Current Debt Service Rate / 1,000 ( r )0.05%TC $1,233.32 (Below used to calculate NPV) Current Bond Interest Rate 4.37% Years Amortized (10 Years)- Used in NPV Calcula 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 $0.00 C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit $107.20 Subtotal $107.20 D = State Match Credit per MF Unit $3,437.42 TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit $1,233.32 Subtotal $4,670.73 Total Unfunded Need ($4,563.53) 50% Developer Fee Obligation ($2,282) FC = Facility Credit (if applicable)0 District Adjustment $2,282 Net Fee Obligation per Residential Unit - Multi-family $0.00 (APPENDIX C) 24 Page 457 of 528 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 2024 was 24,432, excluding ECSE and college-only Running Start students. In October 2024, there were 1,159 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, 629 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 the 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 a 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 School District is unusual in that it incorporates neighborhoods intersecting with 8 jurisdictions, including Kent, Covington, Auburn, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, Renton, unincorporated King County and SeaTac. The district covers 72 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. 25 Page 458 of 528 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Actual Permanent Functional Capacity 1 35,494 35,494 35,494 35,494 35,494 35,494 35,494 Changes to Permanent Capacity 1 Capacity Increase (F) Additional Permanent Classrooms 0000000 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 35,494 35,494 35,494 35,494 35,494 35,494 35,494 Interim Portable Capacity Elementary Portable Capacity Required 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 Middle School Portable Capacity Required 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 High School Portable Capacity Required 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 Interim Portable Capacity Total 4,211 4,211 4,211 4,211 4,211 4,211 4,211 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 39,705 39,705 39,705 39,705 39,705 39,705 39,705 Total Enrollment/Projection 2 24,432 24,094 23,683 23,344 23,022 22,686 22,343 DISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 15,246 15,584 15,995 16,334 16,656 16,992 17,335 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) P R O J E C T E D Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 May 2025 26 Page 459 of 528 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SCHOOL YEAR 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Actual Elementary Permanent Capacity 1 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 Additional Permanent Classrooms 2 0000000 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 16,696 Interim Portable Capacity 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 3,228 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 19,924 19,924 19,924 19,924 19,924 19,924 19,924 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 11,401 11,237 11,046 10,815 10,575 10,474 10,304 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 8,496 8,660 8,851 9,082 9,322 9,423 9,593 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 Projection Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) ELEMENTARY: Grades K - 5 Elementary Grade K-5 P R O J E C T E D Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 A May 2025 27 Page 460 of 528 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SCHOOL YEAR 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Actual Middle School Permanent Capacity 1 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 Changes to Middle School Capacity 0000000 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 7,216 Portable Interim Capacity 1 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 7,591 7,591 7,591 7,591 7,591 7,591 7,591 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 5,815 5,717 5,632 5,633 5,640 5,484 5,361 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 1,776 1,874 1,959 1,958 1,951 2,107 2,230 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. MIDDLE SCHOOL: Grades 6 - 8 2 Projection Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) P R O J E C T E D Middle School Grade 6-8 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B May 2025 28 Page 461 of 528 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SCHOOL YEAR 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Actual Senior High Permanent Capacity 1 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 Changes to High School Capacity 0000000 Permanent Program Capacity Subtotal 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 10,097 Portables Interim Capacity 1 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 TOTAL CAPACITY 1 10,705 10,705 10,705 10,705 10,705 10,705 10,705 ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 7,216 7,140 7,005 6,896 6,807 6,728 6,678 SURPLUS (DEFICIT) CAPACITY 3,489 3,565 3,700 3,809 3,898 3,977 4,027 1 Capacity is based on standard of service for programs provided and is updated periodically to reflect program changes. HIGH SCHOOL: Grades 9 - 12 P R O J E C T E D 2 Projection Source: School Facilities Organization, Information and Condition of Schools (Report 1049) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C May 2025 29 Page 462 of 528 VIII - Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2024-2025 through 2030-2031. 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 reasonable 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 2024-2025 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 had come together and joined the Capital 30 Page 463 of 528 Bond Planning Task Force (CBPTF) which included District personnel, design professionals, teaching staff, student voices, as well as community members who collaborated and discussed the District’s needs. The 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 expand. 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. After the failure to pass the 2023 Bond, we re-evaluated needs as well as next steps. Surveys went out to the community to see what people would like to prioritize from the list of needed projects. A new list of projects was presented through the 2023 Levy in November. This levy did not pass. This list was again taken and revised to prioritize projects that are critical to operations and life safety within our buildings. In April we set forth our 2024 Levy to a vote, which also did not receive the needed support to pass. We once again reduced the Levy list to include only emergent needs to critical building operations, and the measure was approved by voters in November of 2024. 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 have advanced opportunities to even out capacity at each site to accommodate our programs, district-wide site capacity, 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. 31 Page 464 of 528 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 2024 32 Page 465 of 528 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 High Schools 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 17. 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 12a / Urban Site - 156th Ave. SE Covington (Wikstrom)2004 12b / Urban Site - SE 256th St. Covington (West of CO)2004 16 Site - 11027 SE Kent-Kangley, WA 98030 2023 Site - 11027 SE Kent-Kangley, WA 98030 0.9 $1,382,696.90 Land included building 16a Site - 11109 SE Kent-Kangley, WA 98030 2023 Site - 11109 SE Kent-Kangley, WA 98030 0.84 $1,744,009.52 Land included building Total Acreage & Cost Total Average Cost / Acre #DIV/0! Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 7 May 202233 Page 466 of 528 IX - Summary of Changes to June 2025 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 2024 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 worked with Educational Data Solutions, LLC to update student generation factors. The updated rates are included in the body of the Plan. 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 2025 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 2025. 34 Page 467 of 528 X - Appendices KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors Include: ITEM Grade /Type FROM TO Increase/ Decrease Comments Student Generation Factor Elem 0.229 0.222 -0.007 Single Family (SF) MS 0.087 0.092 0.005 SH 0.113 0.116 0.003 Total 0.429 0.430 0.001 Student Generation Factor Elem 0.109 0.075 -0.034 Multi-Family (MF) MS 0.037 0.030 -0.007 SH 0.054 0.032 -0.022 Total 0.200 0.137 -0.063 State Funding Assistance Ratios (“State Match”) 52.88% 54.31% 1.43% Per OSPI Website Area Cost Allowance $375.00 $375.00 0.000 Per OSPI Website Link Average Assessed Valuation (AV) SF $594,679 $657,970 63,291 King County AV - Average of Condominiums & Apts. MF $310,811 $320,116 9,305 King County Debt Service Capital Levy Rate / $1000 $1.11 $0.46 ($0.65) Per King Co. Assessor Report General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 3.48% 4.37% 0.89% 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 35 Page 468 of 528 Page 469 of 528 Page 470 of 528 City of Auburn Capital Facilities Element | CFE - 22 Public Education Facilities Auburn’s residential areas are served by a combination of Auburn School District, Dieringer School District, Federal Way Public Schools, and Kent School District. Detailed inventories of school district capital facilities and levels-of-service are contained in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) of each school district. The CFPs of the four school districts serving Auburn residential areas and the associated school impact fees are adopted annually as part of the Annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Locations of schools and school districts within the City of Auburn which are illustrated in the map below. Future Plans To accommodate projected growth, the school districts have noted the following projects in their 2023 2025 Capital Facilities Plans: Auburn School District • Portable Relocation – Opens 20232024-20242025 • Middle School #5 – Opens 2027-2028 Dieringer School District • Comprehensive Building Condition Assessment Study – Summer 2025 • Elementary School #3 – Opens 2027 • North Tapps Middle School Classroom Addition – Opens 2027 Federal Way Public Schools • Illahee Middle School Modernization and Expansion – Opens 2024 • Former DeVry/ES 24 Site Acquisition – Opens 2028 • Portables Expansion – Through 2030 EXHIBIT 2 P/T No. 5 Page 471 of 528 City of Auburn Housing Element | H E - 1 1 Table 1. Housing Need by Income and County County Total Non- PSH 0-30% >30% to 50% >50% to 80% >80% to 100% >100% to 120% >120% Net New Emergency Housing Needs PSH Non- PSH PSH King Supply (2019) 28,049 1,076 237 8,029 8,075 4,427 3,302 2,903 58 Net New Need (2044) 12,000 1,543 812 309 616 1,146 1,299 6,275 2,293 Pierce Supply (2019) 3,963 0 33 134 493 1,141 680 1,482 8 Net New Need (2044) 112 14 20 21 16 7 6 27 7 Total Net New Need (2044) 12,112 1,557 892 832 330 632 1,153 1,235 1,305 6,302 2,300 Source: King County Ordinance 19660, Countywide Planning Policies; Pierce County Ordinance 2023- 22s, Countywide Planning Policies P/T No. 6 Page 472 of 528 City of Auburn Housing Needs and Characteristics Assessment Update | HNA - 36 Figure 34 – Housing Need by Income and County County Total 0-30% >30% to 50% >50% to 80% >80% to 100% >100% to 120% >120% Net New Emergency Housing Needs Non- PSH PSH King Supply (2019) 28,049 1,076 237 8,029 8,075 4,427 3,302 2,903 58 Net New Need (2044) 12,000 1,543 812 309 616 1,146 1,299 6,275 2,293 Pierce Supply (2019) 3,963 0 33 134 493 1,141 680 1,482 8 Net New Need (2044) 112 14 20 21 16 7 6 27 7 Total Net New Need (2044) 12,112 1,557 892 832 330 632 1,153 1,235 1,305 6,302 2,300 Source: King County Ordinance 19660, Countywide Planning Policies; Pierce County Ordinance 2023- 22s, Countywide Planning Policies P/T No. 7 Page 473 of 528 IMAGINE AUBURN CITY OF AUBURNCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED DECEMBER 2015 CORE PLAN P/T No. 8 Page 474 of 528 Contents Core Plan Background & Summary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C1-1 Community Profile & Characteristics � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-1 Community Vision & Values � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C3-1 Policy Elements � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C4-1 GraPhs Graph 1. Top Ten Employers – 2002 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-2 Graph 2. Top Ten Employers – 2011 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-3 Graph 3. Commute Inflows and Outflows � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-5 tables Table 1 – Job Distribution by Employment Category, 1995–2013 � � � � � � �C2-4 Table 2 – Gross and Adjusted Net Acres of Vacant and Redevelopable Land and Capacity by Aggregated Residential Zoning Type � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-6 Table 3 – Gross and Adjusted Net Acres and Capacity of Commercial and Industrial Land Supply (King County, 2012) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-7 Table 4 – Gross and Adjusted Net Acres of Vacant and Redevelopable Land by Residential Zoning Type (Pierce County, 2012) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-7 Table 5 – Gross and Adjusted Net Acres and Capacity of Commercial and Industrial Land Supply (Pierce County, 2012) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-8 Table 6 – City of Auburn 2006–2030 and 2006–2031 Housing Unit and Employment Allocations (King and Pierce Counties) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-8 Table 7 – Job Distribution by Employment Category, 2010–2040 � � � � � � �C2-9 Table 8 – Population and Housing Forecasts, 2010–2035 � � � � � � � � � � � � � �C2-9 Page 475 of 528 s BACKGROUND & SUMMARY CORE PLAN Page 476 of 528 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background .........................C1-1 Executive Summary.........................................C1-2 Regional Context .............................................C1-3 User’s Guide .....................................................C1-4 BACKGROUND & SUMMARY Page 477 of 528 CORE PLANBACKGROUND & SUMMARY C1-1 Core PlanIntroductIon and Background Auburn is in the midst of an exciting stage in its evolution. From the 1850s until the mid-1990s, Auburn transitioned from a railroad and farm- ing community to a small town. Since then, the dynamism brought about by the opportunities and challenges accompanying growth and progress has drastically changed the City. With its annexations during the late 1990s and early 2000s, its overall growth from that time to the present, and its anticipated growth over the next 20 years, Auburn has grown into a mature city of local and regional significance, and con- tinues to grow with an operating budget in ex- cess of a quarter-billion dollars annually. As a result of this ongoing maturation, Auburn has changed from a relatively insulated small town, nestled in the midst of many similar commu- nities surrounding Seattle and Tacoma, into a city with its own complex identity and myriad of dreams and dilemmas. From the time of set- tlement and for 100 years thereafter, one would find it hard to imagine the Auburn of 2035, with a projected 100,000 residents. Auburn’s transition from a small town to a city of regional significance is far from complete. There is much work ahead of us. While we are fortunate to have many strengths and opportu- nities to build upon, we also know that we have work to do in many areas. We must prepare for those future challenges that we know we will face, as well as those that will be presented to us along the way. This