The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem II-A-2WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject Date: CPA03-0002 Year 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments November 10, 2003 Department: Planning Attachments: Budget Impact: Administrative Recommendation: City Council to conduct a public hearing on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Background Summary: The City of Auburn adopted a growth management Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. The Auburn Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually each year since then. Private citizens (privately-initiated) or the City (City-initiated) may initiate Comprehensive Plan amendments. This year there are seven (7) privately initiated plan map amendments (CPM #1 through CPM#9 (CPM ~ and CPM #6 have been withdrawn)) and two (2) City-initiated map amendments (CPM #11 and CPM #12 (CPM #10 has been withdrawn)). There are six (6) Policy/Text (P/T) amendments. Three Policy/Text amendments relate to updates to school district capital facility plans (Auburn School District (P/T#1); Kent School District (P/T #2) and Dieringer School District (P/T#3)). Updates to Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9 (Environment Chapter; PfT#4), Chapter 7 (Transportation Element, (P/T #5) and the Capital Facilities Plan update (P/T#-6) are also included. Two map amendments, CPM #8 and CPM #11, involve non-contiguous properties. Each has been consolidated under a single "CPM" amendment request because of the similar nature of the applicant and/or request. 03.4.3 Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: [] Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: [] Building [] M&O [] Airport [] Finance [] Cemetery [] Mayor [] Hearing Examiner [] Municipal Serv. [] Finance [] Parks [] Human Services [] Planning & CD [] Fire [] Planning [] Park Board []Public Works [] Legal [] Police [] Planning Comm. [] Other [] Public Works [] Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: []Yes r-INo CouncilApproval: ('-]Yes []No Call for Public Hearing / /__ Referred to Until / / Tabled Until / / Councilmember: Borden I Staff: Krauss Meetin9 Date: November 17, 2003I Item Number: II.A.2 AUBURN · MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED i--74 Agenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 FINDINGS OF FACT RCW 36.70A. 130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for amendments to locally adopted GMA Comprehensive Plans. Except in limited circumstances, the City or county legislative body shall consider Comprehensive Plan amendments no more frequently than once per year. Nine (9) Comprehensive Plan map amendments (designated as "CPM") and six (6) Policy/Text amendments (designated as "P/T) are being processed this year. Amendments consist of those initiated both by the general public as well as by the City of Auburn. The proposed GMA amendments were transmitted to the Washington State Office of Community Development to initiate the 60-day state agency review period required by RCW 36.70A.106. The Office of Community Development received the amendments on September 18, 2003. The 60-day comment period will conclude November 17, 2003 (Monday). The City Council may not take final action on the Comprehensive Plan amendments until the 60-day process is complete. The Planning Commission held meetings/study sessions on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on September 9, 2003 and September 30, 2003. The City of Auburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments on October 7, 2003. The public hearing was continued to October 14, 2003 where the Planning Commission concluded its actions and recommendations to City Council. 6. A SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued on October 3, 2003. The following identifies and discusses Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and Policy/Text (P/T) amendments heard by the Planning Commission at their October 7, 2003 public hearing (which was continued to October 14, 2003). The Planning Commission recommendation and the staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission are provided. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP (CPM) AMENDMENTS CPM #1 Proposal: To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from "High Density Residential" to "Heavy Commercial" for property located in the 4300 block (east side) of Auburn Way North (west of l Street NE right-of-way). Applicant: Children's Home Society of Washington Discussion The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan map change from "High Density Residential" to "Heavy Commercial" for property currently used in support of the applicant's business activity. The portion of the site subject to the request is currently undeveloped. The applicant has owned and operated a childcare facility at the site since 1926. The parcel has two existing land use designations, "Heavy Commercial" to the west and "High Density Residential" to the east. According to their application, the applicant anticipates future expansion of the services to the portion of the lot subject to this request that are more consistent with commercial zoning, such as administrative offices. The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: Page 2 of 15 Agenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 Site Heavy Commercial C,3, Heavy Commercial Children's Home and High DenSity & R-4, Multiple Family Society child care Residential Residential and offices North Heavy Commercial C-3, Heavy Commercial Commercial (Two separate and High Density & R-4, Multiple Family building and parcels) Residential Residential multiple family housing East Single Family R-2, Single Family Vacant (across "r' Residential Residential Street NE) South Heavy Commercial C-3, Heavy Commercial Vacant West Heavy Commercial C-3, Heavy Commercial Self Storage (Across units and Auburn Motorcycle Way dealership North) The contiguous property to the south had a similar "split" designation and requested the land use designation be amended to designate the entire site as "Heavy Commercial" during the 2001 amendment cycle. The City Council approved the amendment request. The subject property is the only remaining parcel with the split designation in this vicinity. The west side of the "1" Street corridor is now predominantly zoned C-3, Heavy Commercial. The plan map change to "Heavy Commercial" would not have an adverse impact or negatively alter the existing land use pattern of the area. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval. Staff Recommendation: Approval. CPM #2 Proposal: To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from "Public & Quasi-Public" to "Light Industrial" for properties located on the south side of 49th Street NW, west of Auburn Way North. Applicant: Thomas Academy Discussion The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan map change from "Public & Quasi-Public" to "Light Industrial" for property currently used as an educational facility. The Thomas Academy has indicated that it seeks to liquidate its current holdings to facilitate a future move. The parcels under this request have a land use designation, "Public & Quasi Public" which supports their current zoning of "Institutional". The area was annexed to the City in 1995 and the "Institutional" zoning designation was imposed in support of the Thomas Academy's long-term interest (at that time). The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: site Public & Quasi Public "1" Institutional Thomas Academy (3 parcels) complex North Light Industrial M-l, Light Industrial Palette repair business and single family homes East Heavy Commercial C-3, Heavy Single family homes Page 3 of 15 I Aqenda Subiect CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 Light Industrial Commercial Vacant R-4 (King County) South Light Industrial M-l, Light Industrial Industrial uses West Public & Quasi Public 'T' Institutional Self Storage units Light Industrial M-l, Light Industrial and Motorcycle dealership The existing "Public & Quasi Public" Comprehensive Plan designation and "1", ("Institutional") zoning was intended to support the needs of the Thomas Academy. As the Academy seeks to make the site available for redevelopment, a "Light Industrial" designation is consistent with the surrounding properties to the north, south and west. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation, if approved will not immediately affect the zoning of the Academy, but would facilitate the rezoning of the site or a portion of the complex in the future. During the course of the Planning Commission public hearing, testimony was received from members of the public. It was noted how the Thomas Academy played an important role in the history of Japanese-Americans in the Auburn Valley prior to World War II. Concern was raised over how the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment might affect the ability to preserve the Thomas Academy. There was also recognition of the financial situation of the Thomas Academy and addressing their needs. The Planning Commission recommendation seeks to balance these concerns. The Planning Commission did receive public testimony regarding the cultural significance of the Academy to the community. PlanninR Commission Recommendation: Approval, with the request that the City Council formulate or seriously consider forming a Committee to look into the preservation of the Thomas Academy. Staff Recommendation: Approval. CPM #3 Proposal: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from "Light Industrial" to "Heavy Industrial" for property located on the north side of 44th Street NW, west of the Interurban Trail. Applicant: Rodger Scott, Scotty's General Construction (Property Owner: The Madison Company) Discussion The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan map change from ""Light Industrial" to "Heavy Industrial" for property proposed to be used in support of the applicant's proposed business activity at this location as a general construction contractor. The parcel under this request is approximately 2.50-acres in size and is surrounded by parcels designated for "Light Industrial", with the exception of the Interurban Trail (designated "Open Space") that is contiguous to the site to the east. The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: CPM#3: COmp=r~,h~ensive zoning Land USe Site Light Industrial M-l, Light Industrial Vacant North Light Industrial M-l, Light Industrial Vacant East Open Space M-l, Light Industrial Interurban Trail South Light Industrial M-l, Light Industrial Vacant/Industrial (Across uses Page 4 of 15 Agenda Subiect CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 44zn Street NW) West Light Industrial M-l, Light Industrial Vacant Objective 11.5 of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan seeks to identify areas appropriate for heavy industrial uses which includes the following policies. Heavy industrial uses shall be separated from lighter industrial, commercial and residential areas. LU-113 The most appropriate areas for heavy industrial uses are in the central part of the Region Serving Area adjoining the rail lines. LU-114 The site under consideration by the proposed amendment, if approved, could not comply with policy LU-113 because there is no separation from the light industrial property to the north or the west. Compliance with LU-114 is not possible because the site is neither located in the central part of the Region Serving Area or adjoining rail lines. In addition, Chapter 14 of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan defines that this designation is not appropriate for highly visible areas (Considerations against applying this "Heavy Industrial" designation). The "Heavy Industrial" areas of the City (aside from the "GSA" and" Boeing" Complexes) are predominately located south of 37th Street, between the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railways and north of Main Street. Heavy Industrial areas abut the Airport to the north and east and along those portions of the "A" Street SE "C" Street SVV corridor, which have historically developed industrially. The applicant has indicated a desire to develop the property as a contractor's yard but has found the limitations on outdoor storage in the existing M-l, Light Industrial zone difficult to meet. As a permitted use, outside storage in the M-1 zone is limited to ten (10) percent of the associated building's floor area. Outside storage up to 30 percent of the associated building's floor area is allowed subject to an administrative use permit, while outside storage up to 50 percent of the associated building's floor area is allowed if a conditional use permit is obtained. There is no outdoor storage limitation based on building size in the M-2, Heavy Industrial zone. The Planning Commission did receive public testimony regarding the management of drainage in the vicinity of this request. The Planning Commission requested a staff presentation on the issue at a future meeting PlanninR Commission Recommendation: Denial. Staff Recommendation: Denial. CPM #4 The applicant has withdrawn CPM #4. CPM #5 Proposal: Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from "Light Industrial" to "Heavy Commercial" for properties generally located between the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks, just north of 15th Street NW. Applicant: La Terra Limited Partnership Discussion The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan map change from "Light Industrial" to "Heavy Commercial" for property that is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: Page 5 of 15 Agenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 Site Light IndUStrial M-l, Light Industrial Undeveloped (2 Parcels) North Heavy Industrial M-2, Heavy Industrial Emerald Downs Light Industrial East Light Industrial then M-l, Light Industrial BN railroad and then Heavy Commercial then C-3, Heavy mixed use and Light Industrial Commercial and M-l, commercial and Light Industrial Fisher Industrial Park South Light Industrial M-l, Light Industrial 15'" Street NW Right-of-way West Open Space M-l, Light Industrial UP railroad and Interurban Trail The site is highly visible from the 15th Street NW right-of-way with direct frontage on that road and Emerald Downs Drive. Emerald Downs Drive is now a public right-of-way and is expected to be open in the upcoming year. The site is also in close proximity to the access ramps for State Route 167. The purpose of the "Heavy Commercial" designation is to provide automobile oriented commercial areas to meet both the local and regional needs for such services. The guidance from the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the "Heavy Commercial" designation is best applied to areas that are highly accessible to automobiles and appropriate for the intersections of heavily traveled arterials. The site meets these application criteria. The Planning Commission received public testimony regarding drainage in this vicinity, which was better addressed under CPM #1 lr, s, and t. PlanninR Commission Recommendation: Approval. Staff Recommendation: Approval. CPM ~ The applicant has withdrawn CPM #6. CPM #7 ,,P, roposal: To amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map fr_.om "Moderate Density Residential" to Heavy Commercial" for property located on the north side of 23'" Avenue SE, approximately 500 feet east of A Street SE. (Amendment would also clarify the land use designation for the abutting property to the west, also under the same ownership). Applicant: Bill Moffet (Property owner: Greg/Barbara Swain) Discussion The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan map change from "Moderate Density Residential" to "Heavy Commercial" for property currently used in support of the applicant's business activity. The site subject to the request is currently undeveloped. The site has been used in the past as for outdoor storage. Prior to the 1987 Comprehensive Zoning Map adoption, the site and surrounding property were zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: I CPM~ I Comprehensive plan I Zoning I Land u~e Page 6 of 15 A,qenda Subiect CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 Site Moderate Density R-3, Duplex Residential Vacant Residential North Moderate Density C-3, Heavy Commercial Commercial (Two separate Residential and building parcels) Heavy Commercial East Moderate Density R-3, Duplex Residential Single Family (across 'T' Residential Residence Street NE) South Moderate Density R-3, Duplex Residential Mobile Home (across Residential Park 23rd Street SE) West Moderate Density R-3, Duplex Residential Single Family Residential and Residence Heavy Commercial The parcels contiguous to this parcel to the west and north have "split" Comprehensive Plan Map land use designation, as indicated on the table above. The applicant has requested a rezone of the parcel to the west of the subject site to from R3 (Duplex Residential) to "C-3, Heavy Commercial" and that application is under review at this time, under a separate application process. The purpose of the "Heavy Commercial" plan map designation is to provide automobile oriented commercial areas to meet both the local and regional needs for such services. The guidance from the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the "Heavy Commercial" designation is best applied to areas that are highly accessible to automobiles and appropriate for the intersections of heavily traveled arterials. The site meets neither criteria and would extend the "A" Street SE commercial corridor down a right-of-way (23rd Street SE) that is incapable of supporting commercial traffic. While the commercial corridor does extend further east on the adjoining property to the north, the 21't Street SE right-of-way is an arterial, which is more consistent with the intent for the application of the "Heavy Commercial" designation. Staff has had extensive communication with the applicant and discussed that the applicant's intended use of the site is not likely to create adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. However, a change to the Comprehensive Plan Map land use designation is a precursor to a rezone and the applicant's intended use is one of the many uses permitted in the C-3 (Heavy Commercial) zone. The street network is not capable of supporting higher intensity uses in the C-3 zone and the commercial development of the site is inconsistent with the existing character of the area, which is residential in nature. At the public hearing the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant, property owner and a surrounding property owner. Based on the testimony the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal citing the need to support small business, the commercial zoning of surrounding uses (especially to the north) and that the properties affected by the proposed map change did not seem suitable for development for residential purposes (as currently designated and zoned). The Planning Commission did receive public testimony in support of the application. Plannin~ Commission Recommendation: Approval. Staff Recommendation: Denial. CPM #8a Proposal: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from "Single Family Residential" to "Moderate Density Residential" for properties within planning area 7 of the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit development (PUD). Page 7 of 15 A.qenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 Applicant: Apex Engineering (Property Owner: Investco Financial Corporation) Discussion The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan map change from "Single Family Residential" to "Moderate Density Residential" for future development within the PUD. The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: Site Single Family Residential Master Planned Vacant Community (Pierce County) North Single Family Residential Moderate Density Underdeveloped Single Family (Pierce parcels and vacant County) East Moderate Density Single Moderate Density Lake Tapps Family (Pierce County) Single Family (Pierce Elementary and County) single family residences South Moderate Density Single Moderate Density Single family Family (Pierce County) Single Family (Pierce residences and County) vacant land West Single Family Residential Moderate Density Vacant land and Single Family (Pierce single family County) residences The subject property is within the Lakeland Hills South Special Planning Area and but is currently located outside the corporate City limits. The Official Lakeland Hills South PUD Map of this area designates the subject lots as "Planning Area 7" and anticipates a total of 116 dwelling units over approximately 27.2-acres at the single family residential density of "2-6 units per acre". The applicant has identified the need for this change due to the steeper slopes on portions of the site. An increase in the allowable densities will provide more flexible design opportunities when this site eventually develops. The change itself, if approved, will not allow the applicant to increase the density of the number of units proposed for the planning area unless the Official Lakeland Hills South PUD Map is also amended. The City does anticipate the applicant will request to amend the Official Lakeland Hills South PUD Map to increase both the proposed density and total number of dwelling units if this amendment is approved. The applicant has not requested to increase the total number of dwelling units approved for the entire PUD (3,408 total). The site's access to the Lake Tapps Parkway and future connections to public sewer and water availability will make the site capable of supporting more dense development, consistent with the applicant's request. The presence of the Parkway provides segregation of the site from the parcels to the north, envisioned to be used for single-family residential purposes in the future and are located outside the current boundaries of the PUD. The properties to the east and to the south of the subject parcel are designated by Pierce County as "Moderate Density Single Family Residential" (verified by telephone by Mike Erkkinen, Planner 3, Pierce County Planning and Land Services, September 24, 2003). The maximum density in that zone is 8-units per acre. PlanninR Commission Recommendation: Approval. Staff Recommendation: Approval. CPM #8b Proposal: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from "Single Family Residential" to "Moderate Density Residential" for properties within planning area 8 of the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit development (PUD). Page 8 Of 1 5 Agenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 Applicant: Apex Engineering (Property Owner: Investco Financial Corporation) Discussion The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan map change from "Single Family Residential" to "Moderate Density Residential" for future development within the PUD. The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: site Single Family Residential Master Planned Vacant Community (Pierce County) North Single Family Residential Moderate Density Underdeveloped Single Family (Pierce parcels and vacant County) East Single Family Residential Moderate Density Vacant and Open Space Single Family (Pierce County) South Single Family Residential Moderate Density Single family Single Family (Pierce residences and County) vacant land West Single Family Residential Planned Unit Residential and Moderate Density Development and Subdivision and Residential Moderate Density single family lots Single Family (Pierce County) The subject property is within the Lakeland Hills South Special Planning Area and is currently located outside the corporate City limits. The Official Lakeland Hills South PUD Map designates the subject lots as "Planning Area 8" and anticipates a total of 64 dwelling units over approximately 18.3-acres at the single family residential density of "2-6 units per acre". Planning Area 8 contains a large wetland that will remain designated "Open Space". The change itself, if approved, will not allow the applicant to increase the density of the number of units proposed for the planning areas unless the Official Lakeland Hills South PUD Map is also amended. The City does anticipate the applicant will request to amend the map to increase both the proposed density and total number of dwelling units upon approval of this amendment. The applicant has not requested to increase the total number of dwelling units approved for the entire PUD (3,408 total). The site access opportunities to the northern extension of the Lake Tapps Parkway (when constructed) and future connections to the public sewer and water system will allow the site to support more dense development, consistent with the applicant's request. The presence of the Parkway provides segregation of the site from the parcels to the south envisioned for single-family residential purposes in the future and is located outside the current boundaries of the PUD. The properties to the east and to the south of the subject parcel are designated by Pierce County as "Moderate Density Single Family Residential" (verified by telephone by Mike Erkkinen, Planner 3, Pierce County Planning and Land Services, September 24, 2003). The maximum density in that zone is 6-units per acre Plannint:! Commission Recommendation: Approval. Staff Recommendation: Approval. CPM #8c Proposal: To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from "Single Family Residential" to "Moderate Density Residential" for properties within planning area 9 of the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit development (PUD). Page 9 of 15 Agenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 Applicant: Apex Engineering (Property Owner: Investco Financial Corporation) Discussion The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan map change from "Single Family Residential" to "Moderate Density Residential" for future development within the PUD. The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the surrounding properties are: Site Single Family Master Planned Community Vacant Residential (Pierce County) North Single Family Moderate Density Single Underdeveloped Residential Family (Pierce County) parcels and vacant East Single Family Planned Unit Development City Park ("Park Residential and Open and Moderate Density 40") and vacant Space Single Family (Pierce land County) South Single Family Moderate Density Single Vacant land Residential Family (Pierce County) West Single Family Moderate Density Single Vacant land Residential Family (Pierce County) The subject property is within the Lakeland Hills South Special Planning Area and is currently located outside the corporate City limits. The Official Map of this area designates the subject lots as "Planning Area 9" and anticipates a total of 3 dwelling units over approximately 1.8-acres at a density of "1-4 units per acre". Planning Area 8 contains a large wetland that will remain designated "Open Space". The change itself, if approved, will not allow the applicant to increase the density of the number of units proposed for the planning areas unless the Official Lakeland Hills South PUD Map is also amended. The City does anticipate the applicant will request to amend the map to increase both the proposed density and total number of dwelling units upon approval of this amendment. The applicant has not requested to increase the total number of dwelling units approved for the entire PUD (3,408 units). The site access opportunities to the northern extension of the Lake Tapps Parkway and future connections to the public sewer and water system will make the site capable of supporting more dense development, consistent with the applicant's request. The presence of the Parkway provides segregation of the site from the parcels to the north, envisioned to be used for single-family residential purposes in the future and are located outside the current boundaries of the PUD. The properties to the south of the subject parcel are designated by Pierce County as "Moderate Density Single Family Residential" (verified by telephone by Mike Erkkinen, Planner 3, Pierce County Planning and Land Services, September 24, 2003). The maximum density in that zone is 6-units per acre Planning! Commission Recommendation: Approval. Staff Recommendation: Approval. CPM #9 Proposal: This proposal includes two components. 1) Amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) by expanding it to include a several parcels owned by the Dieringer School District; and designate this portion of these parcels "Public & Quasi-Public" and 2) Amend the Comprehensive Sewer Plan (2001) to identify these same parcels within the City of Auburn Sanitary Sewer Service Area (Figure 6-18 in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan). Applicant: Pace Engineers on behalf of the Dieringer School District Discussion: In February 2003, the Dieringer School District passed a bond issue for the replacement of Lake Tapps Elementary School. The existing school is planned to be demolished and Page 10 of 15 Agenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 a new school is to be built on the same block or properties. This capital project is expected to begin in the summer of 2004 and the school is planned to open in September 2005. Lake Tapps Elementary School is currently not served by sanitary sewer service but has an on-site septic system. The applicant has proposed a Comprehensive Plan amendment to facilitate the connection of Lake Tapps Elementary School to the City of Auburn's existing sanitary sewer service line to avoid replacing the existing septic system with another septic system. The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of surrounding properties are: Site Moderate Density Moderate Density Single Lake Tapps Single Family (Pierce Family (Pierce County) Elementary County) School North Moderate Density Moderate Density Single Vacant land Single Family (Pierce Family (Pierce County) County) East Moderate Density Moderate Density Single Vacant land Single Family (Pierce Family (Pierce County) County) South Moderate Density Moderate Density Single Single Family Single Family (Pierce Family (Pierce County) residences County) West Single Family Master Planned Community Vacant land Residential (Pierce County) PAA Amendment Request The applicant is proposing to place five parcels ("subject property") within the Auburn Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and to designate the subject parcels as "Public & Quasi-Public". The "Public & Quasi-Public" designation is appropriate since that is the Auburn Comprehensive Plan land use designation given to schools. The PAA boundary currently is situated along the west lot line of the westernmost lot. The subject property is located in unincorporated Pierce County (and is within Pierce County's Urban Growth Area (CUGA)). At one time the subject property and several other surrounding parcels were included in the City of Auburn's PAA. However, several years ago, in response to concern over the City of Auburn's proposed annexations in Pierce County and with concern over water service areas, the City of Bonney Lake initiated litigation against the City of Auburn. To avoid a costly and lengthy lawsuit, an agreement to settle claims and disputes was negotiated and reached between the cities of Auburn and Bonney Lake (City of Auburn Resolution No. 2925, approved in 1998). Among other items, the settlement agreement resulted in Auburn reducing the PAA boundary to its current location in this area. This revised PAA boundary was formally recognized through Pierce County's Comprehensive Plan amendment process in 1999. Auburn staff has worked with Bonney Lake staff earlier this year in an attempt to amend the settlement agreement to include an adjoining property into Auburn's PAA. That effort, though, was unsuccessful. As there is no agreement in place to amend the settlement agreement to revise the PAA boundary, the proposed amendment should be denied. Amendment to Sanitary Sewer Plan The second component to the request is to amend the City of Auburn 2001 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan to include the subject properties in Auburn's Sanitary Sewer service area. The parcels are currently in Bonney Lake's sanitary sewer service area. Page 1 1 of 15 Agenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 The City of Auburn's current sanitary sewer service area is identified in the 2001 Comprehensive Sewer Plan and extends along the westernmost school district property line and then runs along the north line of a maiority of the Dieringer School District's parcels. The inclusion of the Dieringer School District parcels into the City's sanitary sewer service boundary creates a logical extension of the City's sanitary sewer service area. Sanitary sewer service from Auburn is available approximately 230 feet from the school site. The City of Bonney Lake does not have public sewer in the vicinity. The subject property is within Pierce County's urban growth area. Extending sanitary sewer service is therefore consistent with the Growth Management Act and it is sound public policy that development in the "Urban" area is provided with public sanitary sewer service. This is particularly appropriate given that the proposed use is as a school site. Amendment to the City's sanitary sewer plan does not guarantee that Auburn will provide sewer service to the Dieringer School District properties, but does place the City in a stronger position by indicating the City's willingness to do so. As a matter of information, in early September 2003 the Dieringer School District (applicant) submitted a written request for sanitary sewer service from the City of Bonney Lake. This was based on advice from the City of Bonney Lake with the objective that if Bonney Lake could not provide sewer service at this time it would consider entering into an agreement with Auburn for Auburn to do so. It is unclear at this time what Bonney Lake's response to the Dieringer School District request will be. Although City of Bonney Lake's sanitary sewer system is not in proximity to the school site, it is possible that the City of Bonney Lake and the City of Auburn can come to some type of agreement where Bonney Lake will be service provider to the school but Auburn shall provide the actual sewer service to the City of Bonney Lake. PlanninR Commission recommendation: Denial of the amendment to the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary due to the settlement agreement with Bonney Lake; Approval of the amendment to the sanitary sewer plan boundary. Staff recommendation: Denial of the amendment to the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary due to the settlement agreement with Bonney Lake; Approval of the amendment to the sanitary sewer plan boundary. CPM amendments #10, #11 and #12 are City initiated Comprehensive Plan amendments. CPM #10 CPM # 10 was withdrawn. CPM #'11 a-u ("m" has been withdrawn) Proposal: To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map at twenty (20) locations Citywide for property the City owns for municipal purposes to "Public & Quasi Public" in support of the City's continued future use of the property for municipal services or purposes. Discussion: The City of Auburn processes to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map land use designation of property that it owns and operates, or intended to develop for municipal purposes. The use of the properties includes future cemetery expansion, storm water management facilities that have been dedicated to the City, public parks, water utility property (reservoirs/water towers), wetland mitigation sites and land targeted for future public service development. The change is to support the existing designation of P-l, Public Use, which has already been established at some sites or to support the future designation of the remaining parcels as P-l, Public Use. The Planning Commission did receive public testimony regarding the City's long-term drainage solution proximate to CPM #11 r, s and t. Director Krauss indicated that the City is working on that solution. Plannint=l Commission Recommendation: Approval Staff Recommendation: Approval. Page 12 of 15 Agenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 CPM #12 Proposal: To amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary to reflect the annexation/de- annexation with the City of Pacific. Discussion: The City of Auburn and the City of Pacific are currently in the process of deannexing and annexing land to one another. One of these areas is in the vicinity of Lakeland Hills Way and A Street SE. The existing City limits at this location currently serves as both the Auburn's City limits and Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary. With the annexation of this additional area, it is appropriate to relocate the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary to the new City limits. Plannin.q Commission Recommendation: Approval Staff Recommendation: Approval. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY/TEXT (P/T) AMENDMENTS P/T #1 Proposal: Incorporate Auburn School District Updated 2003 to 2009 Capital Facilities Plan as part of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. (Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors May 2003) Discussion: The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The Auburn School District School Board adopted the CFP in May 2003. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. A review of the Auburn School District's updated CFP indicates the net fee obligation for single-family dwellings is $4,528.61 and $1,212.58 for multi-family dwellings. At the Planning Commission public hearing a representative from the Auburn School District was in attendance and provided testimony. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the CFP Staff Recommendation: Approval of the CFP P/T #2 Proposal: Incorporate Kent School District Updated 2003-04 to 2008-2009 Capital Facilities Plan as part of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Kent School District Board of Directors June 2003. Discussion: The Kent School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board earlier this year and has been subject to SEPA review and a DNS. Information contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City's collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district. The 2003-04 to 2008-2009 Capital Facilities Plan identifies a net fee obligation of $4,292 per single- family dwelling unit and $2,643 per multi-family unit. Planninq Commission Recommendation: Approval Staff Recommendation: Approval. P/T#3 Proposal: Incorporate Updated Dieringer School District information into the City's Comprehensive Plan Discussion: The Dieringer School District has provided updated Capital Facility Plan information. No additional information was provided by the Dieringer School District other than what is provided in the attached materials. PlanninR Commission Recommendation: Approval Staff Recommendation: Approval. P/T#.4 Proposal: Amendments to Chapter 9 - Environment Element to: Page 13 of 15 A.qenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 a) Provide greater clarity and focus on the value and role of native plantings and vegetation; b) Support enhancement of Mill Creek wetlands; and, c) Support Iow impact development techniques. Discussion: The proposed amendments to Chapter 9 (Environment Chapter) are in response to Planning and Community Development Committee direction during the course of the past year. Specifically, Objective 18.5 and Policy EN-33 are proposed for amendment, and a new policy, EN-33- A, is proposed to provide greater emphasis in the Environment Chapter to the use of native plants. Specifically, Objective 18.5 adds language promoting the use of native vegetation while Policy EN-33 is amended to highlight the benefits of native vegetation and identifies specific ways native vegetation can be advanced in public and private development projects. New proposed policy EN-33A speaks to having development regulations that emphasize the use of native plantings and specifying native plant types to facilitate their use. Also, Policy EN-27 is proposed for amendment to note that the City will pursue opportunities to enhance the existing wetland system when multiple benefits (e.g. promoting habitat, maintaining water quality, education, open space, recreational) can be achieved. This is intended to add greater support for the City's enhanced wetlands effort. Finally, a new policy (EN 17-A) is proposed that would encourage the use of Iow impact development techniques. Use of Iow impact development can minimize impervious surface runoff and improve water quality. The Planning Commission recommendation was to approve the proposed amendments, with the exception of replacing the word "should" with "shall" in Objective 18.5 as follows, "Objective 18.5 To recognize the aesthetic, environmental and use benefits of vegetation and to promote its retention and propagation. Consideration.~,......... "~'~,'~'~ ~:hall be given to promoting the use of native vegetation." Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, with amendment to Objective 18.5 above. Staff Recommendation: Approval. P/T#5 Proposal: Amend Chapter 7, Transportation Element (TiP Summary, Figure 7.3), by incorporating the most recently adopted (2004-2009) TIP Summary Sheet. Discussion: Annually, the City of Auburn amends the Comprehensive Plan to include an updated summary page of the City's most recently adopted Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) into the Comprehensive Plan as Figure 7.3. The Auburn City Council approved the 2004-2009 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) in September 2003. P/T#5 is a summary sheet of that adopted TIP and its inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate. Approval of this amendment does not change any of the projects already adopted in the Six-Year TIP. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval Staff Recommendation: Approval. P/T #6 Proposal: 2004-2009 Capital Facilities Plan Update Discussion: In June 2003, the Auburn City Council approved a new Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covering the period from 2003-2008. The Finance Department has produced new updated (CFP) sheets covering the period from 2004-2009. Page 14 of 1 5 Agenda Subject CPA03-0002 Date: November 10, 2003 Capital facilities plans serve as the basis for sound and responsible financial planning to meet planned growth. They also serve as the basis for the calculation and expenditure of impact fees. Prior to the full City Council's consideration, the CFP update is scheduled for review by both the Public Works Committee and the Municipal Services Committee. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval Staff Recommendation: Approval. COUNCIL\CPA03-2 PCDC L1103-2 Page 15 of 15 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on October 7, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Garna Jones, Dave Peace, Karen Ekrem, Ronald Douglass, Renee Larsen, Yvonne Ward and Kevin Chapman STAFF · Paul Krauss, David Osaki, Sean Martin, Duane Huskey, Lanny Petitjean, and Patti Zook ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Lewis The meeting was called to order by Chairman Karen Ekrem. · Approval of Minutes for October 7, 2003 Meeting Commissioner Ward requested several corrections to the minutes. On page 3, the first carryover paragraph, change 20-30 hours per person to $20-$30 per person. On page 4, first carryover paragraph the phrase that City Attorney Held reiterated State law and reference to Court of Appeals, she is sure that this is not correct reflection of what Held said. On page 6, she contends there was more testimony than what is reflected in the minutes. Are the meeting tapes considered the record? PK said the minutes are considered the record and the meeting tapes are kept forever. Discussion and testimony are not transcribed verbatim. Commissioner Ward wanted the record to reflect there was deeper public record than is reflected in the minutes. On page 6, the sixth paragraph, as a point of clarification from City Attorney Held, that the Commission could consider more information and continue deliberations. She wants the record to show that she asked to be excused from the meeting at 8:30 and was excused. Commissioner Peace referred to page 4, and said not to change the minutes of what City Attorney Held said whether the comments are correct or incorrect. Commissioner Ward said that Heid's comment was in response to her comment. She has read the State law and is sure he didn't say what is reflected in the minutes. Chair Ekrem informed the audience there is a full agenda tonight and opportunity for all to speak with a three minute time limit for each speaker. If it appears that comments are the same, she will ask for a show of hands of those people who have the same comment. She will open the public hearing on each Comprehensive Plan amendment, hear from staff, take testimony, then close the public hearing on each topic. Planning Commission will take action along the way. CPM #.4 and CPM #6 are withdrawn and will not be discussed. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss informed audience regarding CPM #4, which was controversial and many comments were received. Application requested Comprehensive Plan map amendment to high density residential, but the applicant has withdrawn the request. A letter was sent out last week notifying the residents in the area of such. Staff had the same concerns as the neighbors and the developer agreed to withdraw the request. He then explained the conditional use permit process for senior housing without changing the Comprehensive Plan. There will be no hearing on CPM ~ tonight. When an application is received, the City will readvertise and send out notices. Commissioner Ward asked Chair Ekrem to explain the term 'show of hands' again. Chair Ekrem said if Planning Commission is hearing the same testimony again and again, she will ask for a show of hands of those in support of statements of those speaking previously. She'll ask how many support the previous statement, and will ask if someone has additional new statements to make. Commissioner Ward has a problem with that process in terms of the public record. She wants folks to come up and state their name and address. There is no way to show for the legal record the number of hands. Chair Ekrem asked for a clarification from staff. Planning and Community Development Administrator Osaki said that to avoid duplicate testimony you can have a representative make a statement and others that support their case can raise hands or stand and then state for the record that eight people, for example, stood up and showed support. This has been acceptable. He shares Commissioner Ward's comment and wants to -1- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 ensure that City has individuals names and addresses for future meetings, but it is not unusual to ask for a show of hands. PUBLIC HEARING · ZOA03-0005- Heer Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Planner Aird presented the staff report. Virginia Haugen had a problem with hearing what was said and asked about the public comment period. Chair Ekrem said the first public comment was for general comments and not for public hearing items. Commissioner Jones suggested explaining the public comment section more closely which was done. Chair Ekrem said this public hearing is on ZOA03-0005 for David Heer rezone. In response to Commissioner Ward questions about the map and zoning, Planner Aird said some property to the west is zoned light manufacturing. The King County portion is zoned residential. The Comprehensive Plan map is heavy commercial. The drive in theater is across the street. Commissioner Jones said it is helpful for Planning Commission to have maps showing adjacent properties and their zone. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to close the public hearing. The motion carried. Commissioner Peace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to recommend approval of the rezone. The motion carried. Virginia Haugen wanted to comment on the Heer rezone and asked why no map. She thinks she knows where the property is located and with annexation will it be rezoned? Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing on the Heer rezone and Planning Commission is not discussing elements on this. Planner Aird spoke about the default zoning such as in the Heer case. Public notice was given for the rezone. She spoke with a couple neighbors and the site was posted. Commissioner Ward told Virginia Haugen that this rezone was before City Council already and to the Boundary Review Board already. Virginia Haugen should have caught this one as involved as she is in such matters. · CPA03-0002- 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Chair Ekrem reminded the audience that Planning Commission will address each item individually, open the public hearing, take staff testimony, take public testimony, close the public hearing, have discussion and take action on each element. Planner Martin explained the two different components. The Comprehensive Plan map amendments will be first and policy/text amendments second. There are 10 map amendments, 8 of which are privately initiated and 3 are City initiated. CPM ~ and CPM #6 were withdrawn. CMP #8 and CPM #11 contain multiple parcels. He explained the processing of the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendment.~ CPM#1 To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from "High Density Residential" to "Heavy Commercial" for property located in the 4300 block (east side) of Auburn Way North (west of I Street NE right-of-way). (Application affects the east half of the property; the westerly half is already designated "Heavy Commercial). Applicant: Children's Home Society of Washington Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Planner Martin gave a brief presentation. The property has a split designation. In 2000 Planning Commission and City Council changed the designation on the westerly half of a parcel to the south to heavy commercial. Staff recommends approval of the request. Joe Donahue; 106 Cedar Crest Lane, Bellevue, is a member of the State Board of Children's Home Society which has had 4.15 ac since it was an orphanage in 1926 and operated to the benefit of children -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 and families since then. City staff made a good presentation of the facts related to their request. They would like to have the entire property shown as heavy commercial. Commissioner Chapman asked is the intent of the change. JD said the current plan is to use the property as child care and staff for south King County operations. Their services have expanded toward Enumclaw and they also have an office in Kent. The need for their services is getting greater. The plan is to at some point take the eastern portion and develop with staff housing and maybe additional child care. Their planning has not gone too far yet; just ideas now. They saw the Comprehensive Plan amendment made by neighbor to south and they wanted to be included in the heavy commercial designation. He thanked staff for their help. Virginia Haugen; 2503 R Street SE, said that many years ago a man named Jeff had a farm and donated the land for an orphans home. The property was put to good use for many years. Why a heavy commercial rezone of property to take care of kids? Lots of kids need care and lots of people are making bucks off the care of kids. The rezone has nothing to do with the care of kids. Mr. Donahue said that they have operated that property for as many years and used the entire 4 acres and the buildings. Child care is not an outright permitted use in the current zoning of R4, but is an outright permitted use in the heavy commercial zone. Russell Jones, 11018 SE 322nd Street, noted that when staff gave recommendation there was no indication of when this goes to City Council. Planner Martin said that theoretically, the amendments could go to Council at the next available meeting. They are processing the required State 60 day notice period and comment; the State period closes November 17. Planning and Community Development Administrator Osaki clarified that the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council and makes recommendations of approval or denial to Council. Council can then affirm that decision or not. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward, to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend approval. The motion carried. CPM#2 To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from "Public/Quasi-Public" to "Light Industrial" for properties located on the south side of 49th Street NW, west of Auburn Way North. Applicant: Thomas Academy Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Planner Martin commented that Thomas Academy was annexed in 1995 and then explained the meaning of 'public/quasi public'. Thomas Academy has indicated that they will be liquidating their holdings. Adjacent properties to the north, south, west and east portions are in an industrial corridor. Adjacent zoning is also M1, Light Industrial and is consistent with their request. The Academy said their desire is to liquidate their holdings and changing the designation would be consistent with adjacent designation. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Larsen inquired if Thomas Academy sells the property and another school comes in, could that school operate in this location? Planner Martin said the Comprehensive Plan amendment does not change the zoning, only the Comprehensive Plan map. The Comprehensive Plan designation would change, but not zoning. That school would have to request a rezone. Thomas Academy won't seek a rezone on a speculative basis. The zoning would stay institutional. If another school acquires the property, then the City could reconsider the long term use of the site. Thomas Academy wants to liquidate the property and their best opportunity is as an industrial site. Commissioner Douglass referred to the Comprehensive Plan map and asked for information about the two small green patches. Planner Martin explained that when Thomas Academy came into the City under annexation, it held additional property across that was sold off. The 2 parcels were parcels developed consistent with historical uses. Institutional zoning allows single family homes to be developed. Thomas Academy cannot request Comprehensive Plan change of someone else's property. Staff recommends approval of this request. If amendment request is approved by City Council, the City will look at the best -3- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 long term use of these other two parcels with the owners. As of now, there is no set proposal. There is one single family home utilized as single family home. The other building was used for purposes other than residential. Virginia Haugen said that in 1855 there was an Indian uprising by the drive in, with a massacre, two kids survived and were found by Indian Tom. The school was built in 1928. The organization that runs Thomas Academy has figured out that the land is valuable if classified as industrial. When it goes industrial she hopes that someone will save the building. Commissioner Douglass said it seemed that no one from Thomas Academy is in attendance so who from the Academy made the request. Mark Hehnen, 14014 SE 251~t Street, Kent, announced his attendance and that he is President of the Board of Trustees of Thomas Academy. Staff did good job of explaining their request. They are concerned about the long term health of the Academy. As a private school, there are economic pressures on them to sell piece of property to help cover shortfalls. They only use the middle portion of the property. This is an opportunity to sell a piece of property to help maintain the school. In response to Commissioner Jones' inquiry, Mr. Hehnen said the building has not been designated as a historical structure. There is a plaque on site. Many adjacent farms were started by Japanese Americans. The residence is all that remains of the farm. Staff did ask about the potential historic building. Planner Martin said that SEPA environmental review would require a review of the historical categorization of the site. Commissioner Peace wondered if the change is approved by City Council and Thomas Academy sells part of the property for industrial use, but in the future if Thomas Academy flourishes and stays there would the use be acceptable in an industrial zone? Planner Martin said the use wouldn't be permitted outright. Tonight is an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan map only. In his discussion with Thomas Academy, they would rezone portions of the site they no longer use. The scenario is possible, but Thomas Academy wouldn't seek to rezone until after they vacate the property. Russell Jones, 11018 SE 322nd Street, attended Thomas Academy and is familiar with the building. He thinks Auburn is losing significance of Japanese American community. He mentioned the White River Valley Historical Society. He is concerned that the City is starting to lose valuable history of the valley and he sees an emphasis on preserving history. Commissioner Ward asked for clarification, if there is historic value to the property; what is the process? If Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and it is approved by City Council, and the map is changed, but not zoning, what are next steps if Thomas Academy wants to sell off to an industrial use? Planner Martin said there are two processes. The first is to rezone the property for light industrial use. A future applicant could do in two ways. He explained non-project actions. Applicant come forward with application to construct an industrial type building consistent with the permitted uses in M-1 zone. The two processes could be combined and processed concurrently. The SEPA application deals with historic resources. He spoke about defining measures to lessen impacts to historic character or features of the site. The City pointed this out to Thomas Academy at the first meeting and let them know it would be a concern. When the City makes decisions on environmental review the State Historic Preservation Office is notified to ensure due process. If they or the City or Thomas Academy uncovers historic characteristics with site that warrant protection, they have to be considered and appropriate action taken. He then gave a range of possibilities of historic preservation. It is hard to formulate what the City will do without the actual facts. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Hehnen if they are looking at a time frame and need to have the Comprehensive Plan map change now versus later and he said yes. Originally they had longer range plans, but the changing nature of the neighborhood which surrounded Thomas Academy, and their plan was deferred because the economy affected their finances. They need the ability to sell a portion of the property now. Their intent is to move eventually is deferred, but they need the ability to sell a portion of -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7~ 200'~ property during next school year; otherwise, Thomas Academy is at risk. They only have one chance a year to make the Comprehensive Plan change and waiting until the next cycle would be too late. Virginia Haugen said if the property owner would like to have property designated as historic, there is a committee in Seattle to ask for designation as a historic building. She talked about historic designation. The property purchaser won't want an old building. She wants Thomas Academy to remain, but probably won't be able to remain in institution. They probably want to start selling property and the best way is without historic designation. She spoke about tearing down Auburn history. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward asked about another meeting as she has some discomfort with the proposal due to its potential historic significance. She is uncomfortable acting on the proposal without review of the cultural and historic designation. Planning and Community Development Administrator Osaki said that staff has reserved a couple evenings next week if Planning Commission wanted to continue this portion next week. He would like to get Planning Commission recommendation by the end of the month. Planner Martin advised that the City does share the same concerns. The City wants to make sure there is no damage to historic elements as required by City. Commissioner Ward asked what about the building and site of Japanese American farm. She is feeling rushed about this with its implications. She understands the building can be designated, but what about other parts of the property? Planner Martin mentioned some other examples in the City such as on West Main Street, the Natsuhara building that burned down. The building was unrecoverable. Went through SEPA process when the armory building was developed and there was a dedication of a plaque commemorating the armory and Natsuhara building and their contributions to Auburn. There is a way to address non tangible aspects and again several other things could be done. The City has not yet exhausted the possibility of how to mitigate. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Hehnen if another week will make a difference to him because she can't imagine one week would make a difference and he confirmed that he can wait a week. Commissioner Ward suggested not closing the public hearing. If there is not a meeting next week, then Planning Commission could act on this. Chair Ekrem said there is a motion to close the public hearing now. Commissioner Ward requested to hold the motion to the end of agenda; motion to table to end of the agenda. Chair Ekrem said there is no second; the motion failed. Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing on CPM #2, it was moved and seconded. Commissioner Jones said probably not get any more input on this. Commissioner Ward is saying that she is uncomfortable about making recommendation tonight. Commissioner Jones suggested closing the public hearing, and for deliberation among the Planning Commission, put off until end of tonight's meeting. Vote on motion to close public hearing: yes 6; Commissioner Ward no. The motion carried. Chair Ekrem asked for a recommendation and Commissioner Ward moved to postpone the discussion on recommendation until the end of agenda tonight and Commissioner Jones seconded. There was a short discussion if Commissioner Larsen should abstain from voting as Thomas Academy is one of her clients. Commissioner Ward wanted to have time before end of tonight to absorb comments. Her thinking is that at the end of agenda the Planning Commission can discuss whether act on the proposal tonight or discuss it next week. If it needs to be decided tonight, she is willing to resolve tonight. If it can come back next week, then the Planning Commission can discuss the matter at that time. Commissioner Peace said fine. His strong feeling that like he would to see Thomas Academy survive. Do what can be done to help them survive as they have a right to sell their property to survive. Allow rules to protect historic character. Commissioner Jones spoke of her reason for her comment related to -5- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 Commissioner Ward is that she wants additional time to mull over. The Planning Commission has asked for additional time in the past. Chair Ekrem confirmed that Planning Commission will postpone deliberation on CPM #2 to the end of evening. Commissioner Larsen abstained from the vote. Vote of 3-2; motion carried. CPM #3 To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from "Light Industrial" to "Heavy Industrial" for property located on the north side of South 285th Street, west of the Interurban Trail. Applicant: Rodger C. Scott Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Planner Martin explained that the site does not comply with policy LU-113 because it is not located in the region serving area or near rail lines. The designation is not appropriate for highly visible areas. He spoke about the outdoor storage limitations in the light industrial designations which is why the applicant is requesting the change. Staff recommends denial of the request. Joe Schuler, 28014 West Valley Highway, asked what the City is going to do with water on that site? He's lived at his farm for 31 years. Water comes down Mullen Slough and onto his property and he has a 100 year flood every year. The road into Kent doesn't mean it is all done. Why didn't the Army Corps of Engineers raise the water? The City is not putting water on his dry land. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larsen, to recommend denial. The motion carried. Commissioner Peace wondered how to deal with questions raised by Mr. Shuler. However, it is not appropriate to deal with those concerns at this meeting. Commissioner Jones acknowledged there are acute flooding problems in this area and feels for Mr. Shuler. She knows what he is talking about. She suggesting making a note that the Planning Commission wants to discuss and understand this area for future reference because of the of flooding. Chair Ekrem suggested this topic be added to a future agenda and that Mr. Shuler be invited to attend. CPM #-4 withdrawn CPM #5 To amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from "Light Industrial" to "Heavy Commercial" for properties generally located between the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks, just north of 15th Street NW. Applicant/Owner: La Terra Limited Partnership Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Planner Martin explained the heavy commercial uses. The road is a heavily traveled arterial with access from Highway 167. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Ward asked what applicant can do under the heavy commercial designation that he can't do under the light industrial designation. Planner Martin said the light industrial designation is oriented toward manufacturing and warehouse distribution facilities. There are some opportunities for more commercially oriented uses via an administrative use permit or a conditional use permit. The heavy commercial zone allows uses that are traditionally more commercial such as car dealerships, hotels, motels and banks. The heavy commercial designation is appropriate for sites that are highly accessible to autos and for intersections of heavily traveled arterials. Staff recommends approval. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that there are wetlands on parts of the property and spoke about the SAMP. The wetlands were designated as Iow quality wetlands that could be filled and mitigated along Mill Creek. -6- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 Commissioner Larsen wondered why the rezone if the applicant doesn't know site can be developed. Commissioner Jones said the change is actually a downzone. Applicant could have come in and developed without pc knowledge. She sees no problem with the change. Commissioner Ward has read that mitigation efforts are not effective if off site. If they are trying to offset something big, how to know if mitigation is going to be effective? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss mentioned the Thurmod site which is used as classroom and was considered a prototype of an enhanced wetland project. The property in question is designated as Iow quality wetland and is grass. There are not a lot of open area or nesting islands. The inlet to the property is the railroad tracks. There is not a stream, but culverts. Mill Creek improvements were briefly mentioned. Commissioner Chapman mentioned Emerald Downs Drive and wondered if it is a thoroughfare and is the City taking over the road. Is the road closed on race days? How would the change affect this road? Planner Martin indicated his understanding from the City Engineer is that the road will soon be open to the public 24/7, but he has not heard the exact open date. How the road relates to this site is that the site would rely on the right of way for access. The tracks to the east would preclude B Street access and development would rely on Emerald Downs Drive. Mark Hancock, representative for La Terra Limited Partnership, said the heavy commercial designation is a logical use of the property due to its location and proximity to the racetrack. The heavy commercial designation opens possibilities of uses. There is no specific use in mind at this time. A more commercial use for the property is advantageous to all. Larry Backus, 308 A Street, asked for location of Emerald Downs wetland which was pointed out by Planning and Community Development Director Krauss and is known as the Thurmod site. Mr. Backus asked why it was trenched like on Clay Street and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the original plan showed it as an RV park. The City was looking for a mitigation site that met State requirements and Emerald Downs purchased the property on Clay/VVestern Streets. Mr. Backus spoke about the development moratorium on Clay Street. The developer was going to be responsible for storm sewer down Clay Street. He was told the pipe on West Main was not big enough, now there is a bigger pipe on Main and under the tracks to D Street, but there are still water problems. He spoke about CPM#11. He spoke about making a lake to clear up water problems and proposing a park. Commissioner Ward commented that since there is a moratorium due to water problems where does this fit into problems and testimony from Mr. Backus? Duane Huskev City Utility Engineer, said the moratorium was south of 15 Street NW which acts as a dam and holds water. They are studying the area south for environmental enhancements to establish wetland banking. Commissioner Ward wondered if the number of commercial buildings would impact the area in the moratorium? Utility Engineer Huskey said this effect is being studied now by the consultant. Chair Ekrem asked if someone wants to develop if they would be under environmental review. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said yes; whether or not a development would rise to ElS, the SEPA checklist goes into depth regarding drainage and traffic. As Utility Engineer Huskey indicated, drainage in the area is complex. Commissioner Ward asked if development on this site would have a direct impact on the moratorium area and the answer is that staff doesn't know, but they are studying the matter. The property is downstream with water entering Mill Creek further north and would have to be studied. Commissioner Peace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larsen, to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Peace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend approval. Chair Ekrem commented that development seems inevitable. She travels on 15th NW regularly and sees a nightmare by potential development of a conference center. The City should seek changing the traffic designation on 15th Street in the future. Commissioner Peace said proponent could put in a large -7- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 manufacturing facility with more traffic such as trucks. A hotel won't create a lot of additional traffic. He doesn't like the designation of industrial next to 15th Street. In response to Commissioner Ward inquiry regarding water drainage and if it is better for the property to remain industrial or change to commercial, with the change in Comprehensive Plan designation, Utility Engineer Huskey said it doesn't make much difference because the issues of parking lot and water storage are essentially the same. As part of SEPA, developer would have to mitigate impacts on site. Vote on the earlier motion: Commissioner Chapman and Commissioner Ward voted no. The motion passed: 5-2. Commissioner Jones commented that it is approaching 9 pm and Planning Commission is just finishing CPM #5. There are still five map amendments and all the policy/text amendments to finish. She would like the Planning Commission to discuss or ask see what those in the audience are here for and take those items first. Audience has been here been here since 7 pm. Planner Martin said map amendments could be taken out of order. Chair Ekrem said it is not her intent to go until finished tonight. Commissioner Ward asked what amendments those in the audience are here for. Chair Ekrem asked for a motion for when to close tonight's agenda and continue the public hearing. Commissioner Ward wants to see what the audience is here for; who is here for which map amendment? Chair Ekrem commented that no matter what the Planning Commission does, someone who has been here since 7 pm won't be able to speak tonight and she apologized to the audience. She asked for a motion on how the Planning Commission wants to proceed. Chair Ekrem suggested closing the evening's agenda and move to end of the meeting at 9:45 pm. Commissioner Ward moved go through CPM #7, CPM #8 and CPM #9 and continue or postpone other items to a date certain. Commissioner Douglass seconded the motion. The motion passed. Chair Ekrem confirmed that the Planning Commission will hear CPM #7, CPM #8, and CPM #9 tonight and continue the rest of the Comprehensive Plan map and policy/text amendments to the October 14, 2003 meeting. CPM #6 withdrawn CPM #7 To amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from "Moderate Density Residential" to "Heavy Commercial" for property located on the north side of 23r~ Street SE, approximately 400-500 feet east of A Street SE. (Proposal would have the effect of clarifying the designation of the abutting parcel to the west, under the same ownership, as "Heavy Commercial" as well). Applicant: Bill Moffett Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Planner Martin explained the purpose of the heavy commercial Comprehensive Plan map designation. He pointed out the proximity of adjacent properties. 23~ Street is incapable of supporting the commercial traffic. A rezone is being processed separately. Staff has communicated with the applicants outside the hearing. The intended use probably won't create an adverse impact to the neighborhood, but a change to the land use designation is a precursor to a rezone and the intended use is one of the many uses permitted in the C-3 Heavy Commercial zone some of which would create impacts. Staff recommends denial of the request. Bill Moffett, 1911 SW Campus Drive #732, Federal Way, feels that the City doesn't explain surrounding area appropriately. Staff explains it as primarily residential and it is not. The surrounding two sides are heavy commercial now. He has an aerial photo dated 2001 of the surrounding uses. The intent is to use the property as an extension of the existing business. They had issues and discussed with staff. The road is an unimproved City road. Current access is available. He has a letter from the City that outlines requirements needed to utilize the site as a commercial use. He read a portion of the letter from the City Traffic Division. The letter speaks to road improvements that could be done. -8- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 Commissioner Douglass wanted to clarify about 500 feet to be improved to B Street. Mr. Moffett said commercial uses in C3 are some uses permitted in the R3 zone. C3 permitted uses not applicable to this property such as day care, professional office, or religious institutions which are all permitted in the current residential and C3 zones. Other C3 uses that have heavier use that restrict or create more traffic couldn't be permitted. The mobile home park is surrounded by commercial on two sides and has heavy commercial designation and the change won't impact the mobile home park. The change will improve access in front of their property. They are not planning to change their intended use. There has been no negative public response and he spoke about Hearing Examiner hearing. Commissioner Ward asked about the site being used as a contractor staging area and Mr. Moffett said that he stores his trucks there and also sells snow plow trucks to municipalities. He stores trucks and components in the yard, has a demonstration area for spray trucks, and has a staging area for sales demonstrations. He has a structure there now. Joe Papalargo, a property owner to the north said there are no residential uses in the back area and the use of the property is for commercial. He asked the Planning Commission to visit the site. He echoes Bill Moffett's comments. Commissioner Ward asked staff to explain why they can't use the property through the conditional use permit process since parcel is adjacent his other property. Planner Martin commented that in order to request a conditional use permit the use would have to be listed or described in the zoning designation. The R3 doesn't have uses consistent with his intended use. Commissioner Ward thinks there might be a Catch 22 here. If proponent rezones to C3, staff is concerned about opening to other C3 uses that might be inappropriate for the area. Planner Martin said that once the property goes to C3 the City loses its discretionary authority. A change of use does not trigger review. If other uses could occupy site and increase in traffic and secondary effects and there is no ability to deny the opportunity to locate or through conditional use permit process. The C3 conditional use permit uses are a bit less intensive. Mr. Moffett spoke to uses in both zones. There are a few uses permitted outright in both zones. There are some duplicative requirements. Commissioner Ward asked about impact given that property to the west is C3. Planner Martin said that NorStar to the west has direct frontage on ^ Street. Incremental approach to the designation was described. As the C3 zone is extended you could stipulate that it is not significant impacts to the neighborhood, and would have to ask the same questions of the next property owner. You could go 60 feet, another 60 feet, and 120 feet, and then to B Street, and then one develops a significant distance from the arterial for the boundary between commercial and residential as the C3 extends east. Commissioner Ward said staying as is and not getting a CUP process or to rezone to C3 opens a can of worms. Planner Martin said that the options were explained to the applicant. The site could be developed by someone else consistent with the zoning designation. The applicant needs the property rezoned to C3. Commissioner Larsen asked about houses next to the commercial area. Planner Martin replied that the A Street corridor is consistent with the same issues along the corridor. The transition has to be somewhere. Mr. Moffett wanted to reiterate and said the area is used already primarily for C3 uses. They'll have appropriate setback and buffers. Any heavier uses will require traffic study and will require more road which isn't available. This is a big burden to the property owner. An area that could be C3 area is a grey area. There are no major housing developments, only a mobile home park. The only residence that borders his supports the change. Virginia Haugen apologized for not hearing the proposal description because she was in hallway and asked home many acres and any landmarks. Planner Martin pointed out the properties to her. She said that in 1985 when the Comprehensive Plan was put together the Comprehensive Plan was nit picked to death. There are no manufacturing jobs to earn a decent living. She said that traffic is a nightmare. Commercial next to mobile home park. Leave the designation as it is. -9- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 Frank Rice said the zoning is of great interest to him and intended to protect adjacent property owners from inappropriate uses. In this case this property is trying to come into compliance with the same zoning as neighbors. There is no objection from the east and no one from trailer park showed up tonight. In fact, maybe they like the road improvement idea. If a line is drawn to match existing property line at time zoned it is hard time to understand why it is being denied. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Jones suggested that since the Planning Commission will meet again on October 14, this would allow Planning Commission a chance to visit the site as Mr. Moffett requested. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to postpone discussion, deliberation and action on this map amendment to October 14 in order for Planning Commission to do a site visit. The motion passed. CPM #8 8 a~ 8 b~ 8e- To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from "Single Family Residential" to "Moderate Density Residential" for properties within three planning areas (Areas 7, 8 and 9) of the Lakeland Hills South PUD. Applicant: Apex Engineering Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Planner Martin said that 8a is the Topp Food Center, 8b is adjacent to Eastpointe, 8c is adjacent to the 40 acre park and northern portion of Lake Tapps Parkway. The request is to adjust Comprehensive Plan designation from single family residential to moderate density residential. All property is within the PUD. The overall development of the PUD is guided by the ElS which was adopted by Pierce County and adopted by reference by Auburn. He referred to Chapter 18.76, Lakeland Hills South PUD and the official Lakeland Hills South'map. Each area is designated as different planning area. Changing the allowable densities in the planning area to moderate density (2-14 units/acre). The planning area 7 is 8a, 27 acres and 116 dwelling units. The moderate density would change how the dwelling units are distributed. They can't increase the dwelling units in the planning area under this process because there is a separate process with that amendment. The applicant will probably come in and request a change at a future date. The Lakeland Hills South PUD has a cap on the total number of dwelling units. In order to increase the dwelling units in the planning area, take units away from another planning area. The specific proposals are: 8a is 27.2 acres and 116 dwelling units; 8 b is 18 acres and 64 dwelling units; 8c is 1.8 acres with 3 dwelling units. Commissioner Chapman asked what are the chances of the total units for Lakeland of 3406 increasing? If they can increase density will this increase the total number of residences? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss announced that he was on the team that negotiated the contract several years ago. That contract fixed the maximum number of dwelling units between the property owner, developer and the City. The contract would have to be opened and the additional impacts reviewed. The total number of units was used for designating park and fire fees, for traffic, etc. Any substantive changes to the contract would be difficult to achieve. The ElS was done through Pierce County. Commissioner Ward wondered about a situation where they change the density and in 10 years come back and say they need to increase the total capacity? Are they bound by the contract and when does the contract expire? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied that the contract remains in perpetuity. Realistically, it is extremely difficult to make changes. Lakeland was in Pierce County so the City knew the upper ceiling exactly where density took place in Lakeland. The developer was given the ability to respond to changing real estate market. If the developer decides that senior housing is the market or if single family is the market, they can request a change. The developer is allowed to roll with the market changes. Planner Martin commented that regarding the contract renegotiations, which is a separate issue, but related, if Lakeland PUD should seek to increase above the figure of 3408, this would require specific Comprehensive Plan map amendment to be heard before the Planning Commission and ultimate approval by the City Council. Using Planner Martin's example, Commissioner Peace wondered if - 10- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 Lakeland wants to increase the density and take units from area to another, if an area is a bit under density they could swap units to increase units in another area. Jeff Mann, Apex Engineering, said the comments made are correct. Under the contractual agreement with the City the unit cap is 3408 and the ElS addressed roads, utilities, etc., in order to have this unit number. They are not intending to increase the units. As part of the contract the City wants to see densities in Lakeland development. They are providing streets, parks, utilities, etc. 1440 units are currently constructed. They developed below the maximum dwelling units in moderate density portion of PUD. He pointed out steep slope areas and wetland areas. In order to get the number of units they need the moderate density designation revised. In 2000 they did changes to the map and the map is a 'living' document. He concurs with the staff recommendation. The change is further implementation of Lakeland PUD. In response to Commissioner Peace's inquiry, Jeff Mann said 3406 is the unit cap. Excess units in a core area can be moved to another area. For example, the 600 multi family units next to the Town Center could be reduced or transferred to another area. Commissioner Ward referred to the water situation, and wondered if because of the cap and moving numbers around how does this affect water? There are well problems in the area and will the change affect water? Utility Engineer Huskey advised that the PUD is in the Bonney Lake water service area. There is a plan to develop additional wells. The short answer is no because Council will decide if it wants to serve areas in the future based on a service agreement with Bonney Lake. They have done studies to see where the water is coming from. Bonney Lake did call and ask about the proposed changes. Virginia Haugen said that in 1995 she went to a meeting at Green River Community College. No other officials from City were there. People from Kent/Covington districts and DOE officials were there. Old Kent/Covington said that Auburn shouldn't sell water to them. Levels of the Green River are dropping too Iow. There is in-fighting at City Hall. The City sold water to Covington. Lakeland grew and State told Auburn it could annex and build and build. Wells are going to go dry. Developments on Lea Hill were told there is plenty of water. City drilled a well and it went non-functional. Sucking our aquifer dry? Commissioner Ward asked if Virginia Haugen has any evidence and Virginia Haugen said 600-800 houses ran out of water. She doesn't want to be on top of an aquifer going dry. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to recommend approval. Commissioner Chapman expressed concern about the amount of traffic and the Sumner/Lake Tapps Highway is backed up each morning. If the blinking signal is changed to a working traffic signal, this would add additional traffic. Chair Ekrem asked about mitigation from the traffic plan. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss explained that Lakeland project has done a number of things such as paying a traffic mitigation fee. Fees were set aside by the Lakeland developer which are going to help with the installation of a traffic light at Lakeland Hills Way and A Street. The location was in the City of Pacific, but was annexed last night by Council so that Auburn can fix the intersection. The developer has paid dues. Commissioner Ward said that in light of Commissioner Chapman's comments, and the fixed amount of units allowed in the PUD, and the change allows the developer to redistrict the units without reaching the cap, then they are not changing the overall impact, just changing around. Chair Ekrem confirmed that traffic is a real concern. Planner Martin said that Commissioner Chapman's issue is northbound traffic traffic,which is not traffic generated in the City. Changing the density in the PUD won't change the incoming -11- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 CPM #9 To amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan map to: A. Amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary to include Dieringer School District properties and designate the properties "Public & Quasi-Public"; and, B. Amend the Auburn Comprehensive Sewer Plan to include the same parcels in the City's sewer service area. Properties are located at the Lake Tapps Elementary School site in Pierce County. Proposal is intended to facilitate the provision of sanitary sewer service to the properties. Applicant/Owner: Dieringer School District Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Planner Martin reviewed the two separate requests. The school district wants the PAA extended and the parcels designated as public and quasi public, and amend the comprehensive sewer plan for these parcels to identify them within the City's sanitary sewer service area and to tie into Auburn's sanitary sewer line. He mentioned the settlement agreement with Bonney Lake. Staff has spoken with Bonney Lake. Staff recommends denial of extending the PAA and approval of the amendment to the sanitary sewer plan boundary. Utility Engineer Huskey pointed out the sewer service area boundary. The City is serving outside the PAA now in Pierce County. They can service the site through a number of mechanisms and there are different ways to serve. He stressed that schools should be on public sewer. Commissioner Ward inquired if Planning Commission recommends approval of sewer plan does it make the City provide the sewers and Utility Engineer Huskey said yes. Chair Ekrem wondered why the school district is pursing annexing the boundary when they don't need to reach their objective. Utility Engineer Huskey said the July deadline was to make an application for Comprehensive Plan amendment and the school district applied for everything to get sewer for the new school. John Anderson, Project Manager and consultant to the School District, said that getting sewer is their main objective and they did not object to Auburn recommending denial of a portion of their request. Virginia Haugen said that in 1995 we started to talk about annexing portions of Auburn to Pierce County and she thinks the time has come that Pierce County takes care of Pierce County, King County takes care of King County, and Auburn takes care of Auburn. These are complicated issues that waste time. If the school district in Pierce County needs sewer, let them go to Pierce County or let them go to the State. She is in favor of septic system. Commissioner Ward asked if Auburn kids attend the school and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that Lakeland PUD and became part of the Auburn School District. Some as yet unannexed areas in PAA are still in Dieringer School District and the long term answer is yes. Commissioner Ward asked if there is a cost benefit to extend the sewer and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied the cost is paid by the school district. Russ Jones spoke of the property owner's obligation, and maintenance and upkeep is taxpayer cost. The City is shifting infrastructure cost to Auburn taxpayers. He is not on sewer and in the future he will be forced to connect sewer, but at what cost? The City is providing transportation infrastructure, water infrastructure, sewer infrastructure to areas that don't belong to Auburn and this imposes higher taxes on property owners. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that the sewer utility is an enterprise fund paid for by users of the sewer system and is not something put back on the taxpayers. It is a self contained and self financed program. Virginia Haugen said as she talks to her neighbors they ask why pay storm drain fee and then their back yard is flooded? Why do sewer bills keep going up? She doesn't know what to say to them. The City just runs more water lines or sewer lines. - 12- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2003 Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones to close the public hearing. The motion carried. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion carried. Chair Ekrem reiterated that the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan map and policy/text amendments will be heard at the October 14, 2003 meeting at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. PC~AGND~IIN 10-2003 - 13- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 The continued meeting of the Planning Commission was held on October 14, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: MEMBERS: Garna Jones, Dave Peace, Karen Ekrem, Ronald Douglass, Renee Larsen, Yvonne Ward and Kevin Chapman STAFF: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Karen Ekrem. PUBLIC HEARING (continued from October 7, 2003) · CPA03-0002- 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Paul Krauss, David Osaki, Sean Martin, Lanny Petitjean, and Patti Zook Chair Ekrem reminded the audience that Planning Commission will address each item individually, open the public hearing, take staff testimony, take public testimony, close the public hearing, and take action on each element as Planning Commission goes through the agenda. The items on the agenda are the remaining Comprehensive Plan map and policy/text amendments and continue deliberations on CPM #2 and CPM #7. Commissioner Jones was asked by another Planning Commission member to ask for Planning Commission to consider including in tonight's agenda a public comment period. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss is aware that there is going to be a desire to open the public hearing on an item from the October 7 meeting. The Planning Commission should vote to reopen the item or items of particular interest. Chair Ekrem asked for a motion to open the public comment section of the last meeting. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that the specific portion of the public hearing you want to reopen should be specified. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larsen, to reopen the public hearing portion for CPM #2, Thomas Academy. Commissioner Ward wants the amendment to happen immediately because there are folks from the museum and church who want to speak. There was no objection and the motion passed. Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) Amendments CPM#2 continued discussion from October 7, 2003 meeting To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from "Public/Quasi-Public" to "Light Industrial" for properties located on the south side of 49th Street NW, west of Auburn Way North. Applicant: Thomas Academy Chair Ekrem asked those in the audience to keep their comments brief as this item was talked about previously and comments should present new information. Virginia Haugen, 2503 R Street SE, stated that in 1853 people came to the Green River valley from Tennessee and later someone named the area Slaughter. Settlers came to valley, built a community, there were Indians in the valley, Japanese American farmers came in and planted crops. Thomas Academy is one of the most valuable buildings that Auburn will have culturally. Some in the community fully intend to save Thomas School. She doesn't like intimidation from the Planning Director and the Mayor and doesn't want a particular Planning Commission member to resign as that person must speak for the citizens. Charles Natsuhara, 117 29th Street NW, spoke about the historical significance of Thomas Academy to the Japanese American community and is a landmark to their first and second generations in the Kent/Auburn area. There were a number of old towns populating the area such as Christopher, Thomas and Meridian. The Academy is a landmark. -1- I' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 Stan Flewelling, 33011 18th Place South, Federal Way, will be the resident caretaker at OIson Farm soon, is an author, and was asked to speak about the school from a historic perspective. He can vouch that the school is a significant Japanese American landmark a presence of significance in the region and state and represents the core of the Thomas community. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Flewelling, in his book Shirakawa, which speaks about Thomas School before it was an academy and if it was attended by Japanese Americans. Mr. Flewelling replied yes by Japanese Americans, and that the valley was a farming area with a number of farms in the 1920s and 1930s and the number dissipated after VVVVII and after internment. There was no additional public testimony and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Ward spoke of dialogue with the JA community, and the Thomas Academy is a huge concern of the community. They are respectful of Thomas Academy's financial situation, but wonder what is the better solution? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that in terms of the process for historic designation, the City contracts with King County for historic preservation services. As part of this King County undertakes historic designations for property designated as such by City Council. City Council only does this where requested by a property owner. The City understands the sensitivity of historic designation. However, that isn't the purview of the Planning Commission or before the Planning Commission tonight and staff knows that the Planning Commission has a concern about this. Planning Commission can vote up or down on the proposed Comprehensive Plan map change and make a recommendation that the City Council look at the historic designation. However, Council has to vote for this designation. Commissioner Ward said that as a follow up, she had discussion with Community Development Administrator Osaki and thought that the City could work for preservation purposes. The City doesn't have the authority to preserve when someone wants to raze a building evidently from her conversation yesterday with Community Development Administrator Osaki. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss confirmed that the City currently has no ability to preserve. Commissioner Jones had a telephone call from a person in the community who sounded interested in getting a committee together to look at funding and/or purchase of the building. Planning Commission could incorporate this into a motion to Council. She is concerned about the historic nature of the property and would like to make recommendation that Council look at creating a committee to fund and/or search for grants in King County or the State and to perhaps look at preserving the land and building. Commissioner Ward wants to be a part of this and supports Commissioner Jones' idea. Commissioner Ward made a motion to recommend denial with the provision that the City aggressively seek a partnership with the City, Thomas Academy, and others who to think about historic designation. To this point, there has been no exploration of this option. Commissioner Ward made a motion, recommending that the designation of the property where the building is not be changed, with a requirement that the City aggressively pursue a partnership for other options. If this fails, then come back next year for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Commissioner Jones has a problem with denying the request and knows that Thomas Academy is economically crunched, needs answers, and needs to do something with the property this year. The proponent has said if they have to wait a year it might be too late. Commissioner Ward asked if the request has to go through this long process? Why such long process? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that State law only allows Comprehensive Plan changes once a year. He explained that the City solicits Comprehensive Plan amendment requests prior to July, Planning Commission has work session(s) in September, Planning Commission public hearing in October, and to City Council for adoption in December. -2- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 Commissioner Peace said this seems to be a discussion now and by changing the Comprehensive Plan it does not change the historic property whether it is commercial or residential. It is not right to hold the Comprehensive Plan change hostage. He thinks this is what the amendment does - holds Thomas Academy hostage. Commissioner Douglass wanted to second this statement. Commissioner Jones thinks Planning Commission could have a proposal to move forward, with the idea to ask City Council to formulate a committee to look at the Thomas Academy building and property and Commissioner Peace agreed. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to approve the Thomas Academy Comprehensive Plan map change with idea that the recommendation to Council include that the City formulate seriously or consider forming a committee to look into the situation with Thomas Academy's historic aspect. The motion passed; Commissioner Larsen abstained. Commissioner Ward commended Commissioner Jones for her positive approach and will vote for it. She would prefer not to vote to change the map as this will expedite transfer of the property. She wanted to note for the record that Thomas Academy is huge monument for Japanese American community and she found this out when she talked with the Japanese American community. She commended Thomas Academy in the past for recognizing the relationship. Her opposition is not directed at Thomas Academy's situation. This is a cultural situation and that should be an active part of any discussion. She heard rumors that there is a buyer and moving school to Thomas Academy. This is not want she wanted given the situation. She would like to participate in the committee. CPM #7 (discussion continued from October 7 meeting~ To amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from "Moderate Density Residential" to "Heavy Commercial" for property located on the north side of 23rd Street SE, approximately 400-500 feet east of A Street SE. (Proposal would have the effect of clarifying the designation of the abutting parcel to the west, under the same ownership, as "Heavy Commercial" as well). Applicant: Bill Moffet Chair Ekrem asked for a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass to recommend approval. Commissioner Jones wants to vote no. If you look at Comprehensive Plan, try to keep neighborhood and do things right. She thinks the change is setting a precedent and doesn't want to do it. Commissioner Peace agrees with Commissioner Jones; if change here, what's next? Commissioner Chapman agrees with Commissioner Jones and Commissioner Peace. The actual street is narrow. They propose to widen the street and add sidewalks. He assumes there is no intent to sell the property after the map change which doesn't seem like a good idea. It is not a good idea for commercial on a small arterial. Commissioner Douglass thought from the testimony that change would be defacto. Why vote to take away something already in existence. If it is already being used and saying no, are we taking away something already in existence? Chair Ekrem asked if the property is already in current use? Planner Martin was it was his understanding that property was historically used for outside storage which is a code enforcement issue and in violation of outdoor storage. He is not aware of legitimate documentation that City approved the site historically for outdoor storage. Understanding is code enforcement says not legitimate use. Chair Ekrem asked if property is currently being used for storage whether legitimate or not? Planner Martin replied that he doesn't believe materials or equipment is being actively used. The violation was to remove materials in order to be consistent with the code. Commissioner Ward wants the property owner to address Commissioner Douglass's concerns. Commissioner Douglass referred to an aerial photo he saw at the last meeting. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the issue before the Planning Commission is the Comprehensive Plan map amendment, not any remedial action through code enforcement and he urged the Planning Commission to separate the two issues. The mere fact of existence does not mean legitimate use. The intent of the process is not to legitimize something that sneaked in under the radar. -3- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 Does the amendment meet intent or not? Commissioner Ward thinks it is relative because of comment from staff that property has never been a problem, relevant to look at historic use if not problem, and appropriate to allow the change. Be consistent with how it has been, not whether done and not gotten away with. Planner Martin again described the staff position. The applicant's intended use may not create any adverse effects. However, the subsequent rezone is not a discretionary permit such as a conditional use permit. With a rezone to heavy commercial, staff is concerned that the majority of uses permitted will have the potential to create a significant affect. Bill Moffet, representative for the applicant, has current zoning maps an said that the line that the City has in the area is not a definite line to be kept. He pointed out the Utility Vault Company. He showed a colored map showing their site and Utility Vault. What's relevant is that the mobile home park north of Utility Vault. One lot is divided between residential and commercial and could be purchased and converted to commercial. He spoke about access to A Street. There is a vacant lot to east of the existing 03 parcel on 21=t that is currently 100% 03 and a fence company. This vacant parcel could be commercial too. They have been using the site for six years and in the same way since 1987. Not having the change would impact the land owner. The City should take second look at this block as far the Comprehensive Plan map is and see that it is inadequate for uses that could potentially happen. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Moffet if he would have to move his business and he replied yes. The business has been on A Street SE since 1991. Commissioner Peace asked if the fence company to the north is a non conforming use? Is it zoned as a fence company? Planner Martin commented there are a number of parcels in and around the City that have the same phenomenon. Commissioner Peace asked about seeking a zoning change? The property Mr. Moffett referenced is already entirely zoned heavy commercial, and as he seeks to do heavy commercial, no. Planner Martin said that as the City seeks to address and amend the Comprehensive Plan map to conform with zoning or to amend zoning to correspond with the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke about the major overhaul of the Comprehensive Plan in connection with the Growth Management Act. In this instance, 21st Street is an arterial and supports the application of the heavy commercial designation; 23rd Street doesn't. In response to Commissioner Larsen's inquiries, Planner Martin spoke about incrementalism and where to draw the dividing line. The Comprehensive Plan is not parcel specific. Zoning is parcel specific and spells out what uses, heights, etc., can go there. The Comprehensive Plan guides long term development. This property is away from the arterial corridor, on a substandard road, and is better utilized for purposes other than heavy commercial. The City attempted to make a transition for properties on arterials or along intersections of arterials. 23~d Street is not an arterial. The applicant could make 23~ Street to support heavy commercial traffic, but the question is not whether the property or street be deve oped to commercial standards, but should 23r~ Street be designed to support commercial traffic? Staff says it shouldn't. If the mobile home park seeks to develop, they would have to make same the requirements as Mr. Moffett is making. Commissioner Ward asked how did the parcel to the north on the Comprehensive Plan be residential and zoned commercial? Planner Martin speculated that it was zoned or developed as commercial prior to this Comprehensive Plan designation. Commissioner Ward asked can you have a gross inconsistency? If zoned residential, how commercial? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that the Comprehensive Plan is a statement of policy and intent, where the City wants to be in the future. Existing zoning can occasionally conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. When doing the Comprehensive Plan, you don't automatically say property is zoned x, and Comprehensive Plan is x. What is the best interest of the community? There are conflicts and these are resolved over the years. Next year there may be a recommendation to make the fence company non-conforming Commissioner Ward commented that if the fence company is there and it is now conforming and in a zone that allow it, you can't come back and change the zoning because they have vested rights. Planning -4- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 /.~U L~/__z-dU U and Community Development Director Krauss said this approach has been upheld. The City, in the public interest, can change the zoning. The City could do a down zone and uses on the property would be made non-conforming. The use could remain and couldn't expand as long as in it is operation. Commissioner Ward said the fence company is there and you can't do anything about that business. Is the fence company there as long as it wants? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this is essentially correct. Unless the City condemns, if City makes it non-conforming, City does not expect it to be there forever. At some time in the future it will change. Bill Moffett referred to a letter he received regarding a meeting he had with Transportation Department that outlined what he would have to do for road improvements. Even if they get zoning and get zoning done, and submit read plan, it could not be enlarged unless the read could be improved. He feels that the change would serve the public. Commissioner Larsen added that she visited the site and drove down 23r~ Street which is easy to get around. On 23rd there is a brand new residential area. On 21st there is a trailer park, she spoke about old houses that are unkempt. The area is not a high grade area and there is no problem to have business there which has been happening there on the property. There is a fence company nearby. Planner Martin noted the uses were the opposite as she described. 21st has new uses and is wide and 23r~ has a trailer park. Commissioner Douglass expressed a problem with the fact that have a small business operating in this manner for a number of years and now the City is telling them they have to pull back or reduce capability. Commissioner Peace commented that just because you do something wrong forever doesn't make it okay. He does not have a problem with denying the request. Commissioner Douglass remarked that there is not a high quality residential area nearby. No one will want to put in high quality homes nearby. The best thing for the property is commercial. In response to Commissioner Jones questions, Planner Martin spoke about the landscaping requirements such as landscaping at street frontage and providing 10 feet width of landscaping along the east property line that abuts the residential district. Commissioner Jones wanted to make a comment that just because an area is Iow end it doesn't mean the City has to accept that. The City is working to uplift areas. She can't accept a bad attitude just because an area is considered a 'low end' area. Commissioner Larsen spoke about restoring houses. She has respect for properties that are architecturally significant; this area is dilapidated and is not a neighborhood. It is all industrial with trains nearby. No one will want to build new houses in this neighborhood. It will be a long time before anyone will want to live in the neighborhood. Commissioner Douglass spoke about encouraging small business and not driving them out. Commissioner Jones thinks this is a good thought for next year when the City considers the Comprehensive Plan major overhaul. Chair Ekrem restated the motion. Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the change. The motion passed 5-2. CPM #10 To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to "Single Family Residential" (the site is the City of Kent watershed/impoundment reservoir and is currently undesignated on City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Land Use map and consists of approximately 157 acres). Property is located west of 124th Ave SE, east of 118th Street SE, and north of SE 304 St. Applicant: City of Auburn Planner Martin reviewed the process for those not in attendance at last week's meeting. He presented the staff report and explained the reason that the property is undesignated. The City of Kent purchased the property some time ago for municipal purposes and Kent no longer needs the property for water utility purposes and wants to develop the property. Since the property won't be municipally owned or developed, Auburn is the only jurisdiction capable of annexing the property. The property is surrounded by PAA land and Auburn is proposing application of single family designation. Single family designation is the lowest -5- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 200~ designation for the site. The site will likely be developed under Kent. Kent would likely be the permitting agency and it would likely be annexed to Auburn as already developed or under vesting approvals. The single family designation of six/units per acre which is the least dense designation. There are numerous sensitive areas on the site and management of sensitive areas is not affected by the zoning designation. Whether under Kent or Auburn's sensitive areas ordinance, the site will be well protected. Most likely future development will be Kent and Auburn can't speak to future development. Commissioner Jones asked about the status of the sensitive areas. Planner Martin spoke about the surface water corridor on site. He does not know of a development proposal for the site. Kent would be more familiar with the sensitive areas on site. Commissioner Jones asked about the status of the sensitive areas ordinance. Community Development Administrator Osaki commented that currently the City has sensitive areas ordinance that allows protection of wetlands which the Planning Commission has been reviewing and Planning Commission will see the updated draft. The City needs to get the SAO adopted by the end of 2004 to incorporate additional requirements from the GMA. The SAO review will be docketed for Planning Commission based on their current schedule. Commissioner Larsen asked about the advantage of changing the designation now versus later, Planner Martin said he can't forecast when the annexation might take place. Commissioner Larsen posed what if Kent sells the property and asks Auburn to annex? Planner Martin replied that annexation is more complicated than that. Auburn can annex property only contiguous to the City limits and island annexations by municipal purposes only. Kent owned the property for municipal purposes, but not Auburn. R1 zoning is the least dense and City couldn't impose a less intense designation. Commissioner Larsen wanted to know when the other areas adjacent to this property are scheduled for annex. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the City was on track to move forward with annexation of the rest of Lea Hill. However, voter initiatives have made it economically unfeasible to move forward until certain issues are resolved. There is no commercial development. Property tax is the revenue source which can't support fire or police services. The City didn't initiate this. The City doesn't own the property, the City of Kent does. Kent said it was going ahead with the sale last spring and Auburn anticipated this sale would have happened by now. Kent has ongoing hearings about this and has not moved forward about a specific development. Auburn was told by Kent of the possibility that this property would be sold to a developer before it is possible for it to be annexed to Auburn. One scenario is that the property is sold and developed through Kent before it becomes part of Auburn. Commissioner Larsen wondered after the property is sold, wouldn't it to King County? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said it would not default to King County because of a loophole in State law that allows island annexations through municipal purposes. Kent acquired the property 15 years ago for municipal purposes and the property was incorporated into Kent. For whatever reasons, Kent has determined it is not appropriate to own the property anymore, has rendered the property surplus and want to sell. The property is part of Kent, but the law never anticipated this situation. Commissioner Larsen wanted to confirm that Kent has the decision of what happens with the property and Auburn can plan for it if it is annexed in the future and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said yes. Commissioner Douglass asked about zoning for the area surrounding the subject property and Planner Martin said that it is King County zoning because adjacent land is in unincorporated King County. The Comprehensive Plan designation for Auburn is single family designation which would support R1 zoning district of 8,000 square foot lots. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss commented that the Comprehensive Plan designation in Auburn's plan is very similar to the King County plan. In preparation for annexing Lea Hill, Auburn reviewed the Soos Creek Plan in order to minimize conflicts. No one anticipated the property being anything but a municipally owned island. Commissioner Ward wanted to know how this plays into the current plan of King County to divest itself and ask cities to take over land in their PAAs by annexing the areas. Affected by this at all? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this is an interesting question and the Mayor and Planning -6- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 Director have met with King County staff on this issue. King County has disinvested in roads and parks. King County has not taken a proactive position on this issue and he doesn't think they will because it is not part of the county. Commissioner Ward wondered about the downside on waiting if Auburn has to annex. Planner Martin said there is a slight downside. The Comprehensive Plan amendments are done one time per year, but Auburn could do by emergency, but he is not sure if this would qualify as an emergency. If there is no Comprehensive Plan designation, you can't exert zoning because zoning is applied based on the Comprehensive Plan designation. Potentially, it could be regulated as unclassified which would default to R1 which is consistent with Comprehensive Plan of the area. Other than schools or parks, Lea Hill is single family all around. Susan Sander, 29415 118th Avenue SE, gave a handout to the Planning Commission dated October 14, 2003. She said the property contains a class 2 wetland and is an important water collector for Olson Creek basin and the Green River. The handout contained a copy of her e-mail to Mayor Lewis that talks about the growth of the undevelopable land on the Kent property, page 2 of that e-mail has a graph that shows the increase in undevelopable acres, page 3 of the e-mail shows a wetland survey in 1990. The second letter is from Dennis Clark of WRIA9 in response to her letter asking him about the property. She asked Planning Commission to designate the property as open space, park or natural preserve or protection site all of which are better suited for the property than single family residential. Deitrich Reiner, 12221 SE 304th Street, is a professional engineer, east hill resident for over 30 years. He showed a picture of 124th and 284th Streets near John's Lake. He spoke about the increase in population and its effect on the environment. He is concerned about the future, and the attractiveness of the area will decrease. When going up 124th Street you see a slope by the lake, contour lines of the area, water runs down in there, area would to block runoff by a dam by 124th and 284th Streets. The owner of the adjacent property decided to get Corps to block runoff and make a lake which has developed over the last 20 years. Someone had the foresight to do a dam to form a lake and the lake raises and lowers levels by four feet. Another picture showed the contour lines adjacent to the Kent reservoir site and all water runs come into the reserve area and would collect at the lake, but for a hole the way water runoff is. When you have property in the area real estate agents pointed to area and said wouldn't be developed and told home buyers it would be an open area and a reservoir. Regarding environmental impact, he spoke about stormwater and its effect on 112th Avenue that caused a fatality on the road when the road collapsed because water pressure destroyed the road. One of six options that Kent has is to use as a park. Auburn wants to override this by residential zoning. Don't make zoning decisions lightly. Turning the property into a park preserves and improves the character of Lea Hill. He gave a copy of his written comments dated October 14, 2003 to Chair Ekrem. Catherine Hunter, 12045 SE 284th Street, said the area included in Comprehensive Plan map encompasses Class 2 wetlands and is near an area for migratory birds. John Lake is home to birds, geese, and ducks, is adjacent to an urban separator. Development of 300 single family residences would have too great an effect on the unique watershed area. No amount of mitigation would protect this vital area. Help protect the quality of life for ongoing generations. Be careful about planning for this area. The configuration is unique, many areas will be effected which will spill into other areas. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss is hearing comments and is not in a position to disagree. Auburn never intended to get in front of Kent on this. When the City began the map amendment process about four to five months ago, Kent was on track to act on this already. Kent purports to have a series of options. He recommend that this Comprehensive Plan amendment be pulled from consideration so that Auburn can wait and see what Kent does. Auburn is not driving this process and does not own or have jurisdiction control. Commissioner Ward wanted to what designation is Kent considering? What designation would preserve the area? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that Kent could come up with a public purpose. Most of the people have been before Kent Planning Commission which is still considering the issue. However, the issue of whether to sell the property or not is not before the Kent Planning -7- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 Commission. Auburn staff introduced the amendment and now prefers to withdraw and see the outcome with the City of Kent. Commissioner Ward asked about a formal process to withdraw the amendment and the Mayor said this is all it takes to withdraw the amendment. This was coming to Auburn because Kent was supposed to have acted by now and now Auburn doesn't have to go forward. Chair Ekrem recognizes that Auburn is not in the driver seat and wondered about a significant statement to identify in Comprehensive Plan to designate the site as open space or quasi public. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this designation would be presumptuous for the same reason as you can't take a person's land and designate it public. This is an issue of taking and Auburn doesn't own the property. The City's residents don't have a stake in this and Auburn isn't buying the property. The significance of Olson Canyon/Creek is sited in many documents. The Olson Creek farm was acquired by Auburn to preserve the historic farmstead and creek. WP, IA 9 is clarified and Kent and Auburn are major players and electeds sit on the board. The preservation of Olson Creek for the benefit of salmon is something that Auburn has advocated for years. Commissioner Jones asked doesn't the City have interest in the property? It will affect the watershed and OIson Creek. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the property is not part of the municipality of Auburn, but of Kent. Auburn has no recreation plans to acquire and there is nothing in the Capital Facilities Plan to invest funds in this property. Commissioner Ward wanted clarification - if it is presumptuous to preserve the property to public, why is it not presumptuous to want to designate as single family? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied that the City of Kent was to have acted before now in front of their Planning Commission and then Auburn would have replicated what Kent did. Commissioner Larsen pointed out that there are other amendments later on in the agenda to change watersheds to public and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied that Auburn owns those properties which were purchased by the City and now asks for the map amendment to reflect the City ownership. Chair Ekrem wanted to confirm that the City wishes to withdrawn CPM #10 from consideration and Planning and Community Development Director Krauss replied yes. Commissioner Ward wants clarification as lots of people came to speak on this tonight. She wants to be respectful of those who came last week and tonight. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the question comes about where is the appropriate place for people to have a voice. The property is part of Kent, owned by Kent, and subject to actions by Kent. The property belongs in Kent. Commissioner Ward wants to hear from people in the audience. Chair Ekrem commented that the City is withdrawing CPM #10 and Planning Commission has heard some excellent testimony from people about the value of property from those adjacent to the property. Planning Commission is not going to take action on this and the amendment is now withdrawn. The recommendation from the Planning Director is to take the valuable information and comments to Kent. With respect to Commissioner Ward comment, is there anything new to add or share? If you are reiterating what said previously, it is more valuable to share with Kent. If you have new information, come forward and give testimony. Mary Roberts, 502 8th Street NE #24, referred to an executive summary document entitled Compensating for Wet/and Losses under the Clean WaterAct by the National Academy Press in 2001 which she submitted to Commissioner Ward. Commissioner Ward has read articles that sometimes mitigating wetlands does not work. Ron Novak, 29226 118th Avenue SE, said that options on Kent's list of options is to leave the property as is which is not an option provided by Planning staff prior to the first workshop and was made addition after the workshop. He talked with Kent staff frequently and told him that Auburn was as much a driver of -8- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 density zoning considerations they were looking at as was Kent. It is disingenuous to say Auburn isn't having much of hand in the process. Duane Heier, 29513 118th Avenue SE, said his paper is a rebuttal to the DNS. He read the first two paragraphs which highlight previous testimony. Russ Jones, 11018 SE 322nd Street, waited two weeks to talk about this amendment. He urged Auburn to be at Kent and be involved in the future proposal of the property. If the property defaults to R1 then there will be 952 residents on a lake which is not proper planning on anyone's part. The density on East Hill/Lea Hill is skyrocketing out of control. To the east is high density residential and the infrastructure is not supporting this development. The City is hearing from future residents of Auburn and hearing about their concerns. Do not repeat past history on adjacent area. Brenda Hradecky, 1025 West Main, referred to a 1960s act of dairy land and voted for this already and voted for over and over in Seattle. She is not too disgusted with City Council compared to Seattle. Todd Howe, 29312 118th Avenue SE, wanted to know how is it that Kent has an area to be annexed in the future by Auburn is owned by Kent. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that State law allows land acquisition for municipal purposes outside city limits such as island annexations. Kent did this 15 years ago and Auburn has done on few occasions such as on Lea Hill for a water pump station. State law gives cities the ability to do this when physically owned by city such as Kent. Commissioner Ward wanted to clarify the process and it is her understanding that because Auburn has withdrawn CPM #10, if citizens wanted to initiate their own Comprehensive Plan map amendment to designate a certain designation. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that the amendment process for 2003 closed in July and it has taken this long to get to this hearing. Amendments are done once a year. Commissioner Ward asked if Kent is considering quasi public use? If citizens want a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, power to recommend yes or no to Council for next year? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that Kent is in position, might not care; next year; whether or not Kent acted to sell property or not. Commissioner Peace wondered isn't the property owner the only one who can initiate the change or the city? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said that people can institute changes on another property and if the City wishes to move forward and if Planning Commission felt strongly, Planning Commission could initiate action next year. The Comprehensive Plan amendment process begins in June. Mayor Lewis said this needs to go to the Council Committees and if for quasi public use decide if looking at purchase. If quasi public use the purchase price is in the double digit millions and will require long and serious City Council talks prior to the time of any suggestion of any kind of purchase taking place. Betsy Howe, 19312 118th Avenue SE, said Kent is continuing to consider the issue. A statement to Kent of what the Planning Commission wants would be appropriate so that buyers know what kind of development the City of Auburn wants. Virginia Haugen stated that if the City wants the future to include a supply of clean water then make certain this parcel is preserved as watershed only. CPM #11 Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate certain city-owned properties from various land use plan map designations to "Public& Quasi-Public". (These properties are related to the City Cemetery, Parks and Recreation sites, Storm Utility sites, Water Utility sites, Mitigation sites (wetlands), and Municipal Purpose sites and are located throughout city). Applicant: City of Auburn Planner Martin said that 1 lm was withdrawn. The proposal concerns several different parcels in different locations and are all City owned properties to be used for public purposes in perpetuity. 1 la is the -9- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 Cemetery, 1 lb-e, g, h and k are for Parks, 1 lf, I-j and I are for storm utility, 11n-p2 are for water utility, 1 lq-t are for wetland mitigation sites and 11 u is for municipal purposes. Frank Rice, 1811 F Street SE, referred to 1 lq and 11t and is interested in property adjacent to Western and Clay Streets. The property is essential for the future development of any drainage in the area. Any plans to enhance the drainage in the area through use of this property? Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said the answer is no, not yet. The City is looking to develop something and has talked to a few consultants to do feasibility studies of the area. The City acquired the property because it assumed the Emerald Downs wetland ownership, one property is the outcome of a legal proceeding, and one property was bought (Campbell). The City had a moratorium one year ago due to drainage concerns and is looking at creative way to resolve the situation. There is no answer yet on how to deal with the drainage. Commissioner Douglass made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Peace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward to recommend approval. The motion passed. CPM#12 To amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary to reflect annexation/deannexation of property with the City of Pacific in the vicinity of A Street SE and Lakeland Hills Way. Applicant: City of Auburn Planner Martin announced that earlier this month the annexation became effective. This was an annexation/deannexation with the City of Pacific. The annexation is already in place. He pointed out the current boundary. The map amendment moves the boundary of the Comprehensive Plan designation. Commissioner Ward wondered what the City of Pacific got in return. Planner Martin explained that the City of Pacific received a portion of Cool's Cafe. The rest of the area is located in Auburn. He spoke about the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and A Street SE, which will now have a traffic signal. Pacific could not signalize this intersection due to grant money received. Ilwaco Elementary is now in Auburn. The amendment is moving the City limits to reflect its current location. There was no public testimony. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward, to recommend approval. The motion passed. Commissioner Ward complimented the City about getting the traffic light at Lakeland. This will be a huge relief to the south part of Auburn. Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments Community Development Administrator Osaki explained that three of these amendments relate to Capital Facilities Plans from the Auburn, Kent and Dieringer School Districts. The CFPs are adopted on an annual basis and incorporated into Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis. The CFPs serve as the basis for collection of school impact fees. P/T #1 Incorporate the Auburn School District Updated 2003 to 2009 Capital Facilities Plan as part of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. (Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors May 2003). Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Commissioner Ward referred to the letter from Auburn School District regarding increasing school impact fees and asked if Planning Commission was going to address this. Community Development Administrator Osaki replied that this is not an item that Planning Commission addresses directly. CFP is basis for how much in impact fees the City can collect. The letter is for information purposes. Auburn School District as asked for an increase in school impact fees and City Council will ultimately decide and not part of Planning Commission decision. -10- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 Mike Newman, Associate Superintendent, remarked that they annually prepare the plan and the School Board reviews for future planning of schools in Auburn, unincorporated King County, Algona/Pacific and part of unincorporated Pierce County. Growth in the school district continues and spoke about impacts of Lakeland and Lea Hill on their planning. They use the school impact fees to do planning to allow the district to have facilities come on line after voter approval such as the new high school project. They are collecting impact fees for design with construction this summer and the school on line in the fall of 2005. In the plan there is a 13th elementary school to come on line with a with bond yes vote in 2006, then a 14th elementary school. The district sees a future need for a new middle school and acquisition of a site is one portion of the CFP. The board has not yet determined where the 13th and 14th schools will go. There was no public testimony. Commissioner Douglass made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Ward made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to recommend approval. The motion passed. P/T #2 Incorporate the Kent School District Updated 2003-04 to 2008-2009 Capital Facilities Plan as part of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. (Adopted by the Kent School District Board of Directors June 2003.) Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki said the City has an interlocal with Kent School District for CFP. Auburn has not yet collected fees on their behalf yet because there is no residential development in Auburn that is in Kent School District, but will be in future. There was no public testimony. Commissioner Larsen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Peace doesn't see the need to formally close the public hearing. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward, to recommend approval of P/T #2. The motion passed. P/T#3 Incorporate updated Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan information into the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki made a brief comment. There was no public testimony. Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing. Commissioner Peace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Douglass, to recommend approval. The motion passed. Prr~4 Amendments to Chapter 9 - Environment Element to: A. Provide greater clarity and focus on the value and role of native plantings and vegetation; B. Support enhancement of Mill Creek wetlands; and, C. Support Iow impact development techniques. Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki reminded Planning Commission that this was discussed in their study session. These three points were developed by direction of the Planning and Community Development Committee. They asked staff to incorporate policy statements to support the use of Iow impact development techniques which he described. Staff received direction to put language in the policies to support the City's efforts to enhance the existing wetland system. The Committee wanted more focus on native plants and more clarity in the policies that the use of native plants is encouraged and emphasizes the benefits of native vegetation. Objective 18.5 and Policy EN-33 are proposed for amendment and new Policy EN-33A and EN-17A are proposed. Commissioner Ward asked how the changes interplay with the landscape requirements and are integrated into this? Do they provide more flexibility? The code doesn't have level of clarity or specificity. The City wants to make it more user friendly to use native plants and also to educate the public. There will be a -11- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 menu of selections to encourage their use. The policies say encourage and it will be up to Council to make final determination about wording. Commissioner Jones referred to Objective 18.5 and suggested changing the word 'should' to 'will' because of its stronger connotation. Commissioner Peace said the developer should give consideration and whether they will is something else. VH said that to put native plants in landscapes that developers are required to do is not a good idea. Some plants need lots of water and there should be talk about using drought resident plants. Parks people say will have to go to drought resistant plants in order to conserve water. Is Auburn or King County involved in plant sewage type that take water and place back in aquifer?. Commissioner Ward wondered for small business, proponent of encouraging small business are there any cost considerations? Is native vegetation cheaper? Does this factor in on water usage? Planner Martin said for cost of native vegetation, the cost is based on availability. Some native plants might not be as available as others. Some non-native aren't available either. He was working on this issue today in pricing Douglas firs. There is no financial difference between native and non-native consistent with availability. There is plethora of native vegetation. In terms of drought resistance, this is certainly valid point. The City is not going to encourage plants that require significant amounts of water. In talking about native plants, have to survive drought of season. The majority of native vegetation once established can survive in drought conditions. Some plants are higher in moisture content than others. Commissioner Ward had a suggestion to add that when doing the list that the developer have a professional landscape architect. For small business to help overall water goals and encourage water retention. Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ward, to recommend to change the word to 'will' to 'should' under Objective 18.5 so it says 'consideration will' recommend to approve with the suggested change. Commissioner Ward suggested a friendly amendment of the wording 'consideration shall' because shall is mandatory and shall is directive. The motion passed. P/T#5 Replace Figure ?.$ in Transportation Element (2003-2008 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) summary) with an updated Figure -/.3 containing 2004-200g TiP summary. Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki said this figure is amended every year. The table is in the transportation element from the TIP adopted by Council in September 2003. This does not change any transportation projects adopted by Council. Commissioner Ward asked about Hwy 164 bypass update and Mayor said this issue is still in discussion. There was no public testimony and Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing. Commissioner Douglass made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to recommend approval. The motion passed. P/T#6 Update of the City of Auburn Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to address the time period of 2004- 2009. The Auburn CFP identifies intended capital facilities projects and funding sources programmed for over a six-year time period. Chair Ekrem opened the public hearing. Community Development Administrator Osaki said this updates the previous plan to year 2009 time frame. The Plan is put together by a variety of City departments. There was no public testimony and Chair Ekrem closed the public hearing. Commissioner Larsen made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peace, to recommend approval. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Ekrem announced that the next Planning Commission meeting is November 4 which is Election Day and suggested the meeting be held on November 5. -12- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2003 Planner Martin referred to public hearing on CPM #8a whose property is in Pierce County. The applicant was requested to provide map exhibits of the affected parcels and the map exhibits did not match the parcels in question. City would have to be readvertise and process separately and send out new notices. Commissioner Jones said that Planning and Community Development Director Krauss told the Planning Commission it too late in late the process for any further considerations. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss said this is correct and he is unsure how to bring to City Council before the second November meeting. Commissioner Ward countered that the Planning Commission took action based that there is no more time left and looked at on a very important issue. It was decided that a public hearing on this item could not be held. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. PC~AGND\MIN 10-2003 -]3- CPM #1 fr-l-oO amend the Comprehensive 'Plan m "Hig. h Density Resident!al,, Commerc~?l" for the east port,on of-property located ~n the 4300 block (east side) of Auburn Way. North (west of l Stroet NE right-of-way). (STR~ 31-22-05) Applicant: Children's Home Society Washington PROPOSED :Z COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT SCALE: 1" = 400; i. HIGH DENSITY RESI~ TO HEAW .COf4~ERCIAL 17 oo0~1o WILUAM A, ( #.fl. dalf,~,l O.t...e.. t4~. II AUB SS SPL0004~, · It01~,11tl ~ /////////////// LOT ~ ~ //////////////, //////////////, . ., te.~' ~ (~/ //////////////////; /////////////, , / ~// To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from "High Density Residential" to "Heavy Commercial". (Application only affects the east half of the property; the westerly half is already designated "Heavy Commemlal). -~,,,,,,.,. ~,/,~ · c AUB, SP 11'87 e~0~08019e Lot l,' "~'!~d a'-,,~.a., ~'~) .... ,u, i'°'" .,,o, LOT I /.07' a AUI. I,~ 1': ealtq6o?~.~ . ~.I.0T I ;. LOT /I 'Is I;__ ~ ~1' ""' '" 'T,~~eI5'' ~ I *'"~ _:___~. · .,%, ~l--~.~ ~ -lh l-"I.,, ,,, / ., '" .... ----- il!!,-'/'~ ;~.~ ,'~ tW .6'P-I-5. 90801 ATTACHMENT TO-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT Applicant: Children's Home Society of Washington 5. Ao Why the comprehensive plan map amendment is being proposed The existing division of the subject parcel (000400-0006) into two substantially different zones without regard to reasonable spatial separation of uses is inconsistdnt with thc fundamental precepts of the Comprehensive Plan. Tl~n'e are no physical characteristics on the subject parcel( streams, streets, fence lines or separate tax parcels) to cause thc division line between Commerc~ and High Density Residential zones to suddenly veer into the middle of the subject parcel bisecting it into two separate uses. It is unreasonable and inconsistent that this parcel was bisected when the Comprehensive Map was drawn. We are sin~ply requesting that the division line between thc two uses be applied consistent with thc other properties to the south. CHSW has owned and operated a childcare facility on this 4.15 acre site shace 1926 when it was placed into a trust for Children and subsequently deeded over to us by Mr. Jeff's, an early Auburn pioneer. For years, the property was operated as an orphanage and the entire property was the playground and home to many. As the years took their toll on the structures, we could not feas~ly continue its use as an orphanage but have continued its present use as respite day care for children as well as stattoffices for our South King County operation serving children and families. Our use for over 75 years has been consistent as an outright permitted use in the C- 3 zoning on the westerly half of the property but is inconsistent with outright permitted uses as allowed in R - 4 on the easterly half. As we experience nccds to provide additional services in the area, we anticipate an increased need to develop the easterly half with uses that are not consistent with the outright permitted uses. in R- 4. 5. Bo Justification and support for the proposed map amendment We respectfully submit that the proposed map .amendment is more consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Sometime during 2002 our adjacent neighbor (KAWASAKI/SOUND VENTURES) to the south was granted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment and a rezone on the easterly half of its property fi.om R - 4 to C - 3 zoning. The extension of C - 3 zoning farther to the north to include our property is certainly consistent with what has already been in place for years farther to the south. If and when "I' street as-proposed is ever put in, it would become an adequate buffer to separate the commercial uses from the multi-family. As our property is currently zoned~ there is no buffer other than side yard setbacks between our easterly 2 acres of R- 4 and the commercial zor6ng to the south and west. As our request relates to traffic, Auburn Way North is now and most probably always w~l be the major ingress/egress to uses on our site even with the eventual development of the Valley Six Drive-in and its adjacent propertk:s. A goal of the Comprehensive Plan seeks to" .... maintain and establish a v~iety of commercial environments...in a manner which reduces conflicts between different types ofcomaercial services and other uses." It is reasonable ~at the proposed map amemtn~nt would provide far superior separation between the two uses when "I.' Street is completed. This would provide 10 feet of side yard landscaping, a 20.foot front yard setback and a 36 to 60 foot road right of way. The current designation provides simply the 10 feet of landscaping required between the two uses in the zoning codes. The Comprehensive Plan also contains policy stating that "A prime consideration in permitting the ex'Inu~n of existing neighborhood commercial areas sinai be the ability to adequately buffer any nearby residences from disruptive impacts." Based on the above, we believe that our proposed ~nt is in the best interest of the public welfare with regards to the spatial separation and supports the goals.of the Comprehensive Plan. ....... CPM.#2 To amend the. Comprehensive Plan Map from ':Publ~c/Quasi-Public" to "Liaht Industria. l" for properties located o~ the south s~de of 49'n Street NW, west of Auburn Way North. (STR 36-22-04) Applicant: Thomas Academy PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT SCALE: 1" = 400' #2 CPM // 2 ~ PROPOSED CHANGE AREA ..... CITY LIMITS Located in: SW 31-22.*05 !1 S 266TH S 285TH ST 1 in. -- 1900 ft. ST. To amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from 'Public/Quasi-Public' to "U~lht Industrial'. ACADEMY 20 49th Street N.E. Auburn, Washington 98002 253-852-4437 · Fax 253-8524891 ~ City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Application · www. thomasacaderny.org Why is the comprehensive plan map amendment being proposed? The proposed amendment is necessary to allow Thomas Academy to survive in the short term and, longer t.erm, to achieve the objectives of our Long Range Plan, by permitting the sale of the property in whole or in part at its proper market value as determined by surrounding property designations in the Comprehensive Plan. Thomas Academy owns approximately seven acres, of which approximately five are used by the school. The remaining two acres are an asset to be used as necessary to achieve the goals of the school. We have some flexibility as to positioning the excess acreage, East or West, depending on the requirements of a potential buyer. Short Term - the current economic environment has had a significant impact on enrollment and thus the financial viability of the Academy based on enrollment projections. The pdmary responsibility of the Board of Trustees is to ensure the long term viability of the school. Unfortunately, this means we must sell the excess asset this next school year (2003-2004). Long Term'- In the light of the changes underway in our neighborhood, the Board of Trustees has been developing a Long Range Plan over the last several years to move the school to a more suitable neighborhood. This move would only be feasible if financed by the sale of the existing property at its full market value. The plan has been put on hold, probably for at least three years, because of current economic conditions. It is our. intent to revive it when conditions permit. On the other hand, if negative economic conditions persist for the next three years, there is a likelihood that the school will have to close and the property will be sold anyway. Support for the proposed map amendment The Thomas Academy properly was grand-fathered into the Comprehensive Plan as Institutional use at the time of the plan adoption and is surrounded by land which, in the plan, is either Light Industrial or Heavy Commercial. The area has been going substantial change over the past several years as property is being converted to industrial uses, consistent with the plan. This trend has been reinforced by the completion of the widening of 272d Street out to the intersection with State Highway '167. We anticipate that in 3-5 years, the school will be surrounded by light industrial properties as foreseen by the Comprehensive Plan. As outlined above, our future depends on extracting tl:e proper market value of the property, requiring that it be amended to Light Industrial in the pl~,3, so that a potential buyer has assurance that development consistent with the surrounding property can proceed. Since we have some flexibility in which parcel we can sell now, and to avoid the need to wail! for a future annual planning cycle, we propose to amend the entire property at this time. CPM#3 To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from "Light Industrial" to "Heavy Industrial" for property located on the north side of South 285th Street), west of the Interurban Trail. (S TR 36-22-04) Applicant:Rodger C. Scott; Owner: .The Madison Company 80. 277TH ST. 117 7~' 470. Z~' . ', N86'29'O2'f. ~.~O' AFN910621086.3 ! /~66.72' 111,3.11' PAR~ ! 202.48' ! 075.2.67 ~ fL g- 22_39 ac. /- SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2 ~1 i~100' / (TO BE ADJUSTED) .(', ~//~ PS~ R/W -J--- ~ --I I,=l ~n n/w t t 52.97'/ ! !, 707'2588qK ....... ;- ..... *D,, *~ 76'~,, \- 128.99 /' I,~i~ .~. o Io ame~ ~44237. ~~ to 'Hea~ ~~ ~ ~o~ ~t~ 62.40' ~ ~ ~ s~ of S. 285~ S~ ~4 of ~e In~m~n ...... *"~ t r489' 1~'4~ ~ ~ ~ REC~D SU~ RE~D BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PORTIONS OF THE SW 114 AND THE NW 114 OF SEC. 36, TWP. 22 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 18215 72140 AVENUE 50U'R4 (42.5)251-6222 (425)251-.~782 FAX July 30, 2003 20405 S.E. 344TH * AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98092 (253) 631-3477 · FAX (253) 735-1092 Planning Deparlm~t City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Dear Sir or Madam: Ploase accept my application for a Yea~ 2003 Comprehensive Plan Map Am~dment I am requesting that the land use Plan Map Designation for Parcel 3 of Prop,xty Parcel #362204-9021 be changed from MI to M2 to better ilfiliT~ thc prop~ly in question. It is my intention to develop this property for use by my business, .Scotty's C_,m~ Comtruction, Inc. I have been in business in Auburn since the mid-1960's, consistantly providing en~,ioyment, valuable com~nnity services md ~en worldng directly for lbo City of Auburn on public works projects. As the business has grown over the years, Scotty's has donated money, time and services to many community groups, including the Auburn YMCA, ACAP, the local chapter of the Kiwanis Club, Auburn Rotary, Auburn Community Food Bank, Auburn Youth Outr~tch and many other groups and organizations. We are proud to be a par~ of the business commmfity and it is our hope to continue to do so for many years to come. We are now at a point where our current location is no longer suWmient for our business requirements and-are faced with the prospect of finding a replacement location. We have; looked Ol AIll~Hl and ~cotty's. It would be enable us to remain within the Auburn community, continue supporting local business, and keep our employees working (and s[~nding) in Ibis area. Unfortunately, tho current Land Use Plan Map designation does not permit s~cient outside storage for our needs and without approval of a Comprdm~ve Plan Amendmem, Scotty's cannot us~ this property. We are aware that there may be concerns regarding the outward appemance of a business such as ours but I assug you that we are and will continue to be exceptional in our standards. Wc are very good neighbors as we maintain our propmy, equipmeat and facilities to the highest standards. We intend to install fencing, screening and landscaping providing a pleasant outward appearance~ As the nature of~ho work we do is strictly off-site, ~ is vmy little noise or other disturb~ce caused by our business activities. I ask that you conside~ granting this Amendment Request based on ~ above information and allow us to continue to grow responsibly along with our community. Tlumk you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Rodgcr C. Scott President RCS:mm CPM#5 Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from "Light Industrial" to "Heavy Commercial" for properties generally located between the Union paCific and Burlington. Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks, just north of 15th Street NYV. (STR 12-21-04) Applicant/Owner: La Terra Limited Partnership PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMF. NT SCALE: 1" = 400' O4ANG~ )=ROM LIG~F I~ TO H~VY CPM // 5 [:'7] PROPOSED CHANGE AREA ..... CITY LIMITS in: NE 12-21-O4 LA TERRA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP July 2, 2003 5811 Scgalc Park Drive C Tukwila, Washington 98188 P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, Waslfington 98138-2028 Telephone.. (206) 575-2000 Fa~im~e: (206} 575-1837 Mr. David Osaki Community Developmem Administrator City of Auburn 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 RE: Comp Plan change, tax parcels 1221049003 & 1221049004 We are requesting a change of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan designation for the two above-noted parcels, l~om "Light Industrial" to "Heavy Commercial". The reason for this Comp Plan change is that the uses on the parcels in the area around this site are more commercial than the industxial uses designated under the current Comp Plan designation for this property. This property lies between two main railroad tracks. Immediately north of the property is the Emerald Downs horse race track. Two hotels lie just east across the tracks, as well as two restaurants, a bank and a large gas station. Just west ofthe site is the busy 15~ Street/Highway 167 interchange, and the busy commercial street 15~ Street NW lies on the south side running out toward the east. We believe that the Comp Plan change to Heavy Commercial for thi~q property will be more consistent with the direction that development is taking in this part of Auburn, and'. that commercial uses are mom appropriate for this site. We also believe that the higher commercial, rather than industrial, uses that the new designation will allow will lead to development that will benefit the Auburn cornmunity as a whole. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Mark Hancock 4 CPM ~5 To amend ~ Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from "Light Industrial' to 'Heavy LtTI~ CPM#7 To amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from "Moderate Density Residential" to "Heavy Commercial" for property located on the north side of 23rd Avenue SE, 'approximately 500 feet east of A Street SE. (STR 19-21-05) Applicant: Bill Moffet; Owner: Greg/Barbara Swain PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PlAN MAP AMENDMENT SCALE: 1" = 400' MEDIUM DENSITY , TO HEAVY COMMERCLRL ~5TH ~ ST CPM // V P'~ PROPOSED CHANGE AREA Located in: NW 30-21-4)5 Co .mlxehensive Plan Ma~ ~ Proposal To amend current comprelmmive map boundaries for heavy commercial to include Tax Parcel # 869520-0056. The current boundary'ofHeavy Commercial borders the l~arcel on the west nnd includes Tnx Parcel # 869520-0057. The parcels are contiguous owned by the same individual Tax Pnrcel ~69520-0057 is ~ in a ~ezone applP, ation process from R-3 to C-3 and it is the property owners hope thnt Tnx P~-'cel # 869520-0056 can eventunlly also be rezoned from R-3 to C-3. To eventually be u.,'~l by iIO~ c?r~_ bu.shles8 for ~~. The ~ busilless Norstar · located on the corner of 23 St SE and "A" St SE, has been located at the present location since appro~ly 1990. Parexls were purchased by Mr. Swain :in 2000 and are currently being ~ by Norstar Industries, Inc. as a contractor type storage storage yard since 1987 without proper zoning with no ~mplaints from surroundi~ allow Mr. Swain the ability to apply for a rezone on the current lot from R-3 to C-3 and In March of this year Mr. Swain and his agent, Bill Moffet, n~ with David Osaki- possible Rezone on parcels 8695200056 and 8695200057 to be used by Mr. Swah's the parcel zoned C-3 to the north of Mr. Swnin's prope~ that currently does not s~w Photos are included in Item 6/C that show the use of the property in 1989 as well ns the request. App~val of the request would allow Mr. Swain the ability to comply with city zon~o and utilize the tax parcels for the expamion that is needed for his curm~ business. To amend.the Comprehensive "Moderate Denelty ReeldentlalP./~on Land Use Ma . P onl. Heavy Commercial. (Proposal Would have the affect of clarifying the designation of the abutting parcel to the west, under the same ownership as "Heavy Commercial. as Well. CPM#8 To amend the Comprehensive Plan map from "Single Family Residential" to "Moderate Density Residential" for properties within three planning areas (areas 7, 8 and 9) of the Lakeland Hills South PUD. A. Area 7 B. Area 8 C. Area 9 (STR 05-20-05) Applicant: Apex Engineering Owner: Investco Financial Corporation o July 3, 2003 File/t26384/1 YEAR 2003 COMPREHE~NSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION AND SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED MAP AMENDMENT ,4. Why the Comprehensive Plan Map dmendment is being Proposed? The Comprehensive Plan Map amendment is being proposed in order to reflect the ongoing development of the Lakeland Hills PUD, which is proposed to have 3,408 units within 648 acres. As development has occurred, a number of the area within the PUD have achieved less units than allowed under the PUD density and therefore allowable units are being transferred to the remaining planning ~. The proposed amendments will reflect the following. 1. Modification of three planning areas, Area 7, 8 and 9 fi.om Single-Family Residential to Moderate Density Residential. B. Justification and Support for the Proposed Map Amendment 1. Action/Request: Change the comprehensive plan designation for Area 7 fi.om Single-Family Residential to Moderate-Density Residential. Justification: Area 7 is located within a Planned Unit Development, has utilities, access from an arterial and access to park facilities. These features 'would support a land use desigmation that would more fully utilize the site. The change would benefit the eomxaunity by maximizing the number of units within the PUD, as well as the mixed residentiial density and types, which would be served by utilities and parks and have adequate arterial access. Increasing the density in Area 7 will allow the PUD to come closer to achieving the number of units planned. Without the density increase, the PUD would need additional area in order to achieve the 3,408 units allowed under the PUD. The proposed designation would also further the Comprehensive Plan direction for Moderate Density Single-Family to provide a transition fi.om single-family residential areas to other more intensive designations. Area 7 and the wetland in Area 12 iprovide a transition to .the mere intensive commercial area located at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and Lake Tapps Parkway. Area 7 is similar to Area 10 of the PUD in that both are served by arterials and are surrounded by Moderate Density Single-Family land use designation of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan and MSF or Moderate: Density Single-Family zoning. The site would be served by public utilities with water and sewer provided for from the system within the Lakeland Hills South development. The Sumner/Tapps road extension would provide a separation fi.om land uses to the north and where Stnxmer Tapps extension swings to the south, the new development would be located on both east and west sides of the roadway. The location of the Moderate Density Residential designation along the Sumner/Tapps roadway extension is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's intention for higher densities to be served by arterials. The Moderate Density designation will also allow for the higher density needed to develop the site given the steep.slope areas and pipeline and power line corridors, which divide the property. Remaining areas outside slopes and corridors Will be able to achieve the higher densities to make up for the losses in these areas. The area is also buffered fi.om the commercial access to the west by the wetland and ravine. 2. Action/Request; Change the land use designation in Areas 8 and 9 fi.om Single-Family Residential to Moderate-Family Residential. Justification: Areas 8 and 9 are not a stand-alone site and are within the Lakeland Hills South PUD and will be served by public utilities, have access to park facilities and have adequate arterial access. The land uses to the north and west of Area 8 are similar to those areas, which abut the easterly portion of Planning Area 4, which is designated as 2 to 14 dwelling units per acre. Area 8 would provide the similar compatibility .in land uses as Area 4 in relationship to the surrounding Pierce County zoning and land uses. Zoning in the areas in Pierce County to the north and west and east of the site is Moderate Density Single- family (MSF) zoning which would eventually increase the densities of these areas providing additional compatibility with the proposed 2 to 14 units per acre for Area 8. It should also be noted that between the Bonneville Power Association easement and to the east and the wetland and buffer to the west provide natural buffers to the developable Areas 6, 8 and 9. Area 8 and 9 are also provided access by an arterial, which is the extension of the Lake Tapps Parkway East. The changes would be beneficial to the community by fully utilizing properties that have utilities, parks and arterial access available. The changes would continue the use of the Moderate Density Residential as a transition for surrounding Single-Family Residential designations and zoning to the higher intensity uses in the core of the Lakeland Hills PUD. 1/26384/Docs-rpls/doc~._jdm070303 2 Parcel Numbers Area 7: 052005-3-055, 3-014, 3-001, 4-074 Area 8: 052005-2-039 Area 9: 052005-1-036 LAKELAND P.U.D. CO~i~R~i;~q~4~ PLAN MAP ~~ To antend Itle Comprehensive Plan ma~ f~om 'Single Flmil~' Resklential* to "l~rate Density Residential" for properties within three planning areas (~eas 7, 8 and 9). CPM#9 Amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan map to: A. Amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary to include Dieringer School District properties and designate the properties "Public &Quasi- Public"; and, B. Amend the.Comprehensive Sewer Plan to ~nclude the parcels in the City's sewer service area. (STR 05-20-05) Applicant/Owner: Dieringer School District PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT PUBUC & QUASI PUBUC #9 SCALE: 1" = 300' CPM # 9 ~ PROPOSED CHANGE AREA ~z'~'C1TY LIMITS Page 1 of 2 4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request: The applicant is requesting two changes to the comprehensive plan map. 1) The first change is to the Aubum 2001 ComprehenSive Sewer Plan, Figure 6-18. The applicant is requesting a revision of the Auburn Sewer Service Area Boundary to include the Lake Tapps Elementary School property, including parcel numbers: 0520054031, 0520054033, 0520054044, 0520054018, and 0520054067. 2) The second change is to extend the potential annexation area boundary of the City of ^ubum to include the Lake Tapps Elementary School property, including parcel numbers: 0520054031, 0520054033, 0520054044, 0520054018, and 0520054067. 5. Please thoroughly address the following: A. Why the comprehensive plan map amendment is being proposed. The existing Lake Tapps Elementary School site has an onsite septic system. The existing school is planned to be demolished and a new school is to be built on the same block of properties. As part of the redevelopment plans for this site, the school would like to connect to the City df Auburn's sanitary sewer system. The two map amendments are being proposed in order to facilitate the connection of Lake Tapps Elementary School to the City of Auburn's existing sanitary sewer service line located approximately 230 feet away from school property in the Sumner Tapps Highway. B. Justification and support for the proposed map amendment. There are several compelling reasons why the comprehensive plan map amendments should be made. The applicant would like for the Lake Tapps Elementary School property to be included in the City of Auburn Sewer Service Area so that it may connect to the existing sanitary sewer line located approximately 230 feet away from the school property. There are no other sewer districts that can presently supply sewer service to this site. If the school does not connect to the City of Auburn's sewer system, they will be required to construct an onsite septic system. This assumes that space and soil system conditions exist on site to support a new onsite system. Connection to a sanitary sewer system will limit long term potential risk to public health due to possible failure of an on site system. ' Page 2 of 2 Typical City of Aubum policy is to provide sewer service to properties within their potential annexation area. The applicant would also like the City to consider amending the potential annexation area boundary to include the school properties. The applicant understands that the school site was formerly a part of the potential annexation area. Figure 1. Vicinity Map of Lake Tapps Elementary School SCHO0 Figure 4. Proposed change to Potential Annexation Area *~' PROPOSAL *** Include shaded area in ~**'*" Aubum PAA LEGEND AUBU~ AREA AUBURN C'l~ LIMITS Proposed ~ge to Aub~ P~fi~ ~x~on Map Adapted From Figure 6-18 Auburn 2001 Comprehensive Sewer Plan CPM ~ Amend Ihe Comprehensive Land Use Plan map to: A. Amend the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary to include Diednger School District properties and designate the properties 'Public & Quasi-Public'; and, B. Amend the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to include the parcels in the City's sewer service area. Figure 3. Proposed Change to Sewer Service Area Boundary service area LEGEND "· · · "· Proposed Change to Auburn Sewer Service Area Boundary Map Adapted From Figure 6-18 Auburn 2001 Comprehensive Sewer Plan SCHOOL DISTRICT. Educating every child-for Co'a~fidence today and 'Comtribution tomorrow September 3;:2003 Seth B0ettcher Public Works Director City. of Bonney l_ake · 19306 BOnney.!_ake Blvd. PO Box 7380 Bonney l_ake, WA 98390. Dear Mr. Boettcher: RECEIVED SEP 0'9 2OO3 CITY OF AUBURN PUBLIC WORKS DEP7 Thc Dicringer.Scho01 District:was fortunate rePass a:bond issue for the replacement of Lake TapPs Elementary in February of 2003. Thc schoolprojcct is scheduled to begin cOnstruction during summer of 2004 and is planrD, cd to ,open September 2005. Thc property, where the current and future. Lake' Tapps Elementary .Schools 'arc located, . lies within thc City of Bonncy Lake's sewer service area. The Dicringcr School District is interested'in exploring thc possibility of.extending sewer serVice to thc School. I would appreciate thc opportunity tomeet with you at your earliest convince to'explore the ..question of scwcr:.scrvices for. thc new. Lake Tapps ElementarY. ... . .I.witl took forwardto hC .aring from you soon. I can .be reach-cd at (253) 862-2537 .or at jmartinson @ dictingcr, wcdnct.cdu. ~'~ ' -JcffRoscoe, Sewer Utility Engineer, City of Auburn 1320 - .178th Aveau¢ East · Sumncr~ Washington 98390 · (253) 862-2537 · FAX (253) 862-8472 Dieringer School District 11343 i~ an Equal Opportunity Institution CPM #11 Designate a variety of city owned properties from various plan map designations (noted) to "Public & Quasi- Public". 1 la Cemetery 11b- 11h 11i- Storm Utility 11m 11n- 11p Parks and Recreation Water Utility 'Single Family Residential' b. West Beverly Park, "Single Family Residential" c. Gaines Park, "Single Family Residential d. Tot lot @ 17t~/F'ir Street SE, "Single Family Residential' e. Clark property, 'Single Family Residential" f. Riverwalk Park, "Single Family Residential" g. Ballard Park, "Single Family Residential" _h. ,R,_o_~,~P__a_~r~., ?.i le_Fami Res'Men.al' i. West Beverly Storm Pond, 'Heavy Commercial" j. Auburn 400 Storm Pond, "Light Industrial' k. Riverwalk pond, "Single Family Residential' I. City Storm Pond in County, "Totem Area', 'Undesignated' m~Portion of Mill Pond, "Single Family Residential' n. Well site, "Office Residential" o. Reservoir, "Single Family Residential" ~. Reservoir, "Single Family__Residential" 1;1. 11q- Mitigation sites 11t 11u ~al Purpose q. "Benamya' wetland/creek mitigation site, "Light Ind~ r. "Gertrude Jones", wetland sites s::'Thormod', mitigation sites t. 'Dipietro/Campbeli', wetland site ~oposed Fire Station, 'Heavy Commercial" 12.. CPM#12 To amend the Potential Annexation Area (P.AA) boundary t.o reflect the annexation/de-annexation with the City of PaCific. (STR 31-21-05) 4~ × / dew I~AA Boundary ! New PAA 8TH SCALE: 1" = 1000' Minor adjustment to I will be made here to reflect de- annexation of certain property -from Auburn. Area to be annexed by Auburn Existing PAA Boundary CPM~f12 To amend PAA boundary to rellect annexation/dea of property with the City of Pacific. (STR 31-21-05) PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT NL=W PAA ~ $CAL~: ~" = 400' CPM # 12 {:~ PROPOSED CHANGE AREA ..... CITY LIMITS Located in: $W 31-21-05 P/T #1 Incorporate Auburn School District Updated 2003 to 2009 Capital Facili[ies Plan as part of Auburn Compreh,ens~ve Plan. (Adopted by the Auburn School District Board of Directors May 12, 2003) 14. AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2003 through 2009 A~~ ,SCH~L DI'~.I..'~ "Avenue-to. 'Excellence" Serving Students in: Unincorporated King County Unincorporated Pierce County City of Auburn City of Algona City of Pacific Adopted by the Aubum School Distdct Board of Directors May 12, 2003 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 408 915 Fourth Street NE Auburn, Washington 98002 (253) 931-4900 BOARD of DIRECTORS Craig Schumaker Therald Leonard Ray Vefik Carol Helgerson Janice Nelson Linda S. Cowan, Superintendent "Avenue to Excellence" Table of Contents Section I Executive Summary .............................. Page 1 Section II Enrollment Projections ........................... Page 4 Section III Standard of Service ............................... Page 6 Section IV Inventory of Facilities ............................. Page 13 Section V Pupil Capaci~ ...................................... Page 16 Section VI Capital Construction Plan .......................Page 18 Section VII Impact Fees ......................................... Page 21 Section VIII Appendices .......................................... Page 25 Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Appendix A.2 - Capital Facilities Plan Projections Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey Aubum School District No. 408 2003 through 2009 Section I Executive Summary Auburn School Distdct No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2003 through 2009 I. Executive Summary This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Aubum School District (the "District') as the District's principal planning document, in compliance with the requirements of Washington's Growth Management Act and the adopted ordinances of the counties and cities served by the District. This plan was prepared using data available in the spring of 2003. This Plan is consistent with prior long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the District. However, this Plan is not intended to be the sole plan for all of the Dist~dct's needs. The Distdct may prepare intedm and pedodic Long Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies and actions, taking into account a longer or a shorter time pedod, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the IDistrict as may be required. However, any such plan or plans will be consistent with this Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan. To enable impact fees to be collected in the unincorporated areas of King County and Pierce County and within the City of Auburn; the King County Council, and the City of Auburn will adopt this Plan by reference as part of its comprehensive plan, and the Pierce County Council may adopt this plan by reference as part of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. To enable impact fees to be collected in Cities of Algona and Pacific, these municipalities must also adopt this Plan and adopt school impact fee ordinances. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, the Plan will be updated on an annual basis, and any changes in the fee schedule(s) adjusted accordingly. The Plan establishes the District's "standard of service' in order to ascertain the District's current and future capacity. While the State Supadntendent of Public Instruction establishes square footage guidelines for capacity, those guidelines do not account for the local program needs of the District. The Growth Management Act and the school impact fee ordinance authorize the District to define its standard of service based on the District's specific needs. In general, the District's current standard provides that class size for grades K-2 should not exceed 25 students; class size for grades 3-4 should not exceed 27 students; class size for grade 5 shouk,~ not exceed 30 students. When averaged over the six elementary grades, this computes to 26.5 students per classroom. Class size for grades 6-12 should not exceed 30 students, with some subject areas restricted to lesser numbers. (See Section III for more specific information.) The capacity of the schools in the District is calculated based on this standard of service and the existing inventory of facilities including transitional classrooms. The District's 2002-03 capacity was 13,360 whereas Full Time Equivalent ('FTE") enrollment for this 2 same period was 12,703.61. The actual number of individual students was 13,427 as of October 1,2002. (See Section V for more specific information.) The capital construction plan shown in Section VI addresses the modemization of and additions to the District's existing facilities currently underway, provide,,; for a new high school approved by the voters in February 2003, a new elementary school, and the acquisition of a new middle school site. The new facilities are required to meet the projected student population increase to be generated from the large development area within Pierce County at the southern border of the Auburn School District as well as all other areas of the District. The Pierce County area includes most of the Lakeland South development and some adjacent undeveloped properties. The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County, Pierce County, ~nd the City of Auburn provide for the assessment of impact fees to assist in meeting some of the fiscal impact incurred by a District experiencing growth and development. Section VII sets forth the proposed school impact fees for single family and multi-family dwelling units. The student generation factors have been generated using the students who actually attend school in the Auburn School District from single family end multi-family developments constructed in the last five years. The method of collecting the data is with the use the GIS mapping software, data from King County and Pierce County GIS, and to integrate the mapping with student data from the Distdct data' system. This method gives the District actual student generation numbers for each grade span for identified developments. This data is contained in Appendix A.3. Auburn School District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CHANGES FROM 2002 TO 2003 Listed below is a summary level outline of the changes from the 2001-02 Capital Facilities Plan that are a part of the 2003 Plan. The changes ere noted by Section for ease of reference. Section I Executive Summary Updated to reflect new information within the Plan. Summary level list of changes from previous year. Section II Enrollment Projections Updated projections. Sea Appendices A. 1 & A.2. Section III Standard of Service A. Increase in English as a Second Language program required 2 additional classrooms at the elementa~ level and 1 at the senior high level. B. Increase of 3'Special Education Rooms at the high school level. C. Increase of I early childhood special education classroom.. D. Class size reduction funds (I-728) has' created an increase of I additional required teaching classroom at the elementary level E. Increase of I TOSA reading specialist classroom for high impacted schcol. Section IV Inventory of Facilities Updated to reflect addition of 3 relocatable unite at Auburn Riverside HS. Section V Pupil Capacity Updated to reflect addition of 3 relocatable units at Auburn Riverside High School. Section VI Capital ConstrUction Plan A. One year delay in the Elementary ~13 project due to reduced enrollment projections at the elementary level. B. Middle School site purchased moved up a year with passage of bond. C. Updates cost estimate based on current data for Senior High project. D. Updates cost estimate based on current data for Elementary project. E. Planning for Middle School #5 and Elementary ~ 4 move into the 6 year window. 41~912003 3.1 Auburn Schc~l Dislrlct No. 4O8 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .Section VII Impact Fees CHANGES TO IMPACT FEE DA TA ELEMENTS 2002 to 2003 CPF CPF DATA ELEMENTS 2002 2003 EXPLANATION Student Gene~,-~ion Factors Single Family Consistent with King County Ordinance 11621, Elementary 0.2913 0.3269 Student Generation Factors are calculated Mid School 0.1398 0.1621 by the school district based on district Sr. High 0.1703 0.1860 records of average actual student generation Multi-Family rates for new developments constructed Elementary 0.1487 0.0901 over the last five yearn. Mid School 0.0642 0.0221 Sr. High 0.0580 0.0510 New Facility Cost Sr. High $57,000,000 $58,500,0001 Sr. High Cost Estimate, es of Nov 2002, is computed from comp~leted construction documents es submitted to DDES. Elementary $15,000,000 $15,600,000 2 Elementary cost estimate from architects recent project experience and OSPI facility records. Site Cost/Acre $138,123 $146,729 Updated from final cost for recent purchases escalated to anticipated 2004 purchase date. Boeckh Index $110.32 $114.88 Updated to projected SPI schedule.(G. Beck) Match %- State 54.02% 55.88% Updated to current SPI ,,'~edule. Match %- District 45.98% 44.12% Computed District Average AV Single Family $174,311 $195,869 Updated from March 2003 King County Dept of Assessments data. Multi-Family $48,949 $51,516 Updated from March 20C~3 King County Dept of Assessments data using weighted average. Debt Serv Tax Rate $2.24 $2.09' Current Fiscal Year GO Bond Iht Rata 5.19% 4.74% Current Rate (Bond Buyers 20 Index 4-03) Section VIII Appendices · Appendix A. 1 - Updates Non-Lakeland enrollment projections Appendix A.2 - Updates Lakeland enrollment projections. Appendix A.3- Student Generation Survey 4/2912003 3.2 Capital Facilities Plan 2003 through 2009 Section II Enrollment Proioctions Auburn School Distz~ct No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The Aubum School Distdct uses a modified cohort survival model to project future enrollment for all of the District's operations. Table I1.1 is an extract from the comprehensive projection model found in Appendix A.2 titled "CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections". This Table shows the anticipated enrollment for the next six years based on the previous 13 year history of the District under the assumptions set forth in the comprehensive projections, Appendix A. 1, and the project!ion for additional students generated from the Lakeland South area as shown in Appendix A.2. TABLE ASD ENROLLMENT I1.1 PROJECTIONS (Oct 2002) AC'/'UA,L PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ PROJ GRADE 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 KDG 905 937 955 975 990 1005 1019 I 900 983 1001 1020 1036 1000 1064 2 961 931 1005 1024 1039 1054 1068 3 940 995 .958 1033 1049 1063 1077 4 973 958 1011 976 1047 1061 1075 5 1062 998 977 1031 991 1061 1075 K - 5 5741 5802 5907 6059 6152 6293 6377 6 1104 1087 1018 998 1048 1008 1077 7 1021 1154 1130 1063 1039 1087 1047 8 1026 1042 1166 1143 1071 1046 1095 6 - 8 3151 3283 3314 3204 3158 .3141 3218 9 1441 1261 1273 1398 1371 '1297 1272 10 1234 1418 1232 1246 1367 '1337 1264 11 927 1202 1381 1196 1200 1325 1296 12 933 842 1107 1288 1099 '1107 1227 9- 12 4535 4722 4993 5128 5042 5067 5008 TOTALS 13427 13807 14214 14391 14352 14501 14654 GRADES K-12 00101 01102 02/03 03/04 04/05 00/06 06/07 K-5 w/K ~ 112 5289 5333 5430 '5572 5657 5791 5868 6-8' 3151 3283 3314 3204 3158 3141 3218 9-12 4535 4722 4993 5128 5042 5067 5008 K-12 w/K tt~ 1/2 12975 13339 13737 13904 13857 t:3999 14144 4/29/2oo3 5 Auburn School Distdct No. 408 2003 through 2009 Standard of Servico 4/2O/2OO3 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STAHDARD OF SERVICE The School Impact Fee Ordinances adopted by King County and the City of Auburn indicate that each school district must establish a 'Standard of Service' in order to ascertain the overall capac/ty to house its projected student population. The Superintendent of Public InsYuction establishes square footage "capacity" guidelines for computing state funding support. The fundamental purpose of the SPI guidelines is to provide a vehicle to equitably disb*ibute state matching funds for school construction projects. By default these guidelines have been used to benchmark the disb'ict's capacity to house its student population. The SPI ' guidelines do not make adequate provision for local district program needs, facility configurations, emerging educational reform, or the dynamics of each student's educational program. The Auburn School District Standard of Service addresses those local considerations that require space in excess of the SPI guidelines. The effect on the space requirements for both permanent and relocatable facilities is shown below for each grade articulation pattern. Conditions that may resuIt in potential space needs are provided for information purposes without accompanying computations. 0 VERViEW The Aubum School District operates twelve elementary schools housing 5,741 students iin grade~ K through 5. The 905 Kindergarten students attend 1/2 days throughout the year. Grades 1 through 5 attend on a full day basis. When converted to a full time equivalence the K - 5 enrollment is 5,289. Four middle schools house 3,151 students in grades 6through 8. The Distdct operates two comprehensive senior high schools and one altemafive high school housing 4,535 students in grades 9 through 12. CLASS SIZE The number of pupils per classroom determines the number, of classrooms required to house the student population. Class sizes are subject to collective bargaining. Changes to class size agreements can have significant impact on available space. The current pupil/teacher limit across all elementary programs is an average of 26.5 students per teacher. Consistent with this staffing limit, room capacities are set at 26.5 students per mom at grades K - 5. At grades 6 - 12 the limit is set at 30 pupils per room. The SPI space allocation for each grade articulation level,/ess the computed reduction for the Aubum School District Standard of Service, determines the District's capacity to house pmjectad pupil populations. These red~ctions are shown below by grade articulation level. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENTALLY DELAYED SPECIAL EDUCATION The Auburn School District operates a structured learning program for handicapped students at the elementary school level which currently uses nine classrooms to provide for 70 students. The housing requirements for this program are provided for in the SPI space guidelines. No k)ss of capacity is expected unless handicapped population grows at a dispmPortionata rate compared to total elementary population. 4t2912003 Auburn Scho~ District No, 408 CAPITAL F~ClMTIE$ PLAN STAI~ARD OF SERVICE SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Aubum School District operates a resource room program at the elementary level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific disabilities. Thirteen standard classrooms are required to house this program. The housing requirements for this program exceed the SPI space guidelines by six standard classrooms. The loss of capacity is expected as growth in program is larger than the total elementary population. Loss of Permanent Capacity 6 moms @ 26.5 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~ 26.5 each = Total Capacity Loss (159) 0 (15 ) NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCE ROOM The Aubum School District operates one resource room to support the education of Native American students at the elementary level. One standard classroom is fully dedicated to serve these students. Loss of Permanent Capacity I room @ 26.5 each = (27) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~ 26.5 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (27) HEAD START The Aubum School District operates a Head Start program for approximately 108 your~;isters in six sections of 1/2 day in length. The program is housed at Evergreen Heights Elementary School and utilizes three standard elementary classrooms and auxiliary office space. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 3 moms @ 26.5 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = Total Capacity Loss (80) 0 (so) EARL Y CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION The Aubum School District operates a pre-school program for handicapped youngsters below age five. This program is housed at eight different elementary schools and currently uses eight standard classrooms. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 moms (~} 26.5 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms @ 26.5 each = Total Capacity Loss (212) 0 (212) 4/2912003 Auburn Schod Dislrict No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STANDARD OF SERVICE READING LABS The Aubum School District operates a program for students needing remediation and additional language arts instruction. These programs utilize non-standard classroom spaces if awailable in each elementary school. Four elementary schools do not have non-standard rooms awailable, thus they are housed in a standard classroom. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 moms @ 26.5 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 morns ~} 26.5 each = Total Capacity Loss (106) 0 (106) MUSIC ROOMS The district elementary music programs require one acoustically modified classroom at each elementary school for music instruction. The housing requirements am not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 12 moms @ 26.5 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms @ 26.5 each = Total Capacity Loss (318) 0 (318) ENGUSH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the elementary school level for students leaming English as a second language. This program requires eleven standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 11 moms @ 26.5 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = Total Capacity Loss (292) 0 (292) SECOND GRADE TOSA PROGRAM The Aubum School District provides a TOSA reading specialist program for eight highly impacted elementary schools. This pullout model provides direct instruction to students who are not at grade · level and do not receive other services. This program requires eight standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 moms @ 26.5 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5.each = Total Capacity Loss (212) 0 (212) ELEMENTARY LEARNING SPECIALIST PROGRAM The Aubum School District provides a learning specialist program to increase literacy skills for first and second graders. This program model has been created from the 1-728 funds arid currently has the specialist going into existing teacher classrooms, as well as pulling out students into designated classrooms. The district is utilizing classrooms at eight of the twleve elementary schools. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 moms (~ 26.5 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 26.5 each = Total Capacity Loss (212) 0 (212) 4/2912003 9 Auburn Schoel Disbict No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STANDARD OF SERVtCE MIDDLE SCHOOLS STRUCTURED LEARNING SPECIAL EDUCATION The Aubum Sctx~l District operates two structured leaming programs at the middle school level for students with profound disabilities. The housing requirements for this program are provided in the SPI space allocations. ACCESS SPECIAL EDUCATION The Aubum School District provided a transition program for students with behavioral disorders. The program is housed at one of the middle schools and uses one classroom. The housing requirements for this program are provided in the SPI space allocations. SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Auburn School District operates a resource room program for each grade at the midldle school level. This is to accommodate special, education students needing remedial instruction to address their specific disabilities. Three classrooms per school (twelve total) am required to provide for approximately 250 students. The housing requirements for this program are not entirely provided for in the SPI space guidelines. MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPUTER LABS The Auburn School District operates a minumum of one computer lab at each middle school. This program utilizes a standard classroom per middle school. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms ~ 30 each = (120) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (120) ENGUSH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE ' The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at the middle school level for students learning English as a second language. This program requires four standard classrooms that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 rooms ~ 30 each = (120) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 rooms @ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (120) ROOM UTILJZA TION The Aubum School District provides a comprehensive middle school program that includ~ elective options in special interest areas. Facilities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The district averages 95% utilization of all available teaching stations. SPI Report #3 dated 10/23/01 identif'ms 158 teaching stations available in the mid-level facilities. The utilization pattem results in a loss of approximately 8 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8 rooms @ 30 each = (240) Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms ~ 30 each = 0 Total Capacity Loss (240) 4129/2003 10 Auburn Scho~ District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STANDARD OF SER¥1CE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SENIOR HIGH COMPUTER LABS The Aubum School Distdct operates two computer labs at each of the senior high schools. This program utilizes two standard classrooms at comprehensive high schools and one at West Auburn. The housing requirements for this program are not provided for in the SPI space guideliines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 5 moms @ 30 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms @ 30 each = Total Capacity Loss (15o) o (15o) ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Auburn School District operates a pullout program at both comprehensive high schools for students learning English as a second language. This program requires four standard classroon'ls that are not provided for in the SPI space guidelines. Loss of Permanent Capacity 4 moms @ 30 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms (~ 30 each = Total Capacity Loss (120) 0 (120) STRUCTURED LEARNING PROGRAM The Aubum School District operates three structured leaming classrooms for 33 students with profound disabilities. The housing requirements for this program are provided in the SPI space guidelines. SPECIAL EDUCATION RESOURCE ROOMS The Aubum School District operates a resource room program at the senior high level for special education students requiring instruction to address their specific leaming disabilities. The current senior high school program requires fifteen classrooms to provide for approximately 400 students. The SPI space guidelines provide for one of the thirteen teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 14 moms ~} 30 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms @ 30 each = Total Capacity Loss (420) 0 (420) PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS Auburn High School includes 25,000 square feet used exclusively for a Performing Arts Center. The SPI Inventory includes this space when computing unhoused student capacity. This space was not intended for nor is it usable for classroom ir~ction. It was constructed to provide a community center for the performing arts. Using SPI capacity guidelines, 25,000 square feat computes to 208 unhoused students or 8.33 classrooms. Loss of Permanent Capacity 8.33 moms @ 30 each = (250) 4/29/2003 11 Auburn Sch~d District No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN STANDARD OF SERVICE ROOM UTILIZATION The Aubum School District provides a comprehensive high school program that includes numerous elective options in special interest areas. Fadlities to accommodate special interest activities are not amenable to standard classroom usage. The distdct averages 90% utilization of all available teaching stations. SPI Report #3 dated 10/23/01 identifies 150 teaching stations available in the senior high facilities. The utilization pattern results in a loss of approximately 15 teaching stations. Loss of Permanent Capacity 15 rooms ~ 30 each = Loss of Temporary Capacity 0 moms @ 30 each = Total Capacity Loss (45O) 0 (450) STANDARD ~)F SERVICE COMPUTED TOTALS ELEMENTARY Loss of Permanent Capacity = Loss of Temporary Capacity Total Capacity Loss MIDDLE SCHOOL Loss of Permanent Capacity = Loss of Temporary capacity Total Capacity Loss SENIOR HIGH Loss of Permanent Capacity = Loss of Temporary capacity Total Capacity Loss TOTAL Loss of Permanent Capacity = Loss of Temporary Capacity Total Capacity Loss (1,617) 0 (1,617) (48O) 0 (480) (1,390) 0 (1,390) (3,486) 0 (3,486) 4/2912003 12 Auburn School District No. 408 2003 through 2009 Section IV Inventory of Facilities :i~:i:~: 4/2~/2003 Auburn School District N~ ~08 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INVENTORY OF FACILITIES Table IV. 1 shows the current inventory of permanent district facilities and their SPI rated capacities. Table IV.2 shows the number and location of each relocatable unit by school. The distdct uses relocatable facilities to: 1) provide interim housing in school attendance areas uniquely impacted by increasing school populations that would otherwise require continual redistricting, 2) make space available for changing program requirements and offedngs determined by unique student needs, and 3) provide housing to cover our needs until permanent facilities can be financed and constructed. Relocatable facilities are deemed to be interim, stop gap measures that often place urtdesirable stress On the existing physical plants. Core facilities, (i.e. gymnasiums, restrooms, kitc~hens, labs, lockers, libraries, etc.) are not of sufficient size or quantity to handle the increased schc~)l population served by adding relocatable classrooms. TABLE IV.t Ao Bo I E~ementa0, Sehe~s Building Washington Terminal Park Dick Scobee Pioneer Chinook Lea Hill Gildo Rey Ever Heights AJpac Lake View Hazelwood Ilalko ELEM CAPACITY Building Ce~c_~_de O~ym~c Alternative JH Rainier Mt. Baker MS CAPACITY PERMANENT FACIUTIF..~ Q SPI Rated Capacity (January,2002) 2001-02 553 441 618 449 552 498 596 512 554 685 639 648 6,745 2001-02 897 96O 40 902 903 3,702 Senior ~gh Scl-~3ols 2002-03 553 441 618 449 552 498 596 512 554 685 639 648 6,745 2002-03 897 960 4O 902 9O3 3,702 j 2003-04 553 441 618 449 552 498 596 512 554 685 639 648 6,745 2OO4-O5 553 441 618 449 552 498 596 512 554 685 639 6,745 2005-0B 553 441 618 449 552 498 598 512 554 685 639 648 6,745 20O6-07 553 441 618 449 552 498 596 512 554 685 639 648 6,745 2007-08 553 441 618 449 552 498 596 512 554 685 639 648 6,745 2003-04 2004-05 2005-0~ 2006-07 897 960 40 902 903 3,702 897 960 40 902 903 3, 702 897 960 4O 902 903 3,702 897 96O 40 9O2 9O3 3, 702 2007-08 897 960 4O 9O2 9O3 3,702 Building 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 West Auburn 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 Auburn 2,447 2,447 2,447 2,447 2,447 2,447 2,447 Auburn Riverside 1,503 1,503 1,503 1,503 1,503 1,503 1,503 SH CAPACITY 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 COMB'D CAPACITY 14,647 14,647 t4,647 14,647 14,647 14,647 t4,647 4/29/2003 14 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN INVENTORy OF FACIUTES TABLE I TEMPORARY/RELOCATABLE IV.2 FACIUTIES INVENTORY (March 200: Elementary Location 2002-03 Washington 0 Terminal Park 2 Dick Scobee Pioneer Chinook Lea Hill Gildo Rey Ever Heights Alpac Lake View Ilalko 'TOTAL UNITS TOTAL CAPACITY 3 3 5 2 6 6 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 3 3 28 28 742 i 742 2003-04 20O4-05 0 0 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 2 2 8 0 2 2 0 3 30 795 20O5-06 0 2 3 3 '5 2 8 0 2 2 0 3 30 795 2006-07 0 2 3 3 5 2 10 0 2 2 0 3 32 848 2007-08 2008-09 0 0 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 5 2 2 10 10 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 3 3 32 32 848 848 Middle School Location Olympic Rainier Mt. Baker TOTAL UNITS TOTAL CAPACITY 2O02-03 0 0 5 2 7 210 2O03-O4 0 0 5 2- 7 210 2OO4-O5 0 0 5 4 9 27O 2OO5-06 0 0 7 6 13 390 2006-07 0 0 7 7 14 420 2007-08 0 0 7 7 14 42O 2008-09 14 420 Sr. High School Location 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 West Auburn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auburn 12 12 15 15 12 8 8 Auburn Riverside 12 15 18 18 12 8 8 TOTAL UNITS 24 27 33 33 24 16 16 TOTAL CAPACITY 720 810 990 990 720 480 480 iCOMBIN;n TOTAL UNITS COMBIN~'~ TOTAL CAPACITY 1,672 1,762 2~055 2,175 1,988 1,748 1,748 4/29/2003 15 Aubum School Distdct No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan' 2003 through 2009 :!:i:~:~'" .:~:i:i:i: Section V Pupil Capacity 4/29/2OO3 1/ Aubum School Dist~:t No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN PUPIL CAPACrrY While the Auburn School District uses the SPI inven~ory of permanent facilities as the data from which to determine space needs, the District's educational program requires mom space than that provided for under the formula. This additional square footage is converted to numben~ of pupils in SecUon III, Standard of Service. The District's capacity is adjusted to reflect the need for additional space to house its programs. Changes in the capacity of the district recognize new unfunded facilities and the elimination of the facility that formerly housed the Alternative Jr. High. The combined effect of these adjustments is shown on Line B in Tables V.1 and V.2 below. Table V. 1 shows the Dis§ct's capacity with relocatable units included and Table V.2 without these units. 1_/ 1J Table V~l . Capacity WITH relocatables A A. A.: B C SPI Capacity SPI Capacity-New Elem SPI Capacity-New Sr. High Capacity Adjustments Net Capacity ASD Enrollment 20O2-03 14,647 (1,~..~,4) 12,793 13,427 2(X)4-05 14,647 2005-06 14,647 14,647 (1,764)l 12,883 13,807 (S25) (40)I 1,762 J (3,~)I 200o7 12(:x)7-0e 12008-09 I 16,147 I 16'7°71 16'7971 (1,510) (1,750) (1,750) 15,287 / 15,047 I 15,047 I 14,352 E. 4SD Surplus/Deficit 935 CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS I Exclude Alt JH I (40)I nciu R o ,=Ue I 1,672 I ExcJude SOS (P9 12) J To;at Adjua;,,~,';;~ j (3,486)J (~,~,~) J (3,458)j (~,5~o) j (1,471) 13,176 14,925. 14,214 I 14:.I (1,03;)I (40)I (40)1 2,0551 2,175I (3,486)I (3,357)1 (1,471)I (1,222)I ~able V.2 WITHOUT relocatables SPI Capacity SPI Capacity-New Elem SPI Capacity-New Sr. High Capacity Adjustments Net Capacity 2002-03 14,647 ASD Enrollment 4SD Surplus/DeWeit (3,5261 11,121 13,427 (2,50~) 14,647 ! 14,647 (3,526) (3,526) 11,121 11,121 13,807 14,214 (2,687) (3,094) 14,647 I _1,500 I (3,397)1 12,750 I 14,391 (f,~42) (4o)l (4o)l (,4o)1 (4o)1 (3,486)J(3,486)l(3,486)J (3,526) J (3,526) I (3'357)1 (3,-,)I (3.397)I 14,501 14,654 546 393 1,74~ J 1,748I (3,458)1 (3,458)1 (1,750)I (1,750)! ICAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS I IExciude Alt JH _2/J lExciude SOS (p~ 12) 2OO6-O7 2OO7-O8 16,---~'~- - 16,79"-----'~ 650 (3,498) (3,498] 13,299. 13,299 14,352 I 14,501 (1;053) f (1,202) (4o)1 (3,458)I (3,458)1 (3,498)I (3,498) 1_./New facilities shown in 2006-07 are not funded under the current Capital Facilities Plan. _2/The Standard of Service represents 24% of SPI capacity. When new facilities are added the Standard of Service computations are decreased to 21% of SPI capacity. 3/Students beyond the capacity are accomodated in non-classroom spaces (commons, library, theater') as well as rented space which violates the District's standard of service. 4/~9/2003 (3,498) 13,299 14,654 (~,3S5) (40)I (3.458)1 (3,49S) I 17 Aubum School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2003 through 2009 Section VI CaPital Construction Plan 4/29/2OO3 4~29/2003 Auburn School Disbict No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPITAL COflSTRUCllON PLAN The formal process used by the Board to address current and future facility needs began in 1974 with the formation of a community wide citizens committee. The result of this committee's work was published in the document titled 'Guidelines for Development .' In 1985 the Board formed a second Ad Hoc citizens committee to pick up from the work of the first and address the needs of the District for subsequent years. The work of this committee was published in the document titled 'Directions for the Nineties.' In 1995 the Board commissioned a third ,Ad Hoc (~itizens committee to make recommendations for improvements to the District's programs and physical facilities. The committee recommendations are published in the document titled 'Education Into The Twenty-First Century - - A Community Involved.' The 1995 Ad Hoc committee recommended the Distdct develop plans for the implementation, funding, and deployment of technology throughout the District's programs. The 1996 Bond proposition provided funding to enhance the capacity of each facility to accommodate technological applications. The 1998 Capital Levy provided funding to further deploy technology at a level sufficient to support program requirements in every classroom and department. In addition to the technology needs of the District the Ad HOc committee recognized the Distdct must prepare for continued student enrollment growth. As stated in their report, "the District must pursue an appropriate high school site es soon as possible." The Ad Hoc recommendation included commentary that the financing should he timed to maintain consistent rates of assessment. A proposition was' approved by the voters on April 28, 1998 that is providing $8,000,000 over six years to address some of the technology needs of the District, and $5,000,000 to provide funds to acquire During the 1997-98 school year a Joint District Citizen's Ad HOc Committee was appointed by the Aubum and Dieringer School Boards to make recommendations on how best to serve the school population that will come from an area that includes a large development known as Lakeland South. Lakeland South is immediately adjacent to the southem boundary of the Aubum School District. On June 16, 1998 the Ad Hoc Committee presented its recommendation at a joint meeting of the Aubum and Diednger Boards of Directors. On June 22, 1998 the Auburn School Board adopted Resolution No. 933 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries of the District in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. On June 23, 1998 the Dieringer School Board adopted a companion Resolution No. 24-97-98 authorizing the process to initiate the adjustment of the boundaries in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. These actions resulted in the transfer of an area from Dieringer to Auburn containing most of the Lakeland South development and certain other undeveloped properties. Development in this area is progressing at an aggressive rate. The District is projecting an additional 1227 students within the six year period including the Lakeland area. This increase requires the constnmtion of a new high school, a new elementary'school, and the acquisition of a new middle school site during the six year window. A new middle school and an additional elementary school are anticipated just beyond the six year time frame for this plan. In Apdl of 2002, the Board formed a f~h citizen's Ad HOc committee to address the following t~o items and make recommendations to the board in the fall of 2002: a. A review of the conclusion and recommendations of 1985 and 1995 Ad Hoc Commiffees related to accommodating high school enrollment growth. This includes the review of possible financing plans for new facilities. b. Develop recommendations for accommodating high school enrollment growth for the next 10 years if a new senior high school is not built. 19 Auburn Schoai Disl~ict No. 408 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PLAN This committee recommended the board place the high school on the ballot for the fifth time in February 2003. The February election approved the new high school at 68.71% yes votes. The schOOl is schedule to open in the Fall of 2005. The table below illustrates the current capital construction plan for the next six years. The exact timelines are wholly dependent on the rate of growth in the school age population. 2001-08 Capital Construction Plan (March 2003) Funded Projected Fund Project Timelinas Project as of Cost Source Mar-03 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 0809 All Facilities Yes $37,268,354 1996 XX Modemizatior Bonds All Facilities- 1998 Technology Yes .: $8,000,000 6 Year XX XX XX Modernization Cap Levy Impact Portables Yes $700,000 Fees XX XX XX XX Property Purchase Surplus New Elementary Yes $2,800,000 Property XX School Sale Property Purchase New Middle No $5,000,000 XX School Elementary ~H3 No' $15,600,000 XX XX XX plan const open Elementary ~L~14 No $f6,875,000 XX plan Middle School ~5 No $30,000,000 X)( Bond plan New Sr. High Yes $58,500,000 Impact XX XX XX XX Fees plan const const open 1_./These funds may be secured through local bond issues, sale of real property, impact fees, and state matching funds. The Distdct currently is not eligible for state assistance at the elementary school level. 