Comprehensive Plan es- tablishes a commitment to a future Auburn and lays the foundation for how we will navigate the next 20 years. It accomplishes this by express- ing the following: • Describing a vision for Auburn. • Declaring our commitment to core values . • Setting policies to achieve the vision. • Outlining actions that adhere to core values. A variety of sources shaped this Plan, but the sin- gle greatest influence was the people who live in, work in, and visit Auburn. The process for de- veloping this Plan included input from more than 1,000 citizens, residents, and business owners who shared their opinions, criticisms, ideas, and con- cerns regarding where we are today and where we need to be in the future. The following are the key inputs that shaped this Plan: • In 2014 the City conducted the “Imagine Auburn” visioning exercise, which yielded about 1,000 responses from citizens, res-idents, visitors, and business owners. This effort alone provided a major source of in-fluence for the Plan. • Substantial demographic data were ana-lyzed in order to understand the profile of and identify trends in our community. These data provided significant information for formulating ideas and concepts. • The Auburn Health Impact Assessment and Housing Inventory were focused studies con-ducted to provide enhanced information in important areas. These studies provided di-rect input on how to promote a healthy life-style in Auburn and how to manage the di-verse housing stock in a city that is 124 years old. • The Washington State Growth Management Act, King and Pierce Countywide planning policies, and the Puget Sound Regional Council VISION 2040 are laws and policies under which the City must plan. While these do not define our vision, they do establish the framework within which we must operate. The Comprehensive Plan is a guidance document. At its nucleus are the City’s collective vision and values, which provide a foundation for future direction. The policies and actions will help the mayor, city council, and staff follow the path to our vision, but we must remember that this path is wide and will likely meander a bit. The world around us is constantly changing, so being flexi- ble and open-minded allows us to better face the future challenges that will confront us. Page 478 of 528 City of Auburn Comprehensive pl An C1-2Core PlanExEcutIvE Summary The Auburn of 2035 will be an exciting, vibrant city where businesses want to locate, where people want to live, and that people want to visit. This document constitutes the plan that City leader- ship will utilize to achieve positive outcomes. Reading through the plan may lead to questions about the City’s aspirations and goals. In many ways, Auburn is a “diamond in the rough.” The City’s elected officials, staff members, citizens, and residents overwhelmingly believe that strong leadership with considered planning can lead to Auburn realizing its potential. With two major riv- ers, access to many parks and trails, a solid busi- ness core, a committed government, and a long list of other assets and traits, Auburn has all the right building blocks to achieve great things. We just need to put those building blocks together and commit to carrying out all the things we need to do to get there. We are eager to continue the good work that has already been done, but are even more excited to ascend to a much higher level. You might also wonder how we got to a point of defining a vision or laying out the plan to get there. While many inputs helped guide this process, the vision and resultant plan starts with the people who live here, spend their time working here, and visit. Their feedback provided great insight into our strengths and weaknesses, perceptions, and con- cerns, as well as ideas for what Auburn should be in the future. The following list captures many of the thoughts that they shared: 1. Citizens, residents, and the business community of Auburn share a tremendous pride in community – this is perhaps the most important building block for successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. We are a community that delights in our history, but this sometimes makes it hard to determine a way forward that embraces the new and unknown while honoring the past – we need to overcome this paradox that slows and could continue to slow our progress. 3. Auburn has an extensive inventory of parks, natural areas, and open spaces, as well as arts and recreation opportunities – these are essential components for a healthy community where people want to live, play, and work. 4. Most residents commute to jobs outside of Auburn, while most people who work in Auburn arrive from other locations. We need to explore ways to change this pattern. 5. Auburn has a robust collection of environmental resources. Through a combination of protection, preservation, and education, both people and wildlife can enjoy the healthy natural environment they deserve. 6. We are proud of and find strength in our social, cultural, and ethnic diversity – continuing to further celebrate and leverage our diversity is a necessity. 7. Auburn lacks comprehensive and complete nonmotorized connections to join residential areas with commercial centers, recreational opportunities, and other residential neighborhoods. Addressing this concern will create more opportunities for living a healthy lifestyle, using other modes of transport aside from cars, and building our sense of a connected community. 8. The presence of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (“MIT”) offers a great opportunity for a partnership that would mutually enhance our economic, social, and cultural presence within the community and region. We need to continue to build our relationship with MIT to capitalize on these opportunities. 9. Historic downtown Auburn has maintained a main street that many communities have long since lost and are seeking to recreate – we need to continue our work to make downtown Auburn a destination to visit and a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented location in which to live. 10. Our physical location between Seattle and Tacoma, along the Sound Transit commuter line and at the intersection of SR- 18 and SR-167, provides ideal conditions for ensuring the efficient movement of goods and people. We need to better exploit our locational advantage when working to attract businesses and residents. 11. There is a sentiment that Auburn could be safer – we need to overcome this perception Page 479 of 528 Background & Summary C1-3 Core Planso that Auburn is a more desirable place in which to live, work, and play. 12. Our local school districts and Green River College have high levels of dedication, commitment, and excellence – we need to strengthen our partnerships with these institutions, which are equally passionate about elevating Auburn to a premier community. 13. Auburn has a diverse mix of housing types; however, that does not mean that housing types are appropriately distributed throughout the City. While we have achieved or exceeded our goals for providing a mix of housing, different housing types need to be better dispersed throughout the City while preserving the existing housing stock. 14. Auburn already has a robust and diverse base of businesses, but further diversification is necessary – we need more businesses that generate revenue and jobs that will lead to local spending. 15. Many of Auburn’s streets are deteriorating due to their age, increased traffic volumes (especially from heavy trucks), or from design and construction standards that previous jurisdictions had in place prior to their annexations into the City – we need to sustain revenue streams and allocate resources in a manner that keeps our streets in good condition. 16. Access to healthy food and activities varies greatly throughout the City – this disparity should be equalized in order to ensure that our entire community has the ability to choose to live a healthy lifestyle. 17. We are passionate about the extensive level of social and human services that exists in Auburn, but we also believe that other communities need to follow our example rather than lean on us to provide for those in need. We struggle with how to provide local support within an overall balanced regional approach. 18. As a 124-year-old city, some buildings and areas of Auburn are tired in appearance and function – we need to find ways to help energize the appearance and feel of those areas. The Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision and series of values that are used to address the above themes, by outlining the goals, policies, and actions necessary to build upon our strengths and overcome our weaknesses. rEgIonal contExt Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan advances a sus- tainable approach to growth and future develop- ment. We have incorporated a systems approach to planning and decision-making that is rooted in our stated values. These values seek to create a community with a healthy environment; a strong and diverse economy; a variety of transportation options; and safe, affordable, and healthy hous- ing. And while we define the community we cre- ate, we do so within the contexts of our surround- ing communities and the larger region. VISION 2040 provides a broader vision for the Puget Sound region, emphasizing the need to plan, think, and act in a manner consistent with regional goals and objectives. Regional planning begins by establishing population and growth targets that are divided among various cities and counties. The growth targets outlined in Auburn’s Plan are consistent with the VISION 2040 targets, and the land supply is adequate to meet the de- mand associated with those growth targets. VISION 2040 also sets forth priorities for many areas that span the entire region and extend beyond a single jurisdiction. These include pro- tecting the environment and ecosystems, provid- ing adequate affordable housing to a variety of income levels and households, conserving water and addressing climate change, implementing sustainable development practices, reducing traffic congestion and protecting air quality, cre- ating great communities, and promoting tran- sit-oriented development. Auburn’s Plan embrac- es the ideals of VISION 2040 and includes policies, directives, actions, and measures to ensure that we are doing our part to achieve these regional objectives. Page 480 of 528 City of Auburn Comprehensive pl An C1-4Core PlanuSEr’S guIdE The Comprehensive Plan comprises this Core Plan, a number of Contributing Reports (inputs), and a number of Policy Elements (outputs). The following is an overview of the types of docu- ments included in the plan, how they are used, and their intended audiences: Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan serves as the principal planning and guidance document used by City leadership in its efforts to implement the Community’s vision. It is a document intended to be used and consulted by city council and staff when evaluating city decisions, allocat- ing city resources, reviewing Policy Elements, com- mitting to new City endeavors, and making fiscal decisions. Every discussion and action by the City Council should start and end with the following: “Is this action true to our long-term City vision; does it align with our City values; and is it consistent with our adopted policies?” Contributing reports: Contributing Reports are “inputs” to the Comprehensive Plan. Contributing Reports provide statutory rules or background analysis and data that are used to help develop vision, values, policies, and priorities. Examples of Contributing Reports include the Buildable Lands Analysis, the Imagine Auburn community vision- ing report, the Growth Management Act, and the Health Impact Assessment. These reports are ei- ther prepared by City staff to better understand conditions within Auburn, or furnished by other government agencies that provide statewide or regional planning parameters. Policy elements: Policy Elements are “outputs” of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy Elements provide guidance in specific areas such as land use, hous- ing, transportation, and parks. These elements es- tablish how the city should manage systems and resources today and into the future. With support from City staff, Policy Elements are developed and adopted by the City Council. Once adopted, Policy Elements become a manual for City staff in their implementation efforts to design and con- struct capital projects, develop and maintain city programs, draft development regulations, pursue grant money, and carry out other typical tasks. Policy Elements are the principal planning and guidance documents for City staff. Where conflict or ambiguity exists between a Policy Element and a City regulation, the specific Policy Element will prevail. Where there is con- flict or ambiguity between Policy Elements, and the Policy Elements themselves do not provide enough guidance to resolve the conflict or ambi- guity, the vision, values, and overarching policies of the Comprehensive Plan will be used to arrive at a final decision. Page 481 of 528 COMMUNITY PROFILE & CHARACTERISTICS CORE PLAN s Page 482 of 528 TABLE OF CONTENTS Population Growth ..........................................C2-1 Racial and Ethnic Characteristics ..................C2-1 Household and Income Characteristics ........C2-1 Age Characteristics .........................................C2-1 Resident Labor Force and Employment Characteristics .........................C2-2 Daily Inflow and Outflow: The Auburn Commute ....................................C2-5 Auburn in the Future – Projections of Growth ....................................C2-6 COMMUNITY PROFILE & CHARACTERISTICS Page 483 of 528 CORE PLAN COMMUNITY PROFILE & CHARACTERISTICS C2-1 Core PlanPoPulatIon g rowth As of 2014, Auburn ranked as the 14th-most- populated city within the state of Washington with a population of approximately 76,347. It is located within the two most populous counties in the state (King and Pierce) and is nearly equidistant from the state’s two largest cities, Seattle and Tacoma. Proximity to both of these cities, and its central location within the Puget Sound region, has helped Auburn grow at a steady rate. Auburn’s growth can be characterized as occurring during three eras. The 57-year settlement era of 1893 to 1950 saw the City grow in size to 6,500 residents. The 40-year absorption era of 1950 to 1990 saw substantial infill development, with the City’s population increasing at a rate of about 6,500 residents per decade and growing to 33,000 residents. Since 1990, the City has been in an expansion era that has seen the significant annexations of three areas that have substantial development potential. r acIal and EthnIc charactErIStIcS Auburn has seen significant demographic changes over the last decade. According to the 2010 US Census, approximately 70.5% of Auburn’s population is white/non-Hispanic; data from the 2000 Census reported the white population in Auburn at 79%. In 1990, the white population made up roughly 90% of the total. What this means is that Auburn grew significantly more diverse over that 25-year period. Estimates for 2014 place the overall white population at just under 50,000 (49,238). This means that approximately 68.5% of Auburn’s population is white. If this trend continues, Auburn will continue to become increasingly racially diverse. houSEhold and IncomE charactErIStIcS The year 2000 Census indicated that Auburn had 16,108 households, a number that has catapulted since then. The current number of households (based on 2013 figures) has increased to 27,427. This significant increase is due to substantial development activity over the past 15 or so years, as well as significant annexations. Homeownership in Auburn is just under 60 percent, about 3.5 points lower than the Washington state average. The lower percentage of homeownership corresponds to Auburn’s other below-Washington averages in per capita income, median household income, and graduation rate, as well as its higher-than-average percentage of persons living under the poverty level. Auburn’s median household income is $55,483, compared with the Washington average of $59,478, a nearly $4,000 difference indicating Auburn’s relatively lower earning power. agE charactErIStIcS Auburn is statistically younger than the state of Washington overall. The median age in Washington is 37 years, while the median age in Auburn is 35.5, up from 34.1 in 2000. While the median age has increased, the youth population remains significant. Of Auburn’s total population, 7.4% are under 5 years of age and 25.9% are under the age of 18, and both percentages are significantly higher than state averages. The percentage of people over the age of 65 is 10.2%, similar to the state of Washington figure of 12.3%. Demographic data suggest a need for services and programming that address the needs of children and families, while continuing to focus on the needs of more mature adults and single people of all ages. Page 484 of 528 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn C2-2Core PlanrESIdEnt l aBor ForcE and EmPloymEnt charactErIStIcS Since its population boom during the construc- tion of railroad freight terminals at the start of the 20th century, Auburn has in many respects remained a “blue collar” community. This trend is declining, however, as local economies in Wash- ington diversify. In 1990, one out of four Auburn residents worked in the manufacturing industry. Between 1990 and 2000, Auburn lost 1,000, or ap- proximately one-fourth, of these manufacturing jobs. Such a loss of manufacturing jobs has been a nationwide trend as companies relocate to oth- er cities and states based on tax savings, and many other companies increasingly outsource jobs overseas. In this ever-changing landscape, Graph 1. Top Ten employers – 2002 AUBURN SC H O OL DISTRICT OTHERMUCKLESHOOT TRIBAL ENTERPRISES EMERAL D D O W N S RACETR A C K GREE N R I V E R C O L L E G E SO C I A L S E C U R I T Y G S A A RM C FAACITY OF AUBURNTHE BOEING COMPANYFRED MEYER The Boeing Company Green River College Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) City of Auburn Auburn School District Emerald Downs Racetrack Auburn Regional Medical Center (ARMC) Fred Meyer Muckleshoot Tribal Enterprises Social Security Administration General Services Administration (GSA) Other Page 485 of 528 communIty ProFIlE & charactErIStIcS C2-3 Core Planjobs continue to mi- grate into different sectors. This slow shift is evidenced by the reduced impact of the largest employers in Auburn, which no longer dominate the job market because small- and medi- um-sized companies are creating more jobs. As provided in Auburn's 2011 Com- prehensive Annual Financial Report, in 2002 the top ten em- ployers accounted for nearly 85% of total city employment. In 2011, these same employers, which re- mained in the top ten, accounted for just 55% of the total em- ployment base. This illustrates that the total number of jobs has significantly in- creased, and that the number of job provid- ers (employers) has also increased. Generally, workers are tasked with finding jobs having the most lucrative compensation. Education and specialized skills typically play large roles in procuring high-paying available jobs. An educated population encourages companies to relocate to Auburn based on the available local workforce. While Auburn’s high school graduation rate of 87.5% is fairly close to the state average of 90%, the college graduation rate is more than 9 points lower than the state average. As mentioned previously, the median and per capita incomes are significantly lower than state averages. These data suggest that there may be an undermatching of skills between regional employer expectations and the available workforce in Auburn. Graph 2. Top Ten employers – 2011 MUCKLESHOOT TRIBAL ENTERPRISESTHE BOEING COMPANYOUTLET COLLECTION AUBURN S C H O O L DISTRIC T GREE N R I V E R C O L L E G E MU L T I C A R E EM E R A L D D OW N S S A F EW A Y SOC IA L SE CUR ITY GSAOTHERFAA The Boeing Company Outlet Collection Emerald Downs Racetrack Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Other Muckleshoot Tribal Enterprises Green River College (GRC) Safeway General Services Administration (GSA) Auburn School District (ASD) Auburn Multicare Social Security Administration Zones, Inc.ZONES, INC . Page 486 of 528 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn C2-4Core PlanAccording to the Puget Sound Regional Council and the US Department of Labor, approximately 41,000 jobs are located in Auburn. This number has grown steadily since 2010, but it is important to note that the number of jobs must be considered with an understanding of the massive manufacturing job losses and very slow national economic recovery since the economic downturn in 2008. Comparing the market sector distribution and number of jobs for the periods 1995, 2000, 2010, and 2013, Auburn’s job market has experienced some changes over the last 20 years. The Auburn job market also reflects nationwide trends based on the overall health of the economy, the decline of manufacturing, and an increasing reliance on service job categories. Table 1 – Job Distribution by employment Category, 1995–2013 1995 2000 2010 2013 Construction and Resources 1,693 3,051 2,148 2,636 Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 760 567 757 784 Manufacturing 11,530 12,241 7,521 8,680 Retail 3,275 5,152 4,705 5,392 Services 6,241 11,437 10,496 10,700 Trade/Transportation/Utilities 2,716 3,619 5,475 6,626 Government 1,166 1,332 3,457 3,166 Education 1,282 1,344 2,810 2,981 ToTal 28,663 38,742 37,370 40,964 Some important notes can be made by category: • Government and education have grown with the increasing population of Auburn, the need to provide increased and better services to residents, and the success of Green River College. • The number of trade, transportation, and utilities jobs has more than doubled since 1995 as Auburn has grown. • The construction sector has nearly doubled since 1995. This is due in large part to significant development in Auburn, such as Lakeland Hills. The dip in 2010 reflects the economic downturn that began in 2008. • The retail and services sectors are significantly more important to Auburn’s current job outlook than they were in 1995. Services has increased largely because of the national trend away from manufacturing and toward service-based jobs. • Finance, insurance, and real estate employment has held steady over the last 20 years. Page 487 of 528 communIty ProFIlE & charactErIStIcS C2-5 Core PlanGraph 3. Commute Inflows and outflows daIly InFlow and outFlow: thE auBurn commutE In 2013, the average daily commute from Auburn was 29 minutes, an increase since 2000. A more interesting issue than the length of the average commute is the number of people commuting from and to Auburn. Both numbers are far greater than the number of people who live and work in Auburn. The number of Auburn residents who also work in Auburn has remained virtually unchanged, at just over 4,000 residents, for the past decade. The most promising data from the inflow and outflow indicate that a significant increase in the number of people commuting to Auburn for work. This influx of nonresidents provides another pool of people who engage with the services, features,and resources in the City. Page 488 of 528 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn C2-6Core PlanauBurn In thE FuturE – ProjEctIonS oF g rowth The Puget Sound Regional Council, King County, Pierce County, and the City of Auburn need to understand growth projections, patterns,and implications for a 20- to 30-year planning horizon. Based on various models and analyses, available developable land, population data, and expected economic trends, jurisdictions can better understand industrial, commercial, and residential land supply and capacity. This understanding can then be used to extrapolate future available housing units and employment growth. The primary data tools for planning for future growth are county-prepared buildable lands analyses. These reports establish the parameters by which cities and counties jointly plan for both residential and job growth. As a two-county city, the City of Auburn coordinates with both King and Pierce Counties in determining growth projections, land supply, and the adequacy of urban services needed to serve future growth. The following description and data are taken from King County and Pierce County Buildable Lands analyses. 2014 King County Buildable Lands Analysis After deducting for constraints, future rights-of- way, and public-purpose needs, and applying a market factor, the King County Buildable Lands Analysis shows that Auburn has approximately 2,150.5 adjusted net acres of vacant and redevelopable residentially zoned land available for the planning period through 2031. As seen in Table 2, the majority of available land for development is zoned for single-family residential purposes. Based on the residential land supply analysis and historical densities, an estimate of housing unit capacity was developed. Table 2 identifies the estimated capacity (in housing units) in King County by aggregated zoning type. This estimate shows a capacity of approximately 14,597 housing units in the King County portion of the City through 2031. Table 2 – Gross and adjusted net acres of Vacant and redevelopable land and Capacity by aggregated residential Zoning Type Gross acres adjusted net acres (1)net Capacity (Housing units) Single-Family – Vacant 2,018.0 1,050.1 3,477 Single-Family – redevelopable 1,507.0 871.1 3,108 Multifamily – Vacant 120 85.4 1,156 Multifamily – redevelopable 50.0 36.3 460 Multifamily/ Mixed-Use – Vacant 16 12.9 1,822 Multifamily/ Mixed-Use – redevelopable 117.2 94.7 4,574 ToTal 3,828.2 2,150.5 14,597 1. “Adjusted Net Acres” represents land available for development after critical areas, anticipated rights-of-way and public purpose needs, and a market factor have been taken into account. Page 489 of 528 communIty ProFIlE & charactErIStIcS C2-7 Core PlanCommercial and industrial square footage availabilities were also estimated. The last column in Table 3 identifies the gross and adjusted net vacant and redevelopable land by commercial and industrial land use from the King County Buildable Lands Analysis. Employment capacity was developed by applying a floor-area-per- employee ratio. Table 3 – Gross and adjusted net acres and Capacity of Commercial and Industrial land Supply (King County, 2012) Gross acres adjusted net acres (1) net Capacity (employment) Commercial Vacant/redevelopable 501.5 412.4 7,094 Mixed-Use Vacant/redevelopable 133.2 107.6 2,525 Industrial Vacant/redevelopable 533.0 354.9 9,417 ToTal 1,167.7 874.9 19,036 1. “Adjusted Net Acres” represents land after critical areas, future anticipated streets, land for public purposes and market factor have been considered. Pierce County Buildable Lands Analysis Table 4 identifies the estimated capacity (in housing units) in Pierce County by the zoning type. This estimate shows a capacity of approximately 922 housing units in the Pierce County portion of the City exists to the year 2030. Table 4 – Gross and adjusted net acres of Vacant and redevelopable land by residential Zoning Type (Pierce County, 2012) Grossacres adjusted net acres (1)net Capacity (Housing units) r5, residential 39.24 30.38 323 TV, Terrace View 3.17 1.34 86 lakeland Hills South PUD 52.94 N/A 513 ToTal 95.35 31.72 922 1. “Adjusted Net Acres” represents land available for development after critical areas, anticipated rights-of-way, public-purpose land needs, and a market factor have been taken into account. Page 490 of 528 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn C2-8Core PlanThe Pierce County Buildable Lands analysis establishes an employment growth target of 239 additional jobs in 2030. This estimate was based on the likely employment generated by the commercial parcels located within Lakeland Hills South PUD and other vacant commercial land along A St. SE. Table 5 – Gross and adjusted net acres and Capacity of Commercial and Industrial land Supply (Pierce County, 2012) Gross acres adjusted netacres (1)net Capacity (employment) C-1 15.19 14.89 288 Planned Unit Development 3.76 3.69 306 ToTal 18.79 18.58 595 1. “Adjusted Net Acres” represents land after critical areas, future anticipated streets, land for public purposes and market factor have been considered. Column totals may not equal the sum of row entries due to rounding. Combined King County and Pierce County Projections and Allocations Table 6 provides a citywide summary of housing unit and employment allocations. While the calculations and categories used previously to identify market sectors and job counts differ, Table 7 illustrates the tremendous job growth expected over the next 25 years. The total number of jobs in Auburn is projected to increase by 55% through 2040. The largest total gain will be in the construction sector. Other significant gains are in the FIRE/services, education, and retail/food services sectors. Table 6 – City of auburn 2006–2030 and 2006–2031 Housing Unit and employment allocations (King and Pierce Counties) Housing Units employment King County 9,004 18,600 Pierce County 3,634 834 ToTal 12,638 19,434 Page 491 of 528 communIty ProFIlE & charactErIStIcS C2-9 Core PlanTable 7 – Job Distribution by employment Category, 2010–2040 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010–2040 Change Construction and resources 2,488 4,747 4,704 5,822 134% FIre/Services 12,398 15,935 18,734 22,213 79.2% Manufacturing/Trade/Transportation/Utilities 13,366 13,661 14,512 15,731 17.7% retail/Food Services 7,218 9,084 10,396 12,323 70.7% Government 2,243 1,812 1,841 1,883 -16.1% education 2,137 3,143 3,466 3,815 78.5% ToTal 39,883 8,023 3,847 2,003 55.5% Table 8 illustrates that the City will have a housing stock of around 37,000 units by 2030–2031, nearly 10,000 more than in 2010. The addition of 20,000 more people would require this level of increase based on the buildable lands population target, current zoning, and expected densities. Auburn is more than prepared to accommodate this large influx of new housing. Auburn is also prepared to consider pathways to meet the housing demand with less land by using higher densities and reconsidering zoning implementation and rules. Table 8 – Population and Housing Forecasts, 2010–2035 estimate Forecast 2010 2025 2030 2031 2035 Housing Units 27,827 34,582 36,827 37,276 39,072 Total Households 26,051 33,031 35,351 35,815 37,671 Household Population 69,491 84,126 88,996 89,970 93,866 ToTal PoPUlaTIon 70,159 84,948 89,868 90,852 94,788 Page 492 of 528 COMMUNITY VISION & VALUES CORE PLAN Page 493 of 528 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background ........................C3-1 Character .........................................................C3-1 Wellness ...........................................................C3-2 Service .............................................................C3-3 Economy ..........................................................C3-4 Celebration .....................................................C3-5 Environment ....................................................C3-5 Sustainability ..................................................C3-6 COMMUNITY VISION & VALUES Page 494 of 528 CORE PLAN COMMUNITY VISION & VALUES C3-1 CORE PLANIntroductIon and Background The Auburn of 2035 is a city of connected and cherished places, from a vibrant downtown to quiet open spaces and everything in between, where a community of healthy, diverse, and en- gaged people live, work, visit, and thrive. In 2014, substantial time and energy was ded- icated to developing a vision for the Auburn of 2035. Discussions occurred in the community through the Imagine Auburn visioning process and also among City Council members. Many themes and messages surfaced about who we are and what we aspire to become. In the words of the City Council, Auburn in 2035 will be a “premier community with vibrant opportunities.” Participants of Imagine Auburn added their ideas about what this meant to them. The vision that emerged is encapsulated in the following seven value statements: 1. Character: Developing and preserving at-tractive and interesting places where people want to be. 2. Wellness: Promoting community-wide health and safety wellness. 3. Service: Providing transparent government service. 4. economy: Encouraging a diverse and thriving marketplace for consumers and businesses. 5. Celebration: Celebrating our diverse cul-tures, heritage, and community. 6. environment: Stewarding our environment. 7. Sustainability: Creating a sustainable future for our community. The Comprehensive Plan is rooted in these val- ues, and they form a collective vision. But these values do not end with the adoption of this Plan. They form the context for discussing, debating, acting on, prioritizing, and leading our commu- nity to the vision we have created in this Plan. Identifying values and creating a description of what each value looks like, what it means, and how it will happen establishes a basis for eval- uating future City policies, regulations, actions, investments, budget priorities, grant-seeking priorities, and other community decisions. In ad- dition, the seven values underscore the entirety of the Comprehensive Plan and its implementa- tion, which includes the development of capital improvement, transportation, and parks, recre- ation, and open space plans, and the implemen- tation of regulations and standards. These val- ues are the core of how we make choices. Character We will create and maintain high-quality neighborhoods, places, and spaces. What it will look like: • Active gathering spaces such as parks, pla- zas, cafes, concert venues, festivals, and markets will be distributed throughout the City. These spaces will be engaging and filled with people interacting irrespective of culture, age, or income level. • Buildings, landscaping, and outdoor spaces will be attractive, interesting, well designed, and well maintained. • Buildings will be well maintained and reha- bilitated, and new buildings will complement existing historic resources. Page 495 of 528 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn C3-2CORE PLAN• Neighborhoods will be socially and physically connected and include features and develop- ment patterns that encourage us to interact. • The community will have embraced the con- cept of “One Auburn” while capitalizing on the unique local needs and identities of individual neighborhoods and districts. What it means: • Auburn has a reputation for high-quality and engaging spaces, an array of performing arts programs, wonderful public arts, extensive retail and restaurant options, and a variety of community-led activities. Auburn is a destina- tion locale where citizens and residents enjoy spending time, that visitors look forward to re- turning to, and where merchants want to stay. • Community programs and physical connec- tions bring the City together. • Residents and visitors have a wide range of options for getting to and from Auburn, as well as travel alternatives within the City. How it will happen: • By implementing investments and branding strategies that recognize and reinforce indi- vidual identities for the City and each of its neighborhoods • By looking for opportunities to keep Auburn attractive, safe, interesting, and fun • By ensuring that all new construction and re- development projects incorporate amenities that promote human interaction, further con- nect the community, and create people-cen- tric land uses. At the same time, property rights will be protected through due process, reasonable implementation of regulations, and careful consideration of the impacts on existing development The City is committed to diversity and togeth- erness through innovative public space. Public space will support dynamic businesses and events by being walkable and connected. We be- lieve that if we are forward-thinking, embracing of technology, supportive of arts, and advocates for safety, we will have places that are cohesive, accessible, and interesting. Wellness We will build and maintain an environment that promotes public safety and healthy lifestyle options. What it will look like: • Multiple recreation options and nearby trails, parks, activities, and events will be readily ac- cessible to the entire community. • A safe and inviting atmosphere for all will be provided throughout Auburn. • A variety of healthy food options will be physi- cally and economically accessible to all mem- bers of the Auburn community. • Housing stock will be maintained and moni- tored to limit the presence of declining, unsafe neighborhoods. • Risk to life and property from hazards will be minimized. • Public infrastructure will be well maintained. What it means: • More outdoor private and public amenities should be offered to give people recreation options and safe passage throughout the community. • Fresh, local, and healthy food options should be available to all members of the community. • Housing, neighborhoods, and spaces are held to a high standard. • More community health resources will be available in more places, for more people. • The public perception and reality will be that Auburn is a safe place. Page 496 of 528 communIty vISIon & valuES C3-3 CORE PLANHow it will happen: • By applying sound environmental design, im- plementing housing and neighborhood main- tenance standards, building and/or financing infrastructure that connects the community, and investing in recreational amenities and safety features • By promoting and supporting programs at businesses, nonprofits, and public agencies that provide healthy food and lifestyle options • By proactively planning and preparing the City for unanticipated natural events and by implementing regulatory requirements that mitigate exposure to natural hazards • By proactively planning and preparing the City to mitigate for and adapt to climate change and its associated effects • By developing programs that provide tech- nical and/or financial assistance to ensure quality development and improve substan- dard housing, neighborhoods, and spaces • By budgeting appropriately to maintain City services that provide direct benefits to public safety, housing, neighborhoods, and commu- nity health and wellness • By connecting healthcare and health resource providers with all populations of the City Enhanced quality of life through safe, walkable neighborhood design, lighting, and access to parks, grocery stores, schools, medical ser- vices, and community centers should be avail- able to all Auburn residents. Implementation of strategic partnerships with the medical community and regional recreation entities should ensure opportunities for a healthy life- style for all people, whether youth or senior, rich or poor. As the City evolves and the com- munity changes, police, fire, maintenance, and volunteer services will continue to be essential in ensuring that Auburn grows together. Service We will be an efficient, approachable, and responsive City government. What it will look like: • In the long-term interest of the City’s taxpay- ers and ratepayers, the City will construct and operate high-quality infrastructure. • The City will have a transparent, responsive, and competent government and staff that will be proactive, accessible, and approachable. • Residents and businesses will have equal ac- cess to and be highly engaged with City offi- cials and staff. • Residents and businesses will be highly en- gaged through volunteer service. What it means: • Infrastructure assets that have long lives, re- quire fiscally sound and environmentally ap- propriate upkeep, conform to uniform stand- ards, and are in the best interests of taxpayers and ratepayers • Multiple avenues of communication • Government processes and services that are available to all segments of the population, through multiple mediums and convenient means How it will happen: • By continuing to refine and enforce standards that ensure that infrastructure assets added to the City system are of the highest quality • By utilizing existing and emerging technolo- gies to better communicate, interact with, and make available the full range of programs and services to all populations Page 497 of 528 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn C3-4CORE PLAN• By developing and implementing new, and supporting existing, resident engagement methods including a resident civics academy, community and business roundtables, and enhanced social media communications • By capitalizing on partnerships with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, businesses, develop- ers, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, tran- sit agencies, school districts, Green River College, and other governmental agencies • By reflecting the City’s ethnic and cultural di- versity within City staff through proactive and inclusive hiring practices and retention policies The City will be judicious with the resources given to it by its residents and businesses, and efficient in managing the budget and resulting services. In order to streamline our business practices, the City will be forward-thinking, resourceful, inno- vative, responsive, informed, aware, and con- siderate of long-term goals and results. The City, along with our engaged volunteer, philanthropic, and business communities, will strive to advance social, fiscal, technological, and infrastructural health. economy We will provide a diverse and vibrant local economy with employment, retail, and en-tertainment opportunities for residents and a growing marketplace for local and regional businesses. What it will look like: • There will be a range of retail, industrial, manufacturing, and service businesses that start, grow, and expand in an environment conducive to success and corporate commu- nity participation. • A wide complement of retail, service, and din- ing options will cater to local needs, attract visitors, and encourage consistent patronage of local businesses. • There will be a robust marketplace where people can – and want to – live, work, and play in Auburn. What it means: • Businesses will stay and grow in Auburn, while businesses from other cities, regions, and states will be attracted to locate and invest here. • Investments in the physical amenities and environment that attract people to live here, which includes having attractive, resi- dent-serving businesses. • People and goods that move safely and effi- ciently throughout the City. • Increases in sales tax and property tax reve- nues for the City through targeted economic development and recruitment efforts. • Targeted employment recruitment to enhance workforce diversity. How it will happen: • By implementing economic development strategies that focus on investments in our community • By developing and implementing an econom- ic development strategic plan to guide poli- cy-making and financial investment decisions • By facilitating development and attracting businesses that capitalize on the City’s regional economic amenities, including, but not limited to those of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • By making purposeful and strategic invest- ments in public infrastructure and amenities that further promote the City as an attractive place in which to invest and do business • By maintaining a City quality of service that provides the business community with certain- ty, support, and proactive decision-making The City will promote sustainable and diverse in- dustries through multiple means of moving peo- ple and goods, and infrastructure that supports Page 498 of 528 communIty vISIon & valuES C3-5 CORE PLANthat movement. The City will also develop policies that encourage the siting of businesses that share mutual benefits, a healthy local and regional marketplace, innovative industries, and environ- mentally responsible development patterns that foster a balanced, flexible, and resilient economy. Celebration We will celebrate diversity and come to-gether to teach, learn, and have fun. What it will look like: • Auburn will have a thriving and expanding arts-and-culture community. • There will be events, amenities, and attrac- tions that draw people to congregate and socialize. • The community is inclusive and proud of its history and the social, ethnic, economic, and cultural diversity in the people who live, work, and play in Auburn. What it means: • People from all parts of Auburn are en- gaging in both citywide and neighborhood initiatives. • Auburn’s future is shaped by a broader demo- graphic cross section of its citizenry, residents, and business community. • Event programming ensures opportunities for neighborhoods and cultures to celebrate their identities. How it will happen: • By developing physical and social infrastruc- ture that encourages and enables more peo- ple to practice and showcase their art • By finding ways to entice new and expanded participation through strategic event planning • By utilizing technology to find new audiences and increase the amount and quality of infor- mation distributed • By having a diverse cross section of property owners, business owners, nonprofits, govern- ments (including tribal), faith-based organi- zations, and others who discuss Auburn’s fu- ture and take actions to make it their premier community One of the things that makes Auburn special is our diversity; different people have pride in their cul- tures, while respecting the differences in others. This variety adds strength and style to our places and spaces. These distinctive places, while often reverential of a specific culture, feel open and in- viting because they provide room for everyone environment We will protect the natural environment, preserve open space, and create safe and appropriate access. What it will look like: • Residents and visitors will enjoy open spac- es and environmentally sensitive areas, while promoting the protection of these areas and appreciating their importance and beauty. • The built environment will respect the natural landscape in a way that protects ecosystem function. • Natural resource protection will be support- ed and celebrated by City leadership and the community. Page 499 of 528 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn C3-6CORE PLANWhat it means: • Accessible open spaces allow people to con- nect with the natural environment. • Impacts to natural resources from new devel- opment are managed, showing consideration for their sensitivity and importance. • The City proactively implements fiscally pru- dent policies and procedures based on best practices and available science to mitigate and adapt to the present and projected future effects of climate change. • Sensitive environmental sites are designated and managed as community environmental services. How it will happen: • By continuing the application of regulatory tools as an important part of environmental protection – in order to ensure that new de- velopment, redevelopment, land manage- ment, and property use do not degrade the environment • By identifying particularly sensitive properties for protection through purchase, easement acquisition, or other means • By seeking out opportunities on public and private property for the restoration or en- hancement of existing sensitive areas • By City leaders and staff placing significant emphasis on policies and financial invest- ments that protect our natural resources • By continued coordination with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe for the identification and protection of sensitive areas and natural resources that are important to both the Tribe and the City • The City will protect and preserve our envi- ronmental resources and heritage through responsible and balanced policies and part- nerships. Auburn residents will benefit from environmental amenities such as parks and urban trails that enable walking and biking throughout our City. The City’s policies will in- corporate best practices and creative means to balance the current challenges of environ- mentally sensitive areas with property rights. Sustainability We will balance natural resource protec- tions, economic prosperity, and cultural vibrancy in order to build a thriving and long-lasting community. What it will look like: • Natural resource protections, economic pros- perity, and cultural vibrancy will be contin- uously and conscientiously balanced in City policy and financial decisions. • The community will be educated, equitable, and prosperous. • The City and community’s collective actions will consider future residents and the healthy development of Auburn. • Auburn is a resilient community. Its neighborhoods, infrastructure, and economy thrive and remain healthy in the face of global climate change and its associated effects. • Cultural diversity will be supported and strengthened through the City’s policies, fi- nancial practices, and policy implementation actions. What it means: • Citizens, residents, business owners, govern- ment, nonprofits, and a development com- munity that promote and implement practices that contribute to an environmentally respon- sible Auburn. • City leaders and staff who are committed to implementation of policies that consider both short-term and long-term economic, social, and environmental conditions and effects. Page 500 of 528 communIty vISIon & valuES C3-7 CORE PLAN• The City will have developed and implement- ed action plans that identify and achieve sustainability and climate change goals and objectives. How it will happen: • By City leaders adopting sustainability in its broadest meaning as a core value and func- tion of Auburn’s delivery of local government services • By City leaders continually and consciously creating policies, actions, and strategies that reflect the community’s values • By inviting citizens, residents, and businesses to participate in the development and imple- mentation of Auburn’s sustainability strate- gies, and challenging them to embrace sus- tainability in their individual and collective actions To ensure a healthy Auburn for future genera- tions, we must consider the long-lasting effects of our actions on community health, economic viability, the environment, and issues of equity. This means embracing change through inclu- sivity and the balancing of current and future needs. Page 501 of 528 POLICY ELEMENTS CORE PLAN s Page 502 of 528 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background ........................C4-1 Land Use ...........................................................C4-1 Map 1.2: Districts, Special Planning Areas .......................C4-4 Housing............................................................C4-7 Capital Facilities ...........................................C4-10 Private Utilities ...............................................C4-12 Transportation ..............................................C4-14 Economic Development ...............................C4-16 Parks, Recreation & Open Space .................C4-17 POLICY ELEMENTS Page 503 of 528 CORE PLAN POLICY ELEMENTS C4-1 CORE PLANIntroductIon and Background Policy elements in the Comprehensive Plan pro- vide a finer level of detail for different subject areas. Policy elements are an extension of the Core Plan and are designed to implement the broad goals, policies, and actions contained herein. Furthermore, the policy elements reflect the vision and values enumerated in the Core Plan. Specific policy elements are the following: land Use Housing Capital Facilities Private Utilities Transportation economic Development Parks, recreation & open Space In this section, each policy element is identified and described. The Core Plan provides the foun- dation upon which each policy element is built. Broad goals that relate to each value, and gen- eral policies and actions that will guide us to our vision of Auburn in 2035, are also included. l and uSE Goals 1. Character : Buildings and developments are planned and constructed using innovative architectural and site layout techniques that emphasize social interaction and safety. 2. Wellness: Residential, commercial, and recreational areas of the City are joined by a system of trails and paths to lessen reliance upon the use of vehicles. 3. Service : Residents are aware of the City’s vision, have access to policies and information, and feel that they have a voice in the outcome of future land use proposals. 4. Economy : A robust mix of uses and options makes living, working, and shopping in Auburn desirable. 5. Celebration: Neighborhoods and districts have been identified and are distinguishable through the use of signs, marketing materials, and subarea plans. 6. Environment : Our rivers, streams, wetlands, habitats, and other natural resources are identified, preserved, and protected for future generations. 7. Sustainability : Land use activities and developments incorporate low-impact development, energy efficient buildings, crime prevention through environmental design and other sustainable development practices. Description The Land Use Element is the focal element of the Core Plan, and is supported by all other elements of the Plan. It illustrates where the communi- ty should or should not develop, the anticipated scale and intensity of development, and how var- ious land uses relate to each other. The Land Use Element lays the foundation for what the com- munity will look like, how it will change and grow, and where different types of land activities will be established. Auburn’s overall existing land use pattern is checkered, somewhat random, and disconnected. Much of this is due to the manner in which Auburn expanded over the last 20 years. The annexa- tion of Lakeland Hills absorbed a community with wide landscaped thoroughfares, contemporary architecture, and a more affluent demographic. The West Hill and Lea Hill annexations brought relatively rural lands with a wide mix of residen- tial densities and rural levels of infrastructure, whose residents feel a stronger attachment to the commercial centers located outside of Auburn. To the southeast, Auburn transitions into a commu- nity with an entirely different character. The area along Auburn Way South passes back and forth Page 504 of 528 C4-2 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn CORE PLANbetween the City of Auburn and the Muckleshoot Reservation. To the southwest and north, Auburn is a mix of autocentric commercial corridors, light industrial/warehousing buildings, and aging sin- gle-family homes. Historic downtown Auburn has a more urban appearance with a traditional main street, regional transit center, and vast opportu- nity to become a vibrant and walkable city center. The existing land use pattern is also greatly in- fluenced by the presence of major highways, rail lines, physical land forms, and natural fea- tures. The Green River, White River, Highway 18, Highway 167, bluffs of West Hill, slopes of Lea Hill, and Burlington Northern and Union Pacific rail lines provide both opportunities and barriers. They serve as landmarks when identifying neigh- borhoods, obstacles for connecting the com- munity, preservation corridors, and marketing features. There are eight districts within the City, each of which has its own unique character and identity. Those districts are described below and depicted on the Districts Map (Map 1.2) on page C4-4. lea Hill: Lea Hill is bound by the Green River, Highway 18, S. 277th St., and Kent. Much of this area was annexed into Auburn in 2008. It includes Green River College, a relatively small commercial center, a golf course, several schools, and a mix of low-density rural uses intermixed with traditional suburban residential developments. During the Imagine Auburn visioning exercise, Lea Hill resi- dents indicated that they desire more parks and trails, access to more neighborhood-scale busi- nesses, and safer neighborhoods. Lea Hill res- idents have a stronger connection to Kent and Covington due to a perception and a reality that commercial services are more expansive and convenient at those locations. The Bridges subdi- vision is an island in the middle of Lea Hill that is within the incorporated city limits of Kent. West Hill: West Hill is bound by West Valley Highway, 51st Ave S, and permanently protected agricultural lands. It comprises different scales of residential development and lacks commer- cial services. West Hill residents have a stronger connection to Federal Way due to the perception that commercial services are more expansive and convenient at that location. lakeland Hills: Lakeland Hills is partially within King County and partially within Pierce County. It is bound by West Valley Highway, Kersey Way, the White River, Lake Tapps, and Sumner. The majority of Lakeland Hills consists of a planned unit development with a commercial center and a mix of single-family homes, townhomes, and some apartments. Additional undeveloped areas of Lakeland Hills exist outside the PUD and consist of a mix of traditional residential subdivisions and rural lands. Lakeland Hills residents have a strong association with their own community as well as Bonney Lake and Sumner to the south. Internally, it is a well-connected community where residents have good access to trails and several parks. However, it is not well connected to areas outside of Lakeland Hills. Lakeland Hills has a very limited supply of affordable housing, senior housing, and multifamily housing. Downtown auburn: Downtown Auburn is charac- terized by a traditional main street bisected by major corridors such as M Street, Auburn Way, Auburn Avenue, Division Street, C Street, and the Interurban Trail. It comprises a mix of new and old commercial buildings and uses, several civic buildings and uses, a regional transit center, a re- gional medical center, and Auburn High School. Downtown Auburn is identified in VISION 2040 as a Regional Growth Center that includes a re- gion-serving transit station. It is a goal of both VISION 2040 and this Plan to promote employ- ment and population growth within downtown. Downtown Auburn offers immense opportunity for a walkable mixed-use center with easy access to Sound Transit. Several public spaces are inter- spersed throughout downtown and can be used for celebrations, events, and displays. north auburn: North Auburn is bound by S. 277th St., West Valley Highway, the Green River, and the Downtown Urban Center. The primary cor- ridors of Auburn Way North, Harvey Road, and 15th Street NW/NE are primarily autocentric Page 505 of 528 C4-3 PolIcy ElEmEntS CORE PLANcommercial thoroughfares. West Valley Highway, A Street NE/B Street NW, and 37th Street NW/NE are the City’s principal warehousing and light in- dustrial corridors. I Street NE serves as an alter- native north–south route for a number of residen- tial communities. Significant features in this com- munity include the Auburn Way North auto mall and the Auburn Environmental Park. Interspersed throughout North Auburn are a number of resi- dential communities, most between 40 and 100 years of age, with a few recently developed subdivisions. South auburn: South Auburn is bound by the Downtown Urban Center, West Valley Highway, Algona, the White River, Auburn Way South, and M Street SE. The primary corridors of Auburn Way South, 15th Street SW, and A Street SE are pri- marily autocentric retail and service commercial thoroughfares. West Valley Highway and C Street SW are primarily light industrial and warehous- ing corridors. Significant features in this commu- nity are the Les Gove Community Park campus, the Outlet Collection, Game Farm Park, Boeing, Region 10 headquarters for the federal gov- ernment’s General Services and Social Security Administrations, BNSF’s Rail Yard, as well as the interchange of Highway 18 and Highway 167. During Imagine Auburn, feedback focused pri- marily on the need to address crime and safety. Plateau: Southeast Auburn begins at the base of the hill where Auburn Way South climbs to the Muckleshoot Casino and extends to the Auburn Values Academy. This area is bound by the White River to the south and the Green River and bluffs to the north. Auburn Way South is the primary corridor through this area, which weaves in and out of the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation. While the properties along Auburn Way South are pri- marily autocentric commercial uses, the corridor is flanked by a number of residential communi- ties located immediately behind the business- es. During Imagine Auburn, residents expressed concern over the high volume of traffic through this corridor as visitors travel to the White River Amphitheater just outside of the City. There were additional concerns about traffic during commute hours as people travel south toward Enumclaw. Residents also expressed unease over the ap- pearance of Auburn Way South. Southeast auburn: Southeast Auburn is de- fined on the north by the White River, to the east and south by the City limits, and to the west by Lakeland Hills. Most of Southeast Auburn is char- acterized by low-density residential develop- ment, surface mining activities, and open-space lands with moderate-density residential develop- ment to the west of Kersey Way SE. Categories residential: The Residential land use category will include several residential zoning designa- tions ranging from low-density areas with signif- icant environmental constraints or lacking urban infrastructure, to high-density multifamily desig- nations where the goal is to intensify and densify population. Residential land use designations will comprise a diverse arrangement of multiple den- sities where a pattern of mixed densities is pre- ferred over a single density throughout the zone or neighborhood. This will be accomplished by allowing greater density in exchange for the in- corporation of high-quality and innovative archi- tectural designs, greater neighborhood connec- tivity, compatibility with the natural environment, installation of community amenities, crime pre- vention through environmental design, and tech- niques that ensure compatibility with other uses and communities. Commercial: The Commercial land use catego- ry will include zoning designations that provide a wide range of retail, entertainment, and service uses and activities. Zoning designations within this category will range from autocentric corri- dors to pedestrian and transit-oriented mixed- use districts. When defining zoning boundaries and developing strategies, attention will be given to the appropriateness of the types of uses and activities, the bulk and scale of developments, compatibility with surrounding activities and the environment, accessibility and connectivity, and consistency with the City’s economic develop- ment objectives. Page 506 of 528 dIStr Ic S, SPE c I al PlannIng a r E a S (ma P 1.2)51STAVESS 277TH ST C ST SW8TH ST NE K E R S E Y W A Y S EPEASLEYCANYONRDS 1 0 7 T H A V E S E H A R V E Y R D N E E MAIN STAUBURNAVENE 29TH ST SE 17 TH ST SE SE 281ST ST B ST NW15TH ST NW INDUSTRYDRSWRIVERWALK DR SETERRACEDRNWWMAIN ST ASTNWEASTVALLEYHWYEASTSES 316TH ST 3 7TH ST NE WESTVALLEYHWYNSE 304TH ST 4TH ST SE L A K E T A P P S PKWY SEISTNE SE 312TH ST BOUNDARY BLVD SW ELLINGSON RD SW 15TH ST SW SE 320TH ST 37TH ST NW SE304THW AY16TH STNW LEAHILLR D S E 6TH ST SE 15TH ST NE14TH ST NW 321ST ST S 41ST ST SEDS TNEAU B U R N W AY SWESTVALLEYHWYSAUBURNWAYN3RDSTSWASTNE LAKELANDHI LLSWAYSE132NDAVESE124THAVESER ST SEM ST SEO ST SWM ST NEC ST NW112THAVESEORAVETZRDSEDSTNW104THAVESEEDGEWOOD FEDERAL WAY COVINGTON SUMNER PACIFIC ALGONA PIERCE COUNTY KING COUNTY H WY 1 6 4 HWY18HWY167 Printed Date: 3/16/2017 Map ID:/0 ¼½¾1 MiDistricts (Map 1.2) The information shown and/or distributed is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data. The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy. Green River Green River W hite River White RiverLake Tapps Special Planning Areas LEA HILL NORTH AUBURNWEST HILL DOWNTOWN SOUTH AUBURN PLATEAU SE AUBURN LAKELAND City Limits City LimitsCity LimitsKENT Page 507 of 528 C4-5 PolIcy ElEmEntS CORE PLANIndustrial: The Industrial land use category will include zoning designations that provide an op- portunity for warehousing, distribution, trans- portation, light industrial, storage, and manufac- turing uses. Despite the traditional perception of how these types of uses look and function, zoning designations and development standards will re- inforce that it is equally important for these areas to remain attractive in appearance and be con- nected by adequate motorized, nonmotorized, and multimodal transportation infrastructure. Public/Institutional: The Public and Institutional land use category will include zoning designa- tions for open space, public space, and preserved lands. Properties such as parks, environmentally protected areas, significant utility properties and corridors, and institutional uses will be located within the zoning designations of this land use category. Zoning designations will distinguish be- tween active public parks where people are en- couraged to congregate; passive areas intended to be left undisturbed, and uses such as schools and fire stations. Due to the nature of the uses and activities allowed within this category, zoning boundaries tend to be drawn around individual properties or a small collection of properties. Special Planning areas: Special Planning Areas are districts within the City where a Plan has been developed, adopted, and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. A Special Planning Area may function as an overlay that is supplemental to the underlying zoning designation or as a re- placement of the underlying land use category and zoning designation. Special Planning Areas serve the purpose of seeking to enhance eco- nomic development opportunities, environmental protection, or master-planned developments. overlays: Overlays are supplemental to the un- derlying land use category and zoning desig- nation. Overlays provide supplemental poli- cy language for urban separators, impression corridors, gateways, and potential annexation areas. Overlays are delineated and assigned in extraordinary circumstances that warrant ad- ditional and specialized planning emphasis in a particular area of the City. Policies 1. Require building design standards for multifamily, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures to ensure unique and high- quality architectural forms, shapes, and materials. 2. Require site design standards for multifamily, mixed-use, commercial, and residential development proposals that provide connectivity between and through sites, adequate public gathering spaces, sustainable development practices, and efficient provision of utilities and streets. 3. Engage in strategic planning of identified corridors and gateways that includes an emphasized level of planning, designing, improving, regulating, and maintaining those areas providing the most visible impression of Auburn. 4. Delineate neighborhoods and districts, and develop strategies for creating greater neighborhood identity that reinforces the concept of “One Auburn.” 5. Identify commercial, residential, and recreational destinations that should be joined by paths and trails, with the overall goal of creating a citywide nonmotorized transportation network that is fully connected. 6. Develop downtown Auburn into a safe, walkable community with attractive public plazas and buildings and an engaging streetscape through planning, regulation, and capital improvements. 7. Support and promote efforts that create or expand population and employment opportunities within downtown Auburn. 8. Identify, protect, preserve, and restore Auburn’s environment and natural resources. 9. Implement measures to promote buildings that conserve energy and water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Page 508 of 528 C4-6 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn CORE PLAN10. Develop vehicular gateways that provide access to Auburn into well-signed, attractive, and prominent entry points. 11. Establish sign controls that reduce sign clutter, and strive for a long-term outcome where attractive buildings, thoughtful sign design, and vegetation dominate the landscape rather than poorly placed and designed signs. 12. Establish parking standards that limit the overall number of spaces, allowing for landscaping and site layout to soften the visual impact of large parking lots. 13. Create incentives for good community design by allowing increased height, density, intensity, and other standards. 14. Ensure harmonious transition between land uses and zoning designations through the use of setbacks, vegetation, building orientation, and architectural design. 15. Employ “crime prevention through environmental design” when designing communities and development proposals. 16. Support efforts and programs such as neighborhood watch, national night out, and other activities that bring residents together. land Use action Plan lead Partners Short Term (2016–2018) Update city zoning and development regulations to be consistent with the Core Plan and Land Use Policy Element. CDPW - Community Development City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney Update the city zoning and development regulations to be consistent with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System requirements. CDPW - Community Development CDPW - Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney Implement the recommendations for the Main Street Urban Design Plan. CDPW - Community Development Mayor's Office, CDPW - Public Works, Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Business and Property Owners Prepare and Auburn Way South Corridor Improvement Plan. CDPW - Community Development CDPW - Public Works Mayor's Office, State Department of Transportation, Business, MIT, and Property Owners Identify specific population and employment targets for downtown Auburn and its designation as a Regional Growth Center in VISION 2040. CDPW - Community Development City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, CDPW - Public Works, City Attorney Develop a connectivity strategy that lays the foundation for joining commercial, residential and recreational areas. CDPW - Community Development CDPW - Public Works Mayor's Office, Parks, Utility Providers Update the City's Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Climate Action Plan CDPW - Environmental Services All City Departments Develop a Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan CDPW - Environmental Services All City Departments Continue ongoing support to the City's Neighborhoods program and utilize the program to strengthen relationships between neighborhoods and the City. Mayor’s Office All City Departments Moderate Term (2019–2025) Page 509 of 528 C4-7 PolIcy ElEmEntS CORE PLANIdentify neighborhoods and develop strategies for promoting awareness. CDPW - Community Development Mayor's Office Develop and implement a citywide greenhouse gas reduction plan CDPW - Environmental Services All City Departments In 2021, update Land Use Policy Element. CDPW - Community Development City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor's Office, City Attorney In 2022, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Land Use Policy Element CDPW - Community Development City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor's Office, City Attorney long Term (2026–2035) In 2028, update Land Use Policy Element. CDPW - Community Development City Council, Planing Commission, Mayor's Office, City Attorney In 2029, update cit zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Land Use Policy Element CDPW - Community Development City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor's Office, City Attorney houSIng Goals Character : Trails, public spaces, and outdoor amenities are available that promote social inter- action, safety, and healthy lifestyles. Wellness: Buildings and properties are managed to provide a healthy environment, and the sur- rounding landscape is maintained and feels safe. Service: Social and human services that aid in the provision of housing for those in need are sup- ported by the community and the City. Economy : Residential communities are well de- signed and connected to nonmotorized paths and transit service so that residents can afford to shop and work close to home. Celebration: Residents feel a sense of pride and neighborhood identity while promoting the idea of “One Auburn.” Environment: Housing is integrated into the natu- ral environment and built to conserve energy and water. Sustainability: Adequate and dispersed hous- ing is provided to seniors, veterans, the disabled, those with low incomes, and all other individuals and families. Description A sustainable community offers a range of hous- ing types by providing opportunities for people to choose and afford to live near jobs, shopping, and services. This type of outcome enables short- er trips, the use of alternative transportation, re- duced traffic congestion, improved quality of life, and the economic benefit of residents choosing to spend their income in Auburn. Because we be- lieve there is strength in diversity, it is a priority to support and enable a robust mix of housing types. Dispersed and extensive housing options enable all segments of society to make choices about where they want to live in Auburn rather than feeling forced to reside in other communities. Creating the opportunity to establish or retain housing stock for seniors and populations who have social, health, and human service needs is particularly important. Housing data demon- strate that Auburn already has a wide range of housing types and housing costs. But as a signif- icant portion of the population ages, there will Page 510 of 528 C4-8 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn CORE PLANbe increased demand for senior housing. While Auburn already has a wide range of this hous- ing type, it is not dispersed throughout the City. Specifically, very few senior, affordable, or low- er-income housing options exist in Lakeland Hills and West Hill, and very few senior options are available on Lea Hill, while senior and low-in- come options are concentrated in the Valley. The preservation and renewal of older neighborhoods is an important consideration for retaining a mix of housing types, as is communi- ty character and history. Auburn’s housing stock is older, and much of the rental housing stock is in fair to poor condition. While Auburn is not proactively seeking to eliminate affordable hous- ing, some of this housing stock is realistically at or near the end of its life. There must be a conscious effort to understand and identify which proper- ties are at the end of their useful life and which have renovation potential. Perhaps most impor- tantly, the City must ensure that redevelopment and renovation does not result in the wholesale loss of affordable housing stock. Auburn’s average and median household sizes suggest the need to provide housing for both small and large households. Auburn’s average house- hold size is 2.67, compared with 2.40 and 2.59 in King and Pierce Counties, respectively, while our average family size is 3.22, compared with 3.05 and 3.09 in King and Pierce Counties. At the same time that these average figures are higher than for our neighbors, we also have a higher percent- age of single parents with children. These data strengthen the conclusion that less-traditional housing is needed, including accessory dwelling units, cottage housing, townhouses, apartments, and condominiums. Housing data, national trends, and City experience also lead us to conclude that we will likely see increasing demand for larger houses that can accommodate multigenerational families living together. Policies 1. Design and maintain residential neighborhoods and buildings that support safe and active living that is connected to multimodal transportation options. 2. Support efforts to retain and create more types of housing, with a broader mix of affordability, in all of Auburn’s residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. 3. Promote and provide incentives for mixed- income residential communities. 4. Implement and promote measures that enhance public safety such as neighborhood watch, crime prevention through environmental design, and expanded access to law enforcement resources. 5. Organize actions that influence and create incentives for the retention and maintenance of the existing housing stock and their surrounding environs. 6. Implement strategies that lead to the adequate provision of dispersed affordable housing for moderate-, low- , and very-low-income households and residents in need. 7. Support efforts that are intended to connect human, health, and social services to residents in need. 8. Develop and support programs that help to inform residents of their options, available services, and their right to healthy and affordable housing. 9. Strengthen our partnerships with other agencies and communities to help bolster and steady the supply of housing options and supportive services so that greater equity is achieved in the region. 10. Monitor spatial and quantitative trends in housing supply, affordability, and diversity for Auburn and other King and Pierce County municipalities, and make appropriate policy, regulatory, and programmatic adjustments in response to data findings. 11. Participate in and support efforts to provide solutions for persons experiencing homelessness. Page 511 of 528 C4-9 PolIcy ElEmEntS CORE PLANHousing action Plan lead Partners Short Term (2016–2018) Develop a monitoring program that defines the tools and metrics that describe housing condition, supply, availability, location, crime rates, and housing type. CDPW*Police, King County, Pierce County Evaluate city zoning regulations to ensure that accessory dwelling units, clustered housing, cottage housing, townhouses, etc. are allowed within appropriate residential and mixed-use zones. CDPW City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney Utilize the existing city rental housing business license program and requirements to educate multifamily property owners about Auburn’s goals, policies, and standards, and hold property owners and tenants accountable for adherence to its objectives. CDPW CDPW – Business and Budget, Police, Multifamily Property Owners Continue the City’s housing home repair program, and seek ways to expand its use. Administration Neighborhood Services CDPW Moderate Term (2019–2025) By neighborhood, inventory housing opportunities for seniors, moderate- income, low-income, very-low-income, and persons with disabilities. Develop conclusions that can be used to identify areas in need of specific housing types. CDPW King County, Pierce County Work with transit agencies to determine the multimodal transportation needs, routes, funding, and capital improvements necessary to serve priority areas. CDPW – Public Works Sound Transit, MIT**, Metro, Pierce Transit Develop a joint Muckleshoot/Auburn housing inventory and needs assessment that is used to establish goals and strategies that combine our resources for mutual benefit. CDPW, MIT City Council, Tribal Council, King County, Pierce County In 2021, update Housing Element based upon findings and data collected in the monitoring program.CDPW City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney In 2022, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Housing Element CDPW City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney long Term (2026–2035) In 2028, update Housing Element based upon findings and data collected in the monitoring program.CDPW City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney In 2029, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Housing Element CDPW City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney * CDPW = Community Development and Public Works. ** MIT = Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Page 512 of 528 C4-10 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn CORE PLANcaPItal FacIlItIES Goals Character : Our capital investments have been strategically deployed and have resulted in a tar- geted mix of streets, parks, amenities, and trails that serve the majority of communities. Wellness: Capital facility planning, budgeting, design, and construction incorporate principles and concepts that promote a healthy lifestyle. Service: Revenue sources and budget allocations have been identified that support the construc- tion, provision, and ongoing high-quality mainte- nance of capital facilities and public services. Economy : Our capital facilities are a marketing asset that causes businesses and residents to seek opportunities to locate here. Celebration: We design, construct, and utilize our parks and streets so that we can gather on holidays, listen to music, attend parades, watch movies, view art, observe nature, and enjoy other community events. Environment: Capital improvements are de- signed and constructed in a manner that employs a higher standard than the minimum required under the law. Sustainability : We have fully implemented a cap- ital investment philosophy that values the long- term outcome over the short-term expense. Description Capital facilities are those facilities owned and op- erated by the City. The Capital Facilities Element is made up of a collection of documents that in- clude the City’s 6-Year Capital Facilities Plan, the Comprehensive Water Plan, the Comprehensive Sewer Plan, the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan, and the Capital Facilities Plans for each school district and the Valley Regional Fire Authority. Additionally, although the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element and the Transportation Element are standalone docu- ments, they too are a component of the Capital Facilities Plan because they include both short- and long-term investments in developing and maintaining City-owned facilities. The provision and sizing of facilities such as utilities and streets can influence the rate, timing, and ability for growth and development that occurs within the City. Timed provision of facilities also ensures that new development can be assimilated into the existing community without serious disruptions or adverse impacts. This plan establishes policies to allow development only when and where all public facilities are adequate or can be made adequate, and only when and where such development can be adequately served by public facilities and services consistent with adopted level-of-service standards. Public facilities include public utilities, streets, parks, municipal buildings, fire and police services, technology and communication systems, K–12 school systems, and waste and recycling services. Policies 1. Development will only be permitted where it is determined that concurrency and level-of-service standards have been met. Levels of service shall be established within, or by way of, each capital facilities document and/or policy element. 2. Lands designated for urban growth shall have urban levels of public facilities prior to, or concurrent with, development. If adequate public facilities do not exist and public funds are not committed, proposed development activities must provide such facilities at their own expense. 3. New connections to the City’s sanitary sewer, water, and/or storm drainage systems, shall contribute their fair share toward the construction and/or financing of future or ongoing projects to increase the capacity of those systems. 4. The City will coordinate with other utility purveyors within the City of Auburn to ensure that adequate facilities exist or are planned in underserved areas. Other utility comprehensive plans are not incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan unless a specific City Council action is taken to accept and adopt. 5. The City will coordinate with solid waste providers and King County to ensure the provision of adequate and mandatory waste and recycling service throughout Page 513 of 528 C4-11 PolIcy ElEmEntS CORE PLANAuburn. The City will continue to create, support, and implement efforts that expand recycling and reuse. 6. The City will coordinate with each school district and their capital facility planning efforts. A school district capital facility plan is not incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan unless a specific City Council action is taken to accept or adopt. 7. The City will coordinate with Valley Regional Fire Authority and their capital facility planning efforts. A fire capital facility plan is not incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan unless a specific City Council action is taken to accept or adopt. 8. The City will implement the adopted Auburn Airport Master Plan. 9. The City will seek opportunities to incorporate trails and public spaces as general funding for these allow in its capital facility projects. 10. Sustainable development practices will be incorporated into capital facility project design and construction. The City will support and implement efforts to promote climate action objectives by using low- impact development techniques, energy and water conservation measures, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 11. The siting, design, construction, and improvement of all public facilities shall be done in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Capital Facilities action Plan lead Partners Short Term (2016-2018) Implement 6-year Capital Improvement Plans for water, sewer, and storm drainage. CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW Implement 6-year Capital Improvement Plans for Transportation. CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW Incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) into City Codes and Standards by 1/1/17. CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW Moderate Term (2019-2025) Implement 7 to 10 year Capital Improvement Plans for water, sewer, and storm drainage. CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW Implement longer term Capital Improvement Plans for Transportation. CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2021, update Capital Facilities Element.CDPW – Public Works, Parks City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2022, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Capital Facilities Element CDPW – Public Works, Parks City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW long Term (2026–2035) Implement 10- to 20-year Capital Improvement Plans for water, sewer, and storm drainage. CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2028, update Capital Facilities Element.CDPW – Public Works, Parks City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2029, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Capital Facilities Element CDPW – Public Works, Parks City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW * CDPW = Community Development and Public Works. Page 514 of 528 C4-12 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn CORE PLANPrIvatE utIlItIES Goals Character : Utility corridors serve multipurpose functions such as nonmotorized connectivity and recreational amenities. Wellness: The extension and provision of utility service extends throughout the entire community who has access to safe and reliable utility service. Service: Residents and businesses have access to all forms of reliable utility service including com- munication, water, sewer, and storm systems. Economy : Through planning, franchise agree- ments and partnerships, capital improvements are occurring in conjunction with development and redevelopment. Celebration: Technology and amenities are in place that support community events and en- hance awareness and accessibility that results in broader participation. Environment: Utility users are leaders in the re- gion and have embraced and deployed alterna- tive energy solutions and conservation measures. Sustainability : New development fully pays for utility extensions and upgrades that are of a quality that is in the best long-term interest of the City and avoid ratepayer subsidies. Description The primary responsibility of planning for private utilities rests with the utility providers. Clearly, this planning cannot take place without open lines of communication between the City and the utility providers. Puget Sound Energy provides electrical and natu- ral gas service to most of the City of Auburn. PSE is an investor-owned private utility, which provides service to approximately 1.2 million customers in a service area that covers 6,000 square miles. With respect to electrical service, PSE builds, op- erates, and maintains an electrical system con- sisting of generation, transmission, and distribu- tion facilities. The Northwest Pipeline Corporation and Enumclaw Gas also have gas lines in the south- eastern portion of the City. While the Northwest Pipeline Corporation does not serve any cus- tomers within the City, Enumclaw Gas has some residential customers in the area of the Auburn Adventist Academy. Conventional local telephone service to the City is provided by CenturyLink. CenturyLink offers ser- vice to 25 million customers in 14 western states. The facilities in which calls are switched are call central offices. Typically, four main lines head out from each central office – one in each direction. Auburn’s central office is located in downtown Auburn. Long-distance service is provided in the area by several carriers. These providers have underground fiber-optic cables passing through the City of Auburn. Cellular telecommunications provide mobile tele- phone. Cellular communication companies offer digital voice, messaging and high-speed wire- less data services to customers. Several cellular service providers have customers and facilities in the City of Auburn. Regulation of cellular provid- ers is provided by the Federal Communications Commission. Cable television service is provided by Comcast through a combination of aerial and underground cables. Several satellite dish companies also pro- vide service within the City but facilities are lim- ited to the satellite dishes affixed to homes. The City is currently negotiating with CenturyLink on a potential cable franchise. Investor-owned utilities in the state of Washington are regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. State law regulates charges, services, facilities, and practices of util- ities. Any changes in policies regarding these as- pects of utility provision require WUTC approval. Private utilities include electricity, telecommuni- cations, natural gas, and non-city-owned sewer, and water. Page 515 of 528 C4-13 PolIcy ElEmEntS CORE PLANPolicies 1. Private utility companies should strive to provide utility services to all segments of the Auburn population and areas of the community. 2. All new utility and telecommunication lines shall be located underground within all new developments. The City will also work with utility companies to relocate existing distribution, service, and telecommunication lines underground as a part of system upgrades, urban revitalization, and city capital projects whenever it is economically and technologically feasible. 3. The visual impact of private utilities shall be mitigated through undergrounding, colocation, screening, or other mitigation techniques. Views from private property, rights-of-way, and the surrounding community shall be considered when mitigating visual impact. 4. When granting franchise agreements, right-of-way permits, and other city approvals to utility providers, evidence shall be provided that documents Sustainability development practices that will be incorporated into construction activities. Private Utilities action Plan lead Partners Short Term (2016–2018) Explore opportunities to enhance the use of franchise fees and taxes. CDPW* – Public Works, Finance Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, IT Review and update the City’s Municipal Code for consistency with any regulatory changes as it relates to franchises. CDPW – Public Works, City Attorney, Innovation and Technology Mayor’s Office, City Council, CDPW Moderate Term (2019–2025) In 2021, update Private Utilities Element.City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2022, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Private Utilities Element City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW long Term (2026–2035) In 2028, update Private Utilities Element.City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2029, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Private Utilities Element City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW * CDPW = Community Development and Public Works. Page 516 of 528 C4-14 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn CORE PLANtranSPortatIon Goals Character : Investments in developing and main- taining our pedestrian, nonmotorized and street infrastructure have resulted in the creation of a community that is physically connected. Wellness: Residents, visitors, and workers in- crease utilization of nonmotorized forms of transportation. Service: Through partnership with other agen- cies, public transportation is an available option for navigating the City and connecting to other forms of transportation. Economy : Street surfaces are in a state of good repair allowing people and goods to navigate into, through, and out of Auburn. Celebration: As a result of improvements to the transportation infrastructure, combined with modern design techniques, we experience a de- creasing frequency and severity of collisions. Environment: Development of additional nonmotorized infrastructure will result in fewer vehicular trips per capita. Sustainability : Adequate sustained sources of fi- nancing are available for long-term investment in our streets, sidewalks, public landscaping, and nonmotorized corridors. Description The transportation system is a vital component of Auburn’s social, economic, and physical struc- ture. The primary purpose of the transportation system is to support the movement of people and goods within the City and connect the City to the broader region. Secondarily, it influences pat- terns of growth, development, and economic ac- tivity by providing access to adjacent land uses. Planning for the development and maintenance of the transportation system is a critical activity promoting the efficient movement of people and goods, ensuring emergency access, and optimiz- ing the role transportation plays in attaining other community objectives. The Transportation Element, also known as the Transportation Comprehensive Plan, provides policy and technical direction for development of the City’s transportation system through the year 2035. It updates and expands the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan by recogniz- ing network changes since the last plan, evaluat- ing current needs, and identifying standards for future development and infrastructure improve- ments. The Plan underwent a major update in 2005 and a midterm update in 2009 to incorpo- rate the Lea Hill and West Hill annexation areas into the Plan. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is the framework for transportation planning in Auburn. It functions as the overarching guide for chang- es to the transportation system. The Plan evalu- ates the existing system by identifying key assets and improvement needs. These findings are then incorporated into a needs assessment, which guides the future of the transportation system. This Plan is multimodal, addressing multiple forms of transportation in Auburn including the street network, nonmotorized travel, and transit. Evaluating all modes enables the City to address its future transportation needs in a comprehen- sive and balanced manner. Policies 1. Level-of-service and concurrency standards will be adopted and utilized when evaluating the transportation impacts and mitigation measures associated with development proposals. New development will pay for all system enhancements necessary to support the development. 2. Engage in coordinated regional transportation planning efforts with King County, Pierce County, Washington State Department of Transportation, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Sound Transit, and adjacent jurisdictions. 3. Pursue funding and actions that establish public transportation options to all areas of the City. Page 517 of 528 C4-15 PolIcy ElEmEntS CORE PLAN4. Incorporate low-impact development concepts and strategies into City-initiated transportation projects and privately initiated subdivision proposals. 5. Create a pedestrian and bicycle network linking neighborhoods, activity centers, and popular destinations, and promote walkable, bikeable connections to transit service. 6. Increase coordination and integration of land-use and transportation planning to reduce traffic congestion and emissions, and protect the natural environment. 7. Provide transportation alternatives that meet the needs of seniors, those who are unable to drive, and others who are transit-dependent by necessity or choice. 8. Inform the community of transportation improvements, capital projects, traffic disruptions, and alternative methods for avoiding delays. 9. Develop information about alternate modes of travel to encourage visitors and residents to walk and bike. Transportation action Plan lead Partners Short Term (2016–2018) Develop financial and capital programming standards that establish minimum budget targets for nonmotorized connection improvements. CDPW* – Public Works CDPW, Finance, Mayors’ Office Develop a Neighborhood Connectivity Element of the Comprehensive Plan.CDPW – Public Works CDPW Develop a citywide wayfinding plan with strategies and actions directed at both nonmotorized and vehicle modes.CDPW CDPW – Public Works, CDPW – M&O Implement the short-term actions outlined in the adopted Parking Management Plan CDPW Identify and prioritize vehicular gateways into the City. Design and construct gateway entry points.CDPW Moderate Term (2019–2025) Implement the long-term actions outlined in the adopted Parking Management Plan.CDPW In 2021, update the Transportation Element.CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2022, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Transportation Element CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW long Term (2026–2035) In 2028, update Transportation Element.CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2029, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Transportation Element CDPW – Public Works City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW * CDPW = Community Development and Public Works. Page 518 of 528 C4-16 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn CORE PLANEconomIc dEvEloPmEnt Goals Character : Our cultural diversity has been lever- aged to bind our community, expand our market, and celebrate cultural traditions. Wellness: We are a safe community with walkable commercial districts, where both the perception and the reality are that crime activity is low and public safety staffing meets or exceeds commu- nity expectations. Service: Our economic development strategies focus on supporting the existing business commu- nity; as a result, recruitment is minimal because businesses desire to locate here. Economy : We are able to measure and achieve defined targets for manufacturing, service, and retail jobs and revenues. Celebration: We actively promote our local busi- nesses and have been successful at making our residents more aware of what is available locally as well as attracting visitors from beyond our City. Environment: Our economy is growing and diver- sifying because of our efforts to protect our riv- ers, streams, wetlands, and other environmental resources. Sustainability : Residents are staying in Auburn to work and shop, and we are widely considered to be a regional dining, shopping, and entertain- ment destination. Description Auburn’s economic base drives and shapes the community and region. Auburn’s residents and the surrounding region benefit from the jobs and services Auburn’s economic base offers. Through the payment of sales, property, and other taxes, the City of Auburn can fund and provide services and public facilities that Auburn residents require. It is in the City’s best interest to maintain and ex- pand our economic base in unison with imple- menting all of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. This section of the plan will help to define the City’s goals and policies in this vital area. Policies 1. Attract high-wage employment opportunities and sales tax generating businesses to diversify the City’s economic base and generate positive secondary benefits for the community. 2. Assist business organizations in developing and implementing new or improved product development opportunities to increase sales tax revenue collections. 3. Dedicate resources to pursue an expanded economic development program for the City. 4. Develop a clear and elaborate City branding strategy. 5. Create an economic development toolbox comprising programs and incentives to reduce financial, regulatory, and operational constraints for existing or new business growth and expansion. 6. Prioritize the installation of key infrastructure at identified employment areas to facilitate development of these economic centers. Page 519 of 528 C4-17 PolIcy ElEmEntS CORE PLANeconomic Development action Plan lead Partners Short Term (2016–2018) Adopt and implement a City 10-year Economic Development Strategic Plan Mayor’s Office City Council, CDPW*, Finance Moderate Term (2019–2025) In 2021, update Economic Development Policy Element.Mayor’s Office City Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney, CDPW In 2022, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Economic Development Element Mayor’s Office City Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney, CDPW long Term (2026–2035) In 2028, update Economic Development Element.Mayor’s Office City Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney, CDPW In 2029, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Economic Development Policy Element Mayor’s Office City Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney, CDPW * CDPW = Community Development and Public Works. ParkS, rEcrEatIon & oPEn SPacE Goals Character : A mix of small urban parks, natural areas, sports complexes, and community build- ings offers a full range of recreational services. Wellness: Parks are well advertised, maintained, and are safe locations during all hours. Service: Parks and park programming are acces-sible to all segments of the population. Economy : Our parks and natural spaces are a major reason cited by businesses and residents for choosing to locate here and choosing to stay. Celebration: A mix of large and small parks is being used for local, neighborhood, citywide, and regional events. Environment : Parks, open spaces, and natural areas are designated, designed, and maintained in a manner that respects the environment and natural setting. Sustainability: Park development and mainte- nance has an identified long-term funding source that ensures that the system grows and improves. Description Parks, arts, open space, and recreation facilities are an essential amenity to maintain a high qual- ity of life in the community. As the population of Auburn grows, the demand for parks, recreation- al programs, arts and culture, and open space will continue to increase. To maintain Auburn’s quality of life, the supply of parks and programs must keep pace with the demand associated with a growing population. Page 520 of 528 C4-18 City of Auburn Comprehensive plAn CORE PLANPolicies 1. Provide and maintain a comprehensive system of parks and recreation programs that serves the needs and desires of the City’s residents. 2. Protect and preserve open space and natural areas that incorporate appropriate opportunities for residents and citizens to view and learn about natural systems and habitats. 3. Provide activities and amenities that allow for community interactions and encourage active and healthy lifestyles. 4. Provide a broad variety of recreational and cultural opportunities to all residents. 5. New development will contribute to the development of new parks at a level commensurate with their share of new facility needs. 6. Provide and support community events, festivals, and programs that offer a variety of opportunities for social interaction and contribute to a sense of community. 7. Diversify the funding sources that support the City Parks, Arts and Recreation Department to include public funding, earned revenues, development impact fees, and outside funding sources. 8. Establish regulations and incentives to incorporate parks and trails into subdivisions and other development projects. 9. Identify and implement measures that reduce emissions and conserve energy and water at all park facilities. 10. Support collaboration between agencies, organizations, and businesses on trails marketing, management, and maintenance in recognition of the value of trails to the community and the economy. . Parks, recreation & open Space action Plan lead Partners Short Term (2016–2018) Establish Level-of-service standards for parks, open space, arts, and service programs.Parks CDPW* Establish a formal fee in lieu of program Parks CDPW, City Attorney, Mayor’s Office Acquire additional properties for inclusion in the Auburn Environmental Park and develop a comprehensive management plan. CDPW – Environmental Services Parks Complete and activate the Auburn Youth and Community Center CDPW – Public Works, Parks CDPW, Police Complete the Les Gove Community Campus Plan Parks City Council, Mayor’s Office, Police, CDPW Page 521 of 528 C4-19 PolIcy ElEmEntS CORE PLANParks, recreation & open Space action Plan (cont.)lead Partners Moderate Term (2019–2025) Begin identification of acquisition needs based on level of service.Parks Develop criteria and strategies for identifying land that should be preserved as open space and funding mechanisms for acquiring priority lands. Parks, CDPW – Environmental Services CDPW In 2021, update Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element.Parks City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2022, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element Parks City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW long Term (2026–2035) In 2028, update Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element.Parks City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW In 2029, update city zoning regulations to be consistent with update to Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element Parks City Council, Planning Commission, Mayor’s Office, City Attorney, CDPW * CDPW = Community Development and Public Works. Page 522 of 528 Page 523 of 528 Page 524 of 528 ACC 14.22.020, Comprehensive plan adopted Page 1 of 3 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6977, passed June 16, 2025. 14.22.020 Comprehensive plan adopted. The city of Auburn comprehensive plan, as amended in April 1995 to comply with the Growth Management Act and as may subsequently be amended thereafter, consisting of the following elements, is hereby adopted by reference: A. Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. 1. Core Comprehensive Plan. 21. Land Use Element. 32. Housing Element. 43. Capital Facilities Element. 54. Utilities Element. 65. Transportation Element. 76. Economic Development Element. 87. Parks and Recreation Element. 98. Historic Preservation Element. 109. Climate Element. 1110. Comprehensive Plan Map. Appendix A – Housing Needs and Characteristics Assessment. Appendix B – Agency Checklists. Appendix C – Public Participation Plan. Appendix D – Airport Master Plan. Appendix E.1 – King County Buildable Lands Analysis. Appendix E.2 – Pierce County Buildable Lands Analysis. Page 525 of 528 ACC 14.22.020, Comprehensive plan adopted Page 2 of 3 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6977, passed June 16, 2025. Appendix F – Parks PROS Plan. Appendix G – Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Appendix H – Auburn Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Appendix I – City of Auburn Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. Appendix J – Auburn Community Vision Report. Appendix K – Climate Change Framework. B. Additional Documents of the Comprehensive Plan That Are Incorporated by Reference. 1. Repealed by Ord. 6959. 2. Capital Facilities Plan. 3. Shorelines Management Program. 4. Comprehensive Water Plan. 5. Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 6. Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. 7. Auburn Downtown Plan (May 2001). 8. Lakeland Hills Plan (1988). 9. Auburn Adventist Academy Plan (1991). 10. Auburn North Business Area Plan (1992). 11. Housing Action Plan. (Ord. 6959 § 1 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 6612 § 1, 2016; Ord. 6329 § 1, 2010; Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.) The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6977, passed June 16, 2025. Page 526 of 528 ACC 14.22.020, Comprehensive plan adopted Page 3 of 3 The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6977, passed June 16, 2025. Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the Auburn City Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.auburnwa.gov Hosted by General Code. Page 527 of 528 Proposed Land Use Map Amendment (CPA25-0003) 40TH ST NE I ST NE40TH ST NE I PL NEH ST NE40TH ST NE I ST NE40TH ST NE I PL NEH ST NEParcel Boundary Existing Land UsePublic/Quasi-Public Neighborhood Residential Three Neighborhood Residential Two Commercial 0 100 200 300 Feet Proposed Land Use Printed On: 7/25/2025 Map ID: 6343 EXISTING PROPOSED (CPA25-0005) EXHIBIT 3 M No. 1 Page 528 of 528