4/29/2003 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2003 through 2009 ::i:!:~:~: ':::~:~:~ Impact Fees iii!!iii! :::i:~:i: :~:i:~: !:~:~:!:!: 4F2~2003 Auburn School District No. 408 Capital Facilities Plan 2003 through 2009 ^ppendix Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections Appendix A.3 - Student Generation Survey 4/29/2003 Appendix A.1 - Student Enrollment Projections Auburn School District//408 Student Enrollment Projections October 2002 Introduction The projective techniques give some consideration to historical and current data as a basis for forecasting the future. In addition, the 'projector' must make certain assumptions about the operant variables within the data being used. These assumptions are "judgmental" by definition: Forecasting can be defined as the extrapolation or logical extension from history to the future, or from the known to the unknown. The attached tabular data reviews the history of student enrollment, sets °ut some quantitative assumptions, and provides projections based on these numerical factors. The projection logic does not attempt to weigh the individual sociological, psychological, economic, and political factors that are present in any demographic analysis and projection. The logic embracx:s the assumptions that whatever these individual factors have been in the past are present today, and will be in the future. It further moderates the impact of singular factors by averaging data over thirteen years and six years respectively. The results provide a trend, which reflects a long (13 year) and a short (6 year) base from which to extrapolate. Two methods of estimating the number of kindergarten students have been used. The first uses the average increase over the past 13 and O-year time frame and adds it to each succeeding year. The second derives what the average percentage Auburn kindergartners have been of the live births in King County for the past 5 years and uses this to project the subsequent four years. The degree to which the actuals deviate fi'om the projections can only be measured after the fact. This deviation provides a point of departure to evaluate the effectiveness of the assumptions and logic being used to calculate future projections. Monitoring deviation is critical to the viability and credibility of the projections derived by these techniques. Tables Table 1 - Thirteen Year History of October 1 Enrollments - page 3 ' The data shown in this table is the baseline information used to project future enrollment. This data shows the past record of enrollment in the district on Octobei: 1 of each year. Table 2 - Historical Factors Used in Projections - page 4 This table shows the three basic factors derived from the data in Table 1. These factors have been used in the subsequent projections. The three factors are: 1. Factor 1 - Average Pupil Change Between Grade Levels This factor is sometimes referred to as the "holding power" or "cohort survival." It is a measure of the number of pupils gained or lost as they move from one grade level to the next. e Factor 2 - Average Pupil Change by Grade Level This factor is the average change at each grade level over the 13 or 6-year Factor 3 - Auburn School District Kindergarten Enrollment as a Function of King County Live Births. This factor calculates what pc?cent each kindergarten class was of the King County live births in the 5 previous years. From this information has been extrapolated the kindergarten pupils expected for the next 4 years. Table 3 - This set of tables, found on pages 5 through 13 utilizes the above mentioned variables and generates several projections. [2 Table 3.13 (pg 5) - shows a projection based on the 13-year average gain in kindergarten (Factor 2) and the 13-year average change between grade levels (Factor 1). The data is shown for the district as a whole. a Table 3.6 (pg 5) - shows a projection using the same scheme as Table 3.13 except it shortens the historical to only the most recent 6 years. n Table 3.13A and 3.6A (pg 6) -. uses the same factors above except Factor 3 is substituted for Factor 2. The kindergarten rates are derived fi.om the King County live biahs instead of the average gain. [2 Tables 3E.13, 3E.6, 3E. 13A, 3E.6A (pg 7) -breaks out the K-5 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. o Tables 3M. 13, 3M.6, 3M. 13A, 3M.6A (pg 8)-breaks out the 6-8 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation.' a Tables 3SH. 13, 3SH.6, 3SH.13A, 3SH.6A (pg 9) - breaks out the 9-12 grades from the district projection. Summary level data is provided for percentage gain and pupil gain by grade articulation. [2 Table 4 (.pg 10) - Collects the four projection models by grade group for ease of comparison. c~ Table 5 (pgs 11-13) - shows how well each projection model performed when compared with actual enrollments. Data is provided in both number and percent formats for the past 13 years. 2 0 I- w 0 W w I-' 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 m Z I- Z C~ I- I-' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UJ 'l- 0 0 -r §§o~- 0 0 0 ! I- CJ UJ 0 UJ w 0 0 0 C) ) ) 0 0 0 II II # Appendix A.2 - CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Enrollment Projections 4/29/2OO3 0 0 ~mmm Appendix A.3 Student Generation Survey 4/2W2003 AUBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT AVENUE TO EXCELLENCE September 9, 2003 Mayor Pete Lewis City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Dear Mayor Lewis: Growth in the Auburn School District continues. This fall the district has over 300 more students than a year ago. As you know, the areas of Lakeland and Lea Hill are growing at a very rapid rate with new housing starts occurring almost daily. This growth, though wonderful to see, impacts the community. As a school district, we are impacted by the growth. School impact fees were established to assist in casing the burden that new housing units create for schools. With the . continued growth in the Auburn School District additional capital improvements beyond the new high school will be nee, essmy. Homes being consm~cted in the City of Auburn have the same level of impact on the school district as homes built in King County. District staff, at the board's request, submitted a letter to the city requesting an increase in the school impact fees. At the September g, 2003 school board meeting, the board took formal action to request the City'ofAuburn raise the current impact fees so that each new home in the Auburn School District pays their fair share. The calculated impact fee, as determined in the Capi~ Facilities Plan, in the Auburn School District for new single family residences is $4,528.61 and for multi-family residences is $1,212.5g. The board is requesting the City of Auburn raise the school impact fees for the Auburn School District to: Single Family - $4,500.00 Multi-Family- $1,200.00 We look forward to hearing fxom you. Thank you for your assistance in this request. Sincerely, Craig Schumaker President- Board of Directors Auburn School District P/T #2 Incorporate Kent School District Updated 2003-04 to 2008-2009 Capital Facilities Plan as part of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Kent School District Board of Directors June 25, 2003. FACILITIE S 2003- 2004 - 200~- 2009 Park FAem~lary $i~ Emerald Park Elcme~y School F_~merald Park Elementary Serving ~Jnincorporatea~ I(ing County ~ent. Covington. ~u~urn. ~4apfe ~affey. $[acf~ ~D~iamonc~. ~nton. Sea.ac. g4~ashington ~p~i£~oo~ l;l I' I -- j[ent sc p ! oistrict Kent, Washington 98030-6643 (253) 373-7295 SIX-YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2003-2004 - 2008-2009 April 2003 BOARD of DIRECTORS Bill Boyce Sandra Collins Scott Floyd Mike Jensen Linda Petersen ADMINISTRATION Barbara Grohe, Ph.D. - Superintendent Daniel L. Moberly - Assistant Superintendent - Business Services Fred H. High - Executive Director of Finance Mark Haddodk, Ph.D. - Assistant Superintendent for Learning & School Improvement Margaret A. Whitney - Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources & Special Services Carla Jackson - Executive Director, Kent-Meridian Strand Joseph McBrayer, Ph.D. - Executive Director, Kentlake Strand Merri Rieger- Executive Director, Kentridge Strand Janis McBrayer- Executive Director, Kentwood Strand Gary Piano - Executive Director of Instructional Services Valede Lynch, Ed.D. - Executive Director of Special Services Donald Hall - Executive Director of Information Technology Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Apdl 2O03 j[GJlt School OiSlfjCl DI~Tk£CT ~ Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan 2003-2004 - 2008-2009 April 2003 For information on the Plan, please call the Finance & Planning Department at (253) 373-7295. Capital Facilities Plan Contributing Staff · Gwenn Escher-Derdowski, Forecast & Planning Administrator Don Walkup & Helen ShindelI-Butler, Transportation Department Larry Price, Director of Facilities & Construction Karta Wilkerson, Facilities Department Cover Design by Debbi Smith Maps by Jana Tucker Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facgilies Plan April 2003 I[ent sc,,oo, eistdct Six-Pear Capital qvacilities Plan Table of Contents Section Page Number Executive summary 2 II Six-Year Entailment Projection 4 III Current District "Standard of Service" 8 IV Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools 11 V Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan 14 VI Relocatable Classrooms 17 VII Projected Classroom Capacity 18 VIII Finance Plan, Cost Basis and Impact Fee Schedules 23 IX Summary of Changes to Previous Plan 30 X Appendixes 31 Kent School District Six-Year Capital FacilitJes Plan Apdl 2003 Page 1 !'1 rl Executive Summary This Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Kent School District (the "District") as the organization's 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, Aubum and Black Diamond. This annual plan update was prepared using data available in the spdng of 2003 for the 2002-2003 school year. This Plan is consistent with pdor long-term capital facilities plans adopted by the Kent School District. This Plan is not intended to be the sole planning document for all of the District's needs. The District may prepare intedm and pedodic Long Range Capital Facilities Plans consistent with Board Policies, taking into account a longer or shorter time pedod, other factors and trends in the use of facilities, and other needs of the District as may be required. Pdor Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent School Distdct have been adopted by Metropolitan King County Council and Cities of Kent, Covington and Auburn and included in the Capital Facilities Plan element of the ComprehenSive Plans of each jurisdiction. The first ordinance implementing impact fees for the unincorporated areas was effective September 15, 1993. 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 and Aubum must also adopt this Plan and their own school impact fee ordinances. This Plan has also been submitted to cities of Maple Valley, Black Diamond, SeaTac, and Renton. 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 the 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 of the District. 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. Reiocatables in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (continued) April 2003 . Page 2 Executive Summary (conanued) The capacity of each school in the District is calculated based on-the District standard of service and the existing inventory, which includes some relocatable classrooms. The District's 2002-2003 program capacity of permanent facilities is 24,552 which reflects program changes and the reduction of class size to meet the requirements of Student Achievement Initiative 728. Relocatables provide additional transitional capacity until permanent facilities are completed. Kent School Distdct is the fourth largest distdct in the state. Enrollment is reported monthly to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) on Form P223. Enrollment on October I is considered to be the enrollment for the year. P223 Headcount for October 1, 2002 was 26,378. P223 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) enrollment was 25,353.74. (FTE reports Kindergarten at .5 and excludes Eady Childhood Education [ECE] and college-only Running Start students.) The actual number of individual students per the October 2002, full head count was 26,717. (Full Headcount reports all students at 1.0 including Kindergarten, ECE and college-only Running Start students.) The District's standard of service, enrollment history and projections, and use of transitional facilities are reviewed in detail in various sections of this Plan. Our plan is to continue to satisfy concurrency requirements through the transitional use of relocatables. A financing plan is included in Section V ! ! ! which demonstrates the District's ability to implement this Plan. Pursuant to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, this Plan will be updated annually with changes in the fee schedules adjusted accordingly. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan · April 2003 · Page 3 l'l 1' ] ! I Six - Year Enrollment Projection For capital facilities planning, growth projections are based on cohort surVival and student yield from documented residential construction projected over the next six years. (see ;'able 2) The student generation factor, as defined on the next page, is the basis for the growth projections from new developments. King County births and the District's relational percentage average were used to determine the number of kindergartners entedng the system. (See Table 1) 8.06% of 21,646 King County live births in 1998 is forecast for 1,790 students expected in Kindergarten for October 1, 2003. Together with proportional growth from new construction, 8.06% of King County births is equivalent to the number of students projected to enter kindergarten in the distdct for the next six-year pedod. (s, T, Uo 2) Early Childhood Education students (sometimes identified by others as "Preschool Special Education [SE] or handicapped students") are calculated and reported separately on a .5 FTE basis. The first grade population is traditionally 7 - 8% larger than the kindergarten population due to growth and transfers to the District from private kindergartens. Cohort survival method uses historical enrollment data to forecast the number of students projected for the following year. Near term projections assume some growth from new developments to be offset by current local economic conditions. With a few notable exceptions, the expectation is that enrollment increases will occur District-wide in the long term. District projections are based on historical growth patterns combined with continuing development of projects in the pipeline dependent on market and growth conditions. The District will continue to track new development activity to determine impact to schools and monitor conditions to reflect adjustments in this assumption. The six-year enrollment projection anticipates moderate enrollment growth from new development currently in some phase of planning or construction in the district. Information on new residential developments and the completion of these proposed developments in all jurisdictions may be considered in' the District's future analysis of growth projections. Within practical limits, the District has kept abreast of proposed developments. The Kent School District serves seven permitting jurisdictions: unincorporated King County, the cities of Kent, Covington, and Auburn and a small portion of the city of Maple Valley. The west Lake Sawyer area has been annexed to the City of Black Diamond and Kent Mountain View Academy is located in the small portion of the City of SeaTac served by Kent School District. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 (Continued) Page 4 I I Six - Year Enrollment Projection (Co~tinued) STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR "Student Factor" is defined by King County code as "the number dedved by a school distdct to descdbe 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 five years. FolloWing these guidelines, the student generation factor-for Kent School District is as follows: Single Family Elementary .466 Junior High .227 Senior High ,200 Total .893 Multi-Family Elementary .281 Junior High .105 Senior High .068 Total The student generation factor is based on a survey of 4,485 single family dwelling units and 2,701 multi-family dwelling units with no adjustment for occupancy. Please refer to Appendix E on Pages 35-36 for details of the Student Generation Factor survey. The actual number of students in those residential developments was determined using the District's Education Logistics (EDULOG) Transportation System. In 4,485 single family dwelling units there were 2,088 elementary students, 1,017 junior high students, and 898 senior high student~ for a total of 4,003 students. In 2,701 multi-family dwelling units, there were 759 elementary students, 284 junior high students, and 183 senior high students, for a total of 1,226 students. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Apdl 2003 Page 5 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 SIX: YEAR F.T.E. ENROLLMENT PROJECTION King County Live Births ' 21,646 22,212 22,007 22,487 21,778 21,870 21,950 Increase ! Decrease 73 566 -205 480 -709 92 80 Kindergarten / Birth % 2 8.06% 8.06% 8.06% 8.06% 8.06% 8.06% 8.06% 2 Early Childhood Education O.568 70 78 87 97 108 120 ~3 Kindergarten FTE @ .5 873 895 913 932 923 931 939 Grade I 1,922 1,824 1,893 1,931 1,989 1,975 1,996 Grade 2 1,936 1,917 1,839 1,908 1,964 2,027 2,017 Grade 3 2,055 1,947 1,949 1,871 1,959 2,020 2,087 Grade 4 2,068 2,064 1,983 1,985 1,925 2,019 2,084 Grade 5 2,149 2,042 2,092 2,011 2,032 1,977 2,075 Grade 6 2,151 2,191 2,097 2,147 2,084 2,110 2,059 Grade 7 2,380 2,272 2,315 2,232 2,290 2,229 2,261 Grade 8 2,079 2,317 2,246 2,304 2,227 2,290 2,234 Grade 9 s 2,404 2,320 Grade 9 s 2,607 2,544 2,614 2,533 2,608 Grade 10 2,039 2,163 2,122 2,401 2,349 2,417 2,348 Grade 11 1,823 1,820 1,959 1,940 2,197 2,155 2,220 Grade 12 1,475 1,496 1,542 1,677 1,666 1,888 1,857 Total FTE Enrollment 25,422 25,338 25,635 25,970 26,316 26,679 26,905 I~: 213 Yeady Increase 21 -84 297 335 346 363 226 Yearly Increase % 0.08% -0.33% 1.17% 1.31% 1.33% 1.38% 0.85% Cumulative Increase 21 -63 234 569 915 1,278 1,504 ~ Kindergarten projection based on King County actual live bidh percentage and propodional growth fro;n new construction. 2 Kindergarten FTE enrollment projection at .5 is calculated by using the Dis~ct's percentage of King County live births 5 years earlier compared to actual kindergarten enrollment in the previous year. (Includes ECE {~ ,5 - Early Childhood Ed) 3 Kindergarten projection is at ,5 F-rE although many schools have Full Day Kindergarten at 1.0 FTE with altamative funding. 4 Oct. 2002 P223 Headcount is 26,378. Full student headcount including 136 Preschool & 377 Running Start = 26,717. 5 Grade level reconfiguration. In 2004, 9th grade moves to the senior high schools, * For facilities planning purposes, this six-year enrollment projection an_ticipates moderate enrollment growth from new development currently in some phase of p!anning or construction in the district.. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 2 April 2003 Page 7 Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" In order to determine the capacity of the District's facilities, King County Code 21A.06 refers to a "standard of service" that each school district must establish in order to ascertain its overall capacity. The standard of service identifies the program year, the class size, the number of classrooms, students and programs of special need, and other factors determined by the Distdct which would, in the District's judgment, best serve the student population. This Plan includes the standard of service as established by Kent School District. The Distdct has identified schools with significant special needs programs as "impact" schools and the standard of service targets a lower class size at those facilities. Relocatables included in the capacity calculation use the same standard of service as the permanent facilities. (See Appendix A, B & C) The standard of service defined herein may continue to change in the future. Kent School Distdct is. continuing a long-term strategic planning process combined with review of changes to capacity and standard of service adjustments to meet the requirements of Student Achievement Initiative 728. This process will affect various aspects of the District's "standard of service" and future changes will be reflected in future capital facilities plans. Because the funding for Initiative 728 is incremental, implementation of the Initiative is also incremental and may result in annual changes to school capacity. Current Standards of Service for Elementary Students Class size for grades K - 3 should not exceed an average of 20 students. Class size for grade 4 at impact schools should not exceed an average of 20 students. Class size for grade 4 at non-impact schools should not exceed an average of 23 students. Class size for grades 5 - 6 should not exceed an average of 29 students. Program capacity for regular education classrooms is calculated at an average of 23 students per classroom because there are five grade levels at K - 4 and fluctuations between primary and intermediate grade levels (i..e. third/fourth grade split classes, etc.). Many elementary schools now provide full day kindergarten programs with the second half of the day funded by grants or tuition. Students have scheduled time in a computer lab. Students may also be provided music instruction and physical education in a separate classroom or facility. Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a self- contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program. (continued) Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 Page 8' I I ! Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued) Identified students will also be provided other educational opportunities in classrooms for programs designated as follows: English Language Leamers (E L L) Self-contained Special Education Programs Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance) Education for Disadvantaged Students (Title I) Gifted Education Distdct Remediation Programs Learning Assisted Programs (LAP) School Adjustment Programs for severely behavior-disordered students Hearing Impaired Mild, Moderate and Severe Developmental Disabilities Developmental Kindergarten Early Childhood Education (ECE) (3-4 yr. old students with disabilities) Some of the above special programs require specialized classroom space, as well as music and physical education classrooms, computer labs, etc.; thus, the permanent 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 these special programs and space must be allocated to serve these programs. Some newer buildings have been constructed to accommodate most of these programs; some older buildings have been modified, and in some circumstances, these modifications reduce the classroom capacity of the buildings. When programs change, program capacity fluctuates and is updated annually to reflect the change in 'program and capacity. Current Standards of Service for Secondary Student~ 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. Reductions have been made in 7~ and 10th grade English classes for Initiative 728. These standards are subject to change pending annual updates based on staff and public review for changes funded by Student Achievement Initiative 728. Class size for grades 7 - 9 should not exceed an average of 29 students Class size for 7 & 10 grade Enghsh class should not exceed an average of 25 students. Class size for grades 10 - 12 should not exceed an average of 31 students. Special Education for students with disabilities may be provided in a contained classroom with a capacity of 10-15 depending on the program. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 self- {continued) Page 9 III Current Kent School District "Standard of Service" (continued) Identified students will also be provided other education opportunities in classrooms for programs designated as follows: Computer Labs English Language Leamers (E L L) Integrated Programs & Resource Rooms (for special remedial assistance) . Preschool and Daycare P~ograms Honors (Gifted) and Advanced Placement Programs Basic Skills Programs Traffic Safety Education JROTC - Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps Variety of Career and Technical Education Programs (Vocational Education) i.e. Home & Family Life (Cooking, Sewing, Child Development, etc.) Business Education (Keyboarding, Accounting, Business Law, Sales & Marketing, etc.) Woods, Metals, Welding, Electronics, Manufacturing Technology, Auto Shop, Commercial Foods, Commercial Art, Drafting & Drawing, Electronics, Careers, etc. Many of these programs and others require specialized classroom space which can reduce the permanent capacity of the school buildings. In addition, an alternative home school assistance, choice and transition program is provided for students in grades K - 12 at Kent Mountain View Academy. - 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 work space during their planning pedods, it is not possible to achieve 100% utilization of regular teaching stations. Based on the analysis of actual utilization of classrooms, the District has determined that the standard utilization rate is 85% for secondary schools. Program capacity at elementary schools has been adjusted from 95% utilization in the past to reflect 100% utilization at the elementary level. In the future, the District will continue close analysis of actual utilization. · Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 Page 10 Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools Currently, the District has permanent program capacity to house 24,552 students and transitional (relocatable) capacity to house 2,051. This capacity is based on the District's Standard of Service as set forth in Section ! ! !. Included in this Plan is an inventory of the District's schools by type, address and current Capacity. (See Table 3 on Page 12) The program capacity is periodically updated for changes in programs and the addition of new schools. It also reflects the Student Achievement Initiative 728 reduction in class size from 22:1 to 20:1 in grades K - 3 and Grade 4 reductions of 20:1 at impact schools or 23:1 for non-impact schools. The class size reduction received voter approval in the Educational Programs and Operations Levy as well as through funding from Student Achievement Initiative 728. The District will conduct annual public review and update class size recommendations in accordance with the requirements and incremental funding of Student Achievement Initiative 728. Kent Mountain View Academy (formerly Kent Leaming Center) sen, es grades Kindergarten through 12 with transition, choice and home school assistance programs. It is located in the former Grandview School in the western part of the District in the city of SeaTac. This school was designed and is currently configured as an elementary school. Calculation of Elementary, Junior High and Senior High School capacities are set forth in Appendices A, B and C. A map of existing schools is included on Page 13. Kent School District Six-Year Capilal Facilities Plan Apdl 2003 Page 11 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 INVENTORY and CAPACITY of EXISTING SCHOOLS Carriage Crest Elementary 1990 CC 18235 - 140th Avenue SE. Renton 98058 470 Cedar Valley Elementary 1971 CV 26500 Timberlane Way SE, Covington 98042 401 Covington Elementary 1961 CO 17070 SE Wax Road, Covington 98042 482 Cmstwond Elementary 1980 CW 2~?~,~. 180th Avenue SE. Covington 98042 437 Daniel Elementary 1992 DE 11310 SE 248th Street. Kent 98031 426 East Hill Elementary 1953 EH 9825 S 240th Street. Kent 98031 406 Emerald Park 1999 EP 11800 SE 2161h Street, Kent 98031 460 Fain~x~l Elementary 1969 FW 16600 - 148th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 431 Gler,,',~ C-~,T, en[ary 1996 GR ' 19405 - 120th Avenue SE, Renton 98058 450 Gross Lake Elementary 1971 GL 28700 - 191st Place SE, Kent 98042 460 Horizon Elementary 1990 HE 27641 - 1441h Avenue SE, Kent 98042 444 Jenkins Creek Elementary 1987 JC 28915 - 186lh Avenue SE, Covington 98042 434 Kent Elementary 1999 KE 24700 - 64th Avenue South, Kent 98032 426 Lake Youngs Elementary 1965 LY 19660 - 142nd Avenue SE. Kent 98042 539 Martin So~lun ~ntary 1987 MS 12711 SE 2481h Street, Kent 98031 440 Meadow Ridge Elementary 1994 MR 27710 - 108Ih Avenue SE, Kent 98031 411 Me~,~;an Ele,T,e,-,:~ry 1939 ME 25621 - 140th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 539 Millennium Elementary 2000 ML 11919 SE 270lh Street, Kenl 98031 428 Neely-O'Brien Elementary 1990 NO 6300 South 236th Street, Kent 98032 403 Panther Lake Elementary 1938 Pt. 20831 - 108th Avenue SE, Kent 98031 374 Par'~( C~-c~,~; F_lem~-~ai-y 1963 PO 11010 SE 232nd Streel. Kent 98031 460 Pine Tree Elementary 1987 PT 27825 - 1181h Avenue SE, Kent 98031 483 Ridgewood Elementary . 1987 RW 18030 - 162nd Place SE, Renlon 98058 462 Sawyer Woods Elementary 1994 SW 31135 - 228th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 483 Scenic Hill El~T,e~ry 1960 SH 26uZ5 Woodland Way South. Kent 98031 406 Soos C~eek Elementary 1971 SC 12651 SE 218th Place, Kent 98031 444 Spdr~brook ~ntary 1989 SB 20035 - 100Ih Avenue SE. Kent 98031 416 Sundse Elementary 1992 SR 22300 * 132nd Avenue SE, Kent 98042 506 Elementary TOTAL 12,521 Cedar Heights Junior High 1993 CH 19640 SE 272 Street, Covington 98042 949 Kent Junior High 1952 KJ 620 North Central Avenue, Kent 98032 816 Mattso~ Junior High 1981 MA 16400 SE 2515t Street, Covington 98042 808 Meeker Junior High ;1970 MK 12600 SE 192nd Street, Renton 98058 890 Meridian Junior H~h 1958 MJ 23480 - 120th Avenue SE. Kent 98031 747 Northwood Junior High 1996 NW 17007 SE184th Street, Rerdon98058 944 Sequoia Junior High 1966 SJ 11000 SE 2641h Street, Kerd 98031 830 Junior High TOTAL 5,984 KenI-Meridian Serdor High 1951 KM 10020 SE 2581h Street, Kenl 98031 1,417 Kentlake Senior High School 1997 KL 21401 SE 300th Street, Kent 98042 1,622 Kentridge SeniorHigh 1968 KR 12430 SE 208th Street, Kent 98031 1,301 Kenlwood Senior High 1981 KVV 25800 - 1641h Avenue SE. Covington 98042 1,291 Senior High TOTAL 5,631 Kent Mountain View Academy 2 1985 LC 22420 Military Road, Des Moines 98198 416 l Changes to capacity reflecl program changes and continued reducticm in class size for-Academic Achievement Initiative 728. 2 Kent Mountain View Academy serves g~ades K - 12. This schoo~ was formerly known as Kent Learning Cenler & Grandview Elementar. Kent School Disbict Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 3 Apd! 2003 Page 12 d ~ eAV e~ 0 -ob Z~ c 0 '~0 oo°o°~ Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 Page 13 Six-Year Planning and Construction Plan At the time of preparation of this Plan in spring of 2003, the following projects are completed or in the planning phase in the District: Construction funding for additions to three high schools received voter approval. The Board authorized grade level reconfiguration to move 9t~ grade students to high schools and serve 7t~ and 8= grade students at middle schools. New classroom additions will add capacity for 2,213 students when 9a Grade moves to the high schools. Construction is expected to be complete by Fall of 2004. Reconfiguration will provide additional capacity at middle schools. Implementation is expected for 2004. The Board approved a temporary closure to remodel Kent Junior High. In 2004-05, students from KJH will attend other middle schools when 9m grade students have moved to the high schools. Kent Junior will re-open as a middle school with additional programs in 2005. A site was purchased at 15435 SE'256~ Street in Covington, and remains a part of the site bank for future schools. Other potential future sites and facilities are listed in Table 4 and shown on the site map on page 17. · The Board authorized purchase of a site for Junior High #8 east of 124th Avenue SE at SE 286t~ Street. That site was determined not to be feasible and the property is for sale. · Some funding is secured for purchase of additional portables and some funding may be provided by impact fees as needed. The sites have not been determined. 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, pull-outs and tum-arounds for school buses. 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 raise 4) The voter approved bond issue for $105.4 million in 1990 and $130 million in 1994 included funding for the purchase of eleven sites for some of these and future schools, and the sites acquired to date are included in this Plan. Some funding is secured for purchase of additional sites but some may be funded with impact fees as needed. Not all undeveloped properties meet current school construction requirements and some property may be traded or sold to meet future facility needs. 2002 voter approval of $69.5 million bond issue for capital improvement included the construction funding for additions to three high schools which are scheduled to be completed in 2004. Student Achievement Initiative 728 funds are being utilized to reduce class size and provide extended learning opportunities. Based on community input, the Board will continue annual review of standard of service and those decisions will be reflected in the each update of the Capital Facilities Plan. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 Page I1 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 Site Acquisitions and Projects Planned to Provide Additional Capacity iiiiiiiill SCHOOL/FACILITY / SITE I LOCATION I Type I Status Completion Program new I ELEMENTARY I (Numbers assigned to future schools may not correlate with number of existing schools.) Elementary # 31 (Unfunded) ~ To be determined 2 New Planning 2008 500 75% Grade Level Recnnflguralion will Move 9th grade to High Schoo~ Program Planning 2004 provide additional capacity at Junior High schools Classroom addi§ons at Kent-Meridian Additions Planning 2004 316 100% 3 high schools and move Kentridge Additions Planning 2004 1,001 100% 9Ih Grade to high school Kentwood Additions Planning 2004 896 100% I AddilJonal I TEMPORARY FACILITIES I Capacity, Relocatabtes For placement as needed New Planning 2003 + 23 - 31 ea~ 100% I 1 Bus Facility (Unfunded) ~ Near Kent-Meridian High School New Planning TBD 2 N / A Land Use Map 3 OTHER SITES ACQUIRED Type Jurisdiction 4 Covington area (NearMattsnnJH) SE251 &164SE, Covington 98042 Elementary City of Covington 7 Covington area (Scarsella) SE 290 & 156 SE, Kent 98042 Elementary King County 5 Covington area West (Hallesnn) 15435 SE 256 Street, Covington 98042 TBD z City of Covington 3 Ham Lake area (Pollard) 16820 SE 240, Kent 98042 Elementary King County 8 SE of Lake Morton area (West) SE 332 & 204 SE, Kent 98042 Junior High King County 2 Shady Lake area (Sowers, etc.) 17426 SE 192 Street, Renton 98058 Elementary King County I So. King Co. Activity Center (Nike site) SE 167 & 170 SE, Renton 98058 TBD 2 King Counly 12 Fom~r Jr Hi i~8 site (Plemmons-Yeh-Wm$) SE 286th Street & 124th Ave. SE, Kent Site was determined to be 'unbuildable' for a junior high and properly is now for sale. Notes: 1 Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the futura. 2 TBD - To be determined - Some sites are acquired but placement, timing and/or configuration have not been determined. · 3 Numbers correspond to sites on Map on Page 16. Other site locations are parcels identified in Table 7 on Page 26. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 4 April 2003 Page 15 · o~ o · C Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 Page 16 ¥ ! Relocatable Classrooms For the purpose of clarification, the term "portables" and the more descriptively accurate term, "relocatables" are used interchangeably in this Plan. The Plan also references use of portables or relocatables as intedm or transitional capacity/facilities. Currently, the District utilizes 158 total relocatables to house students in excess of Permanent capacity, for program purposes at school locations, and six for other purposes. (See Appendices A B C D) Based on enrollment projections, program capacity and funded permanent facilities, the Distdct anticipates the need to purchase some additional relocatables during the next six-year pedod. During the time period covered by this Plan, the Distdct does not anticipate that all of the District's relocatables will be replaced by permanent facilities. During the useful life of some of the relocatables, the school-age population may decline in some communities and increase in others, and these relocatables provide the flexibility to accommodate the immediate needs of the community. Portables, or relocatables, may be used as interim or transitional facilities: 1. To prevent overbuilding or overcrowding of permanent school facilities. 2. To cover the gap between the time of demand for increased capacity and completion of permanent school facilities to meet that demand. 3. To meet unique program requirements. Portables, or relocatables, cu~'rently in use will be evaluated resulting in some being improved and some replaced. Quality concems will be among those addressed by the next Citizens' Facilities Planning Committee in review of capital facilities needs for the next bond issue. The Plan projects that the District will use relocatables to accommodate interim housing needs for the next six years and beyond. The use of relocatables, their impacts on permanent facilities, life cycle and operational costs, and the interrelationship between relocatables, emerging technologies and educational restructuring will continue to be be examined. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 Page 17 I:1 F-T .... Projected Six-Year Classroom Capacity As stated in Section ! ¥, the program capacity study is periodically updated for changes in special programs and reflects class size reduction in Grades K - 4. As shown in the Inventory and Capacity chart in Table 3 on Page 12, the program capacity is also reflected in the capacity and enrollment comparison charts. (See Tables5& 5 A-B-C on pacjes 19-22) Enrollment is 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 set by OSPI as the enrollment count date for the year. Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment for October 1, 2002 was 25,353.74 with kindergarten students counted at .5 and excluding Eady Childhood Education students (ECE - preschool special education) and College- 0nly Running Start students. (See Ta~ '~ & 5 A-e-C o,? pages ~9 - 22) Kent School District continues to be the fourth largest distdct in the state of Washington. P223 Headcount for October 1, 2002 was 26,378 with kindergarten students counted at 1.0 and excluding ECE and college-only Running Start students. A headcount of all students enrolled on October 1, 2002 totals 26,717 which includes ECE and college-only Running Start students. Based on the enrollment forecasts, current inventory and capacity, current standard of service, relocatable capacity, and future planned classroom space, the District anticipates having sufficient capacity to house students over the next six years. (see Table S and Tables 5 A-B-C on Page$19 - 22) This does not mean that some schools will not experience overcrowding. There may be significant need for additional portables and/or new schools to accommodate growth within the Distdct and class size reduction mandated under Student Achievement Initiative 728. Some schools, by design, may be opened with relocatables on site. Boundary changes, limited .movement of relocatables, zoning changes, market conditions, and educational restructuring will ali play a major role in addressing overcrowding and underutilization of facilities in different parts of the District. Kent School DisLdct Six-Year CaPital Facililies Plan April 2003 .Page 18 I'11~ .... KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY TOTAL DISTRICT SCHOOL YEAR ~ Program Capacity INew Permanent Construction ~ 3 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 Actual p R O J E C 24,552 24,552 24,552 26,765 26,765 3 Grade level reconfiguraUon. 9th grade moves to high schools in 2004 Additions to Senior High schools Elementary # 31 (Unfunded) 5 2,213 2007-2008 2008-2009 T E D 26,765 26,765 5O0 P~e~anent Program Capacity Subtotal~ J lnterim Relocatable Capacity 24,552 26,765 26,765 26,765 26,765 27,265 D~~ISTRICT AVAILABLE CAPACITY 1 2 3 4 Elementary Retocalable ~ Required 299 23 0 0 46 230 0 Junior High Relocatable Capacity Required 899 928 0 0 0 0 0 se.~ H~h Re~x=~Ue Capac~ Required 0 0 403 744 992 1,178 1,209 table Capacity Required 1 & 4 CAPACITY ~ ENROLLMENT/PROJECTIO~ 25,422 25,338 25,635 25,970 26,316 26,679 26,905 165 1,533 1,539 1,487 1,494 1,569 Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes. FTE = Full Time Equivalent Enrollment (ie. ECE Preschool Handicapped & 1/2 day Kindergarten student = .5). In 2004, 9th grade will move to the high schools and result in increased capacity at Middle School level. 2002-2003 total classroom relocatable capacity is 2,051. Unfunded facility needs are pending review. Ken.t School District Six-Year Capital Facili~es Plan Table 5 April 2003 Page 19 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY SENIOR HIGH P R O J E C '~ lS, enior High permanent Program _c~pacity~ 5,631 ' 5,631 INew Permanent Senior High ConstnJcfion1 3 Grade level reconfiguralJon - 9th grade moves to high Schools in 2004 Classrooms added at lhree high schools 2,213 5,631 7,844 7~844 7,844 7,844 Subtotal 5,631 5,631 ~.~.~. IRelocatable Capacity Required T~'~OTAL CAPACITY ~ 0 5,631 0 403 744 992 1,178 1,209 5,631 8,247 8,588 8,836 9,022 9,053 ~E~~ENROLLMENT / PROJECTION 2 & 3 5,3~r~~37. 5,479 8,230 8,562 8,826 8,993 9,033 152 17 26 10 29 20 ] Number of Relocatables Required 0 0 13 24 32 38 39 Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes. FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment, excluding full time Running Start students. Approximately 220 Junior High students are served all or part of the day at high schools. Grade leve! reconfiguration - 9th grade will move to the high schools in 2004. Kent SchoOl District Six-Year Capital Fadli~es Plan Table 5 A April 2003 Page 20 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY JUNIOR HIGH P R O J E C T~ I Junior High Permanent Program Capacily ] 5,984 5,984 INew Capacity from Grade Reconfiguration1 Grade level reconfiguration - 9th grade moves to high schools in 2004 4 5,984 5,168 5,984 5,9'84 5,984 Kent Junior High closed for remodel in 2004-05 - Middle School re-opens in 2005 -816 816 Subtota~ 5,984 5,984 5,168 5,984 IRelocatable Capacity Required ! J 899 T[~~OTAL CAPACITY ' & 3 6,8~~83 FT~~E ENROLLMENT I PROJECTION SURe'PLUS ~CApACi-FY ~ 5,984 5,984 5,984 928 0 0 0 0 6,912 5,168 5,984 5,984 5,984 6,909 4,561 4,536 4,517 4,519 4,49_~5 607 1,448 1,467 1,465 1,489 ] Number of Relocatables Required 31 32 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and updated periodically to reflect program changes. 2 FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment / Projection Approximately 220 9th grade students are currently served at high schools. Grade level reconfiguration. 9th grade will move to the high schools in 2004. Kent Junior High dosed for remodel in 2004-05 - Kent Middle School re-opens in Fall 2005 Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 B ~,il 2003 Page 21 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 415 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT and CAPACITY ELEMENTARY P R O J E C ~ I Elementary Permanent Pr°gram Capacity 1 Kent Mountain View AcademyJ [New Permanent Elementary ConstructionI 12.521 12.937 12.937 12.937 12.937 '12.937 12.937 416 Elementary # 31 (Unfunded) 4 5O0 Subtotal :lRelocatable Capacity Required2 I TOTAL CAPACITY 2 I 12,937 12,937 12,937 12,937 12,937 12,937 13,437 299 23 0 0 46 230 0 13.236 12,960 12,937 12.937 12.983 13,167 13.437 l' FTEENROLLMENT/PROJECTION 3 J 13.797 12,950 12,844 12,872 12,973 13,167 13,377 2 3 4 14 10 93 65 10 0 60 -I N umber of Relocatables Required 13 I 0 0 2 110 0 Kent Mountain View Academy is a special program at Grandview School serving students in Grades K - 12. The school (formerly Kent Learning Center & Grandview Elem.) was designed and utilized as an elementary school. Capacity is based on standard of service for program capacity and is updated periodically to reflect pre. gram changes. FTE = Approximate Full Time Equivalent Enrollment or Projection (ECE & Kindergarten @ .5) Facility needs are pending review. Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Table 5 C April 2003 Page 22 V I I I Finance Plan The finance plan shown on Table 6 demonstrates how the Kent School District plans to finance improvements for the years 2003 - 2004 through 2008 - 2009. The financing components include secured and unsecured funding and impact fees. The plan is based on voter approval of future bond issues, collection of impact fees under the State Growth Management Act and voluntary mitigation fees paid pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act. Kent Elementary #27a, which opened in January 1999 as a replacement for the odginal Kent Elementary School, was the last school for which the Distdct received state matching funds under the current state funding formula. The Distdct anticipates receiving state matching funds for the senior high school additions. , Millennium Elementary #30 which opened in the fall of 2000 was; the last elementary school that has received funding approval from voters. Voters approved a $69.5 million bond issue for Capital Construction and Improvements in February 2002. This will fund building additions at three high schools 'which will coincide with moving 9"~ grade to the senior high in 2004. Some funding is secured for additional portables and some will be funded from impact fees. Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future. For the Six-Year Finance Plan, costs of future schools are based on estimates from Kent School Distdct Facilities Department. Please see pages 2,~.26 for a summary of the cost basis. Kent Schoo~ District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 Page 23 Z o o ¥ ! ! ! Finance Plan - Cost Basis Summary For impact fee calculations, construction costs are based on cost of the last elementary school, with 5% inflation factor, and the projected construction cost of the additions to three high schools. Elementary School Cost Projected Cost Millennium Elementary (#30-open 2000) $12,182,768 Current cost of Elementary #31 $14,103,076 Projected cost of Elementary #31 in 2008 $18,000,000 Senior High Schools Projected Cost Total Addition to Kent-Meridian $4,800,000 Addition to Kentddge $10,400,000 Addition to Kentwood $9,600.000 Projected construction cost of $24,800,000 additions to 3 High Schools 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 on page 26 for a list of site acquisition costs and averages. The impact fee calculations on pages 28 and 29 include a "District Adjustment" which is equal to the amount of increase that the impact fee formulas drive out for this year and adjusted for increase in the ConSumer Price Index. The reasons for this adjustment include: 1) the district's long-term commitment to keep impact fee increases as minimal as possible, and 2) our community's overwhelming support of Initiative 695. Kent School District Six-Year Capilal Facilities Plan April 2003 Page 25 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS FOR ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Student Generation Factors - Single Family Elementary 0.466 Junior High 0.227 Senior High 0.200 Total 0.893 Projected Student Capacity Elementary 500 Junior High 1,065 Senior High 2,213 Required Site Acreage per Facility Elementary (required) Junior High (required) Senior High (required) 11 21 27 $18,000,000 $o $24,8OO,0O0 New Facility Construction Cost Elementary Junior High Senior High * See calculations on pg. 25 Student Generation Factors - Multi-Family Elementary 0.281 Junior High 0.105 Senior High 0.068 Total 0.454 SPI Square Footage per Student Elementary Junior High Senior High 8O 113.33 120 $81,558 $0 $82,761 Average Site Cost I Acre Elementary Junior High Senior High Temporary Facility Capacity & Cost Elementary @ 23 Junior High @ 29 Senior High @ 31 $91,181 $91,181 $91,181 Temporary Facility Square Footage Elementary Junior High Senior High Total 4% Permanent Facility Square Footage Elementary Junior High Senior High Total 96% 86,956 26,280 21,736 134,972 1,455,606 753,079 8O0,882 3,009,567 State Match Credit Current State Match Percentage for Senior High Additions Area Cost Allowance. Cost/Sq. F*'t. Current Area Cost Allowance District Average Assessed Value Single Family Residence 54.29% $125.32 $222,591 Total Facilities Square Footage Elementary Junior High Senior High Total Developer Provided Sites I Facilities Value Dwelling Units 1,542,562 779,359 822,618 3,144,539 0 0 District Average Assessed Yalue Multi-Family Residence Capital Levy Tax Ratal$1,000 Current / $1,000 Tax Rate General Obligation Bond Interest Rate Current Bond Interest Rate_ $85,437 $2.10 4.69% Kent School District Six-Year Capital FacililJes Plan April 2003 Page 27 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Single Family Residence A1 (Elementary) 1' Student R~-----~ ~ ' $81,558 500 0.466 A 2 (Junior High) 21 $0 1,065 0.227 A 3 (Senior High) 27 $82,761 2,213 0.200 0.893 Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Single Family Residence Footage Ra~'"~'J B 1 (Elementary) $18,000,000 500 0.466 0.96 B 2 (Junior High) $0 1,065 0.227 0.96 B 3 (Senior High) $24,800,000 2,213 ~ 0.96 0.893 B --> Temporary Facility Cost per Single Family Residence Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ratio) C 1 (Elementary) $91,181 23 0.466 0.04 C 2 (Junior High) $91,181 29 0.227 0.04 C 3 (Senior High) $91,181 31 0.200 0.04 0.893 C ---> State Match Credit per Single Family Residence $836.13 $0 $201.95 $1,038.08 $16,104.96 $0 $2,151.65 $18,256.61 $73.90 $28.55 $23.53 $125.98 I $2,536.39 Stu~k~t Factor D 1 (Elementary) $125.32 80 0.5429 0.466 D 2 (Junior High) $125.32 113.33 0 0.227 D 3 (Senior High) $125.32 126 0.5429 0.200 Tax Credit per Single Family Residence Average SF Residenlial Assessed Value Current Capital Levy Rate / $1,000 Current Bond Interest Rate Years Amortized (10 Years) Developer Provided Facility Credit Fee Recap A = Site Acquisition per SF Residence B = Permanent Facility Cost per Residence C = TemPOrary Facility Cost per Residence Subtotal D = Slate Match Credit per Residence* TC = Tax Credit per Residence Subtotal $222,591 $2.10 4.69% 10 LFactlity / Site Value I Dwelling Units ] 0 0 - FC---> $1,038.08 $18,256.61 $125.98 $4,169.26 $3.662.48 Total Unfunded Need 50% Developer Fee Obligation FC = Facility Credit (if applicable) District Adjustment (See Page 25 ~or explanation) Net Fee Obligation per Single Family Residence Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan $0 $1,632.87 $4,16g.26 $3,662.48 $19,420.67 $7.831.74 $11,588.g3 $5,794.46 0 ($1,502.46) ~- $4,292.0O Apdl 200:} Page 28 KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE Site Acquisition Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Acres x Cost per Acre) / Facility Capacity) x Student Generation FaCtor A I (Elementary) 11 $81,558 500 A 2 (Junior High) 21 $0 1,065 A 3 (Senior High) 27 $82,761 2,213 Student Factor 0.281 0.105 0.068 0.454 A~:> Permanent Facility Construction Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Formula: ((Facility Cost / Facility Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Permanent / Total Square Foo~q;~e Ratio) l ! I I ] B 1 (Elementary) $18,000,000 500 0.281 0.96 S9,711.36 B 2 (Junior High) $0 1,065 0.105 0.96 S0 B 3 (Senior High) $24,800,000 2,213 0.068 0.96 $731.56 0.454 B ---> $10,442.92 Temporary Facility Cost per Multi-Family Residence Unit Tax Credit per Multi-Family Residence Unit Average MF Residential Assessed Value Current Capital Levy Rate / $1,000 Current Bond Interest Rate Years Amortized (10 Years) $504.19 $0 $68.66 $572.85 Formula: ((Facility Cost / Fadlity Capacity) x Student Factor) x (Temporary / Total Square Footage Ralio) C I (Elementary) $91,181 23 0.281 0.04 $44.56 C 2 (Junior High) $91,181 29 0.105 0.04 $13.21 C 3 (Senio~ High) $91,181 31 .0.068 0.04 $8.00 0.454 C ---> $65.77 State Match Credit per Multi-Family Residence Unit ~ Formula: Area Cost AJlowance x SPI Square Feet per student x _ni's~ct Match % x Sh__-~e_nt Fac;or D 1 (Elementary) $125.32 80 0.5429 0.281 $1,529.45 D 2 (Junior High) $125.32 113.33 0 0.105 $0 D 3 (Senior High) $125.32 120 0.5419 0.068 $554.15 D ---> $2,083.61 Facility / Site Value 0 $572.85 S 10,442.92 $65.77 Developer Provided Facility Credit $65,437 $2.10 4.69% 10 Dwelling Units 0 $11,081.54 $3,160.30 Fee Recap A = Site AcquisilJon per Multi-Family Unit B = Permanent Facility Cost per MF Unit C = Temporary Facility Cost per MF Unit Subtotal D = State Ma/ch Credit per MF Unit TC = Tax Credit per MF Unit Subtotal $7,921.24 TC ~.> $1,076.69 FC ~> 0 $3,960.62 0 ($1,317.62) $2,643.00 $2,083.61 $1,076.69 Total Unfunded Need 50% Developer Fee ObligalJon FC = Facility Credit (if applicable) District Adjustment (See Page 25 for explanation) Net Fee Obligation per Multi-Family Residence Unit Kent. Schoo/District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan Apdl 2003 Page 29 IX Summary of Changes to April 2002 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 April 2002 Plan are summarized here. Property for Junior High #8 was determined not feasible and is still for sale. Voters approved funding for additions at three high schools to accommodate new growth, moving 9~ grade to senior highs, which will provide additional capacity for grade 7-8 at junior high schools in 2004. Kent Junior High will close for remodeling in 2004-05 and re-open as a middle school in 2005-06. Changes to capacity continue to reflect reduction in class size for grades K - 4 as well as program changes. Reduction in class size for Student Achievement Initiative 728 is reflected in this update. Changes in portables or transitional capacity reflect purchase, sale, surplus and/or movement of portables between facilities Student enrollment forecast is updated annually. Permanent facility costs are based on schools built most recently with adjustment for 5% inflation rate. The distdct expects to receive state matching funds for projects in this Plan and tax credit factors are updated annually. Unfunded facility needs will be reviewed in the future. Impact fee calculations include a "District Adjustmen~' which is equal to the amount of increase from impact fee formulas and adjusted for increase in the Consumer Price Index. See page 25 for further explanation. The biennial student generation factor survey was updated to reflect changes. Changes reflected no adjustment for occupancy. Survey data is included as Appendix E. Changes to Impact Fee Calculation Factors include: ITEM Student Generation Factor Single Family (SF) Student Generation Factor Multi-Family (MF) 0.463 0.454 State Match Credit 54.19% 54.29% Area Cost Allowance (Beockh Index) $110.32 $125.32 Average Assessed Valuation (AV) SF $205,665 $222,591 AV - Average of Condominiums & Apts. MF $65,868 $65,437 Debt Service Capital Levy Rate / $1000 $2.10 $2.10 General Obligation Bond Interest Rate 5.~9% 4.69% Impact Fee - Single Family sF $4.147' $4,292 Impact Fee - Multi-Family MF $2,554 $2,643 J C~'aUerrypeI FROM I TO I Comments Elem 0.504 0.466 Jr 0.211 0.227 Upda,ted in 2002 Plan Sr 0.183 0.200 Total 0.898 0.893 Elem 0.273 0.281 Jr 0.114 0.105 Updalled in 2002 Plan Sr 0.076 0.068 Total 1~ change since 1999 Plan Per SPI Per Puget Sound ESD Per Puget Sound ESD Per King County Assessor Market Rate Change to fe~ Change lo fee Kent School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 Page 30 Appendixes Appendix A: Calculations of Capacities for Elementary Schools Appendix B: Calculations of Capacities for Junior High Schools Appendix C: Appendix D: Calculations of Capacities for Senior High Schools Use of Relocatables Appendix E: Student Generation Factor Survey Ken! School District Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan April 2003 Page 31 o ~ ;~ < ~_ ~o~°o~o~~oo~oo~ooo~o~- 0 0 N- 0 ddddddddddddddddddddddddooddddddoddodod ddd~dooo~ddddddd -ddd °ddddodo~odddddo dddoooo dddddd°dddddoddddddddddddddd Z L~J P/T#3 Dieringer School District Update,d Capital Facility Plan information. IERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT Educating every child for Confidence today and Contribution tomorrow May.8, 2003 David Osaki, Community Development Administrator City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 980014998 Subject: Dieringer School District - Capital Facilities Plan Dear Mr. Osaki: Enclosed is the annual update of the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan. As you know, the Dieringer School District is located in unincorporated Pierce County, therefore the annual update is prepared in the format provided by Pierce County. The 2003 revisions include a recently approved non-capacity project: the replacement of Lake Tapps Elementary. A February 2003 bond issue was approved to construct a new facility on the site of the current school. The new school is scheduled to open :September 2005. The existing school will remain operational during construction and will be demolished in 2005. The 2003 revisions also reflect updated student enrollment projections and per student cost for facilities. Please let me know if you need further information by cOntacting me at (253) 862-2537. 1320 - 178th Avenue East · Sumner, Washington 98390 - (253) 862-2537 · FAX (253) 862-8472 Dieringer School District 8343 is an Equal Opportunity Institution A TTA CHMENT #2 F or the purposes of the 2003 amendments to the Capital Facilities Element of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan, we would like each school district to use the format as outlined irt the tables below. Table IX PS 1 Complete-this table as in Pierce County's 2002. Capital Facilities Plan, listing each elementary, each intermediate/middle/junior high, and each high school (see attachment #1). · Table IX-PS-1. Current Facilities Inventory Public Schools The inventory of current Public School capital facilities includes the following: Capacity Name (Number of Students) Ix)cation Dieringer School District Lake Tapps Elementary 500 1320-178m Ave. E.,. Sumner Dieringer Heights Elementary 475 21727-34~ St. E., Sumner North Tapps Middle School 510 20029-12a' St. E., Sumner High School 0 TOTAL Dieringer School District 2003 Capital Facilities Plan Table IX-P S.2. You do not need to provide any information regarding this table from-attachment #1. Table IX-PS-2A. Complete this table by indicating thc level of service in square feet per student, which has been established at each level (elementary, intermediate/middle/junior high, high school) for your school district. Table IX-PS.2A. School District Service Standards Public School Facilities (Square Feet per Student) Elementary Middle Junior High Senior High District Name Schools , Schools Schools Schools Diermger 88.4 116.6 NA NA ATTACHMENT IX-PS-2-1 Complete this table as in Pierce County's_2003 Capital Facilities Plan. List proposed individual capacity projects for 2003 -2008. ATI'ACHMENT IX-PS-2-1 Pubfic- School Facilities INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY PROJECTS Name Dieringer School District Elementary Intermediate/Middle/Jr. High ....... Senior High Capacity 0 0 0 NA Table IX-PS-3. Please provide the information for one time period, 2002-2007. Table IX-PS-3. CFP Projects and Financing Plan Sources and Uses of Funds ex $1,000) Public School Facilities Sources/Uses 2~3-2~8 Sources of Funds Existing Revenue: Bond Proceeds, Reserve New Revenue: Bonds, Levies, Fees, State Matching Funds, Dedications, Mitigation Payments $474 $12,275 Total Uses of Funds Capacity Projects: Non-Capacity Projects: Subtotal Total Balance Surplus or (Defici0 $12,749 $12,749 $12,749 $12,749 -0- Table IX-PS-5. The "total Cost" in the following table shows the total cost of capacity projects needed to meet the level of service standards for school facilities. To calcUlate "Total Cost," you can use the following formula: Total Cost Net Deficiency (from "Net Reserve or Deficiency" column) x School District Cost per Student (from Table IX-PS-SA.) Because ~School District Cost Per Student" (from Table IX-PS-5A.) differs among the elementary, intermediate/middle/junior high, and high schools, separate calculations need to be made for each, and then added together to obtain the "Total Cost~ figure. If the "Net Reserve or Deficiency" column shows a new reserve, the "Total Cost" coltrmn will be zero. Table IX-PS-5. Capital Facility Requirements, to 2008 Public School Facilities (See Table IX-PS-SA for individual rotes at each level.) Time Period Student Student Net Reserve Total Cost Population/ Capacity or (Cost/Student Student Demand (Deficiency) x Net Deficiency) 2003 Actual 1,128 1,485 357 2003-2008 Growth 1,252 1,485 232 Non-Capacity Costs 12,749' Total Cost as of 2008 12,749' *The district will replace Lake Tapps Elementary with a new facility in 2005. Table IX-PS-5A. Complete this table as in Pierce County's 2003 Capital Facilities Plan. If possible, use 2003 dollars. If you are using dollars from a different year, indicate the year. Table IX-PS-5A. School District Cost Per Student Public School Facilities (2003 Dollars) District Name Elemeaiary Middle Junior High Senior High Schools Schools Schools Schools Dieringer . 23,200 25,668 P/TOt-4 Chapter 9 - Environment Element Amendments to: a) Provide greater clarity and focus on the value and role of native plantings and vegetation; b) Support enhancement of Mill Creek; and, c) Support Iow impact development techniques INOTE: Excerpts only. Only Sections of this Chapter proposed for amend, ment are included. Amendments reflect Planning Commiss,on recommendation. CHAPTER 9 THE ENVIRONMENT Introduction One of the key attractions of Auburn and the Puget Sound Region has always been the abundant natural resources found throughout the area. The Green River'Valley was once a major supplier of agricultural*goods for the region and fanning remains in some parts of the valley. Thick forests, wetlands, and wildlife habitats are found throughout the area. As the area develops, many of these features, which serve to maire the area attractive in the first place, are being lost. The strong emphasis placed on the designation and protection of resource lands and critical areas in the Growth Management Act, the Countywide Policies and this plan reflect the important role that these areas play in maintaining the health, safety and welfare of the area's citizens. Issues Environmental Constraints and Land Use The City's overall environmental policy should describe the kinds of environmental information and factors that are important to the COmmunity. This information can be used to decide if; where and how certain kinds of development and other activi.'ties should be allowed. City poliCy should recogni?e the mmral constraints placed on development by such factors as unstable slopes, flooding and wetlands. .- A critical environmental concern is the proper management of gravel extraction. This is an industry which has been active in Auburn for many years and which remains a viable industry. The City should establish clear policies to guide the retention of valued aspects of the City's environment, such as protection of the City's open space and Objective 18.2. [ Environment J EN-16 The City recogni?es the value and efficiency of utilizing existing natural systems (e.g., wetlands) for storm water conveyance and storage. However, these natural systems can be severely impacted or destroyed by the uncontrolled release of contaminated storm waters. Prior to utili~ng natural systems for storm drainage purposes, the City shall carefully consider the potential for adverse impacts through the environmental review process. Important natural systems shall not be used for storm drainage storage or conveyance, unless it can be demonstrated that adverse i ,mpacts can be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level EN-17 The City recognizes that stormwater treatment facilities do not function efficiently unless maintaimd. The City shall strive to ensure that public and private stormwater collection, detention and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning as designed. .EN17A Encourage the'use of low im~_rmet developmen_ t techniques public and priv~_e develo~t propo~_ Is in order ~ impervious surf___~es_ and improve wMer . To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of air resourc~ in the city and Region. Policies: EN-18 The City shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of air quality as will protect human health, prevent injury to plant and animal life, prevent injury to property, foster the comfort and convenience of area inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of the mtural attractions of the area. EN-19 ~ City will continue to support and rely on the various State, Federal and local programs to continue to project and enhance EN-20 The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and encourage landscaping in order to provide filtering of suspended particulates. EN-21 The City shall support an increased role for public transportation as a means to reduce locally generated air emissions. Chapter 9 ] EN-22 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air quality as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Objective 18.3. Objective 18.4. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of land, wildlife and vegetative resources in the City and region. Policies: EN-23 The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered species of plants and 'animals found within the City by preventing the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and groundcover; by promoting the design and development of landscaped areas which provide food and cover for wildlife; and by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat. The City shah Consider the impacts of new development on the quality of land, known or suspected fish and wildlife habitats (Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Such mitigation may .involve the retention of significant habitats and the use of mtive landscape vegetation. The preferred method of crossing a watercourse that has habitat suitable for anadromous fish use or that has the potential to be rehabilitated for fish use in the future is a bridge. The use of 'culverts shall be discouraged as a crossing method for such watercourses. Culvert systems may be considered if streambeds similar to natural channels can be provided, no loss of anadromous fish habitat will occur or the cost of a bridge is prohibitive as reasonable method of mitigation. EN-26 The City shall work in collaboration with other agencies, the development community and other affected or interested parties to protect identified wildlife corridors and encourage the clustering of significant or adjacent resources to maintain connectivity of these systems. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of important wetland resources in the City and region. EN-27 The City recognizes the hrq)ortant biological and hydrological roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animal habitat, I" Eaviro--_-----ent ~_ EN-28 EN-29 EN-30 EN-31 protecting water quality, reducing the need for man-made flood and storm drainage systems, maintaining water quality, and in providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural opportunities. The City will consider these roles and functions in all new development, and will also pursue o_ooortuni_fies to ..enhance the exi.~n~ wefl~-~d sy~em when t _her, e__. moire;lc ..benefits can be ~meved. The City recognizes that wetlands provide varying degrees of biological and hydrological fimctions and values to the community depending on the size, complexity and location of the individual system, and that the overall degree of functions and values should be considered when reviewing proposals which impact wetlands. In a shnilar manner, the levels of protection afforded to a wetland shall be consistent with its existing function and values. The City shall continue to promote policies and practices of enhancing the wetlands that are hydraulically connected to the river systems to improve fish resources and aquatic habitat. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of wetland resources as part of its environmental review process and shall require appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures of important wetland areas. Such mitigation may involve conservation, enhancement or restoration or replacement of i .mportant wetlands, and provisiom for appropriate bufferin~g. The goal of the mitigation should be no net loss of wetland functions and values. A permanent deed restriction shall be placed on any wetlands created or enhanced to ensure that they are preserved in perpetuity. Wetlands which are associated with a river or stream, or provide significant plant and animal habitat opportunities are recognized by the City as the most impo, tlant wetland systems, and shah receive the highest degree of protection and mitigation through conservation, enhancement or relocation measures. Wetlands which are limited in size, are isolated from major hydrological systems or provide limited hydrological or plant arid animal habitat opportunities may be considered by the City for development and displacement in conjunction with appropriate mitigation. Speculative filling of wetlands shall only be permitted if in compliance with the Special Area Management Plan for Mill Creek, when it is adopted. , Chapter 9 J EN-32 h is the City's intent to pursue development of an area-wide wetlands management Program for the entire City to establish a systems approach to wetlands mamgement. The City shall work with adjacent communities to adopt and implement the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Mill Creek Basin, a draft version of which has been developed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the SAMP is to establish uniform wetland definitions and methodology throughout the planning area, to develop a regional consensus and predictability by identifying i ,mportant wetlands which must be conserved and less important wetlands which may be developed. The SAMP is intended to ensure a balance of the City's commitment between environmental and economic development interests. The City shall strive to streamline the permitting process for development in the areas covered by the SAMP. Map 9.3: General Location of Wetlands Map Note: This map provides an illustration of wetlands located within Auburn. Prepared on an area-wide basis, the inventory map provides a general delineation of known wetlands based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definition and the 1989 Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands field methodology. It is important to note that this map is only a wetland inventory and not a wetland plan. Over time wetlands develop, expand and contract in conjunction with changing climatic, mtural and artificial conditions. The map does not imply that a parcel covered by a wetland designation is fully occupied by wetlands. It is an indicator, however, that an in depth wetland delineation is required. Therefore, future site specific wetland studies conducted by the property owner will identify the precise location, delineation and functional characteristics of known wetland areas, and additional wetland areas not previously inventoried. Thc Auburn Planning Department has wetland reports that can provide information regarding soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife for these wetlands. Objective 18.5. To recogni?e the aesthetic, environmental and use benefits of vegetation r e..o, oropa a?o.. given to prOmotln~ the_. use of native vc~ctation ' Environment ] NOTE: Planning Commission recommendation is that "shall" be l inserted in this statement instead of "should''. Policies: EN-33 ..The City._ reco~i,~s the impor~_~-t benefits of n_n_~v~: v _et~tation includin__o its role in _n_~n_o nn~_~'ve Wi]dlife~ preservln~ the n_n_tural hvdroloev, and mnintnini~ t:~_ ..natural charncter of __the_. _~_fic Northwest regi_'on. Nah_'vc, ve~tion ~an n!._~0 reds___we the ~ of pest~_'_des_ (thexeb~ · r~_ the nmonn-t of _(~tnminnnt_~ thnt tony water ~stems) and red,__~e_, waterln~ r~,i_Jred of non=nn~v~, species (thereby promotin__o conservation). The City .shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an integral part of public and private development plans by, for exatnple: o Enco~g the use of on_five pinnts in street_ landscapes and in public f_no_~lities o Providing _l~,e~ter d_nrily in development retm!~Cjon_ .~ in how native plants ~n be used in priv~e developmen_ * o .~_ O_O_OOFtsmities tO _ed~m__t~ the public nbout tlc. bern/its of native ~nnts~ EN-33A Developn~nt_ re~,~n_~:ans shnl~! emph~j'7~ _the_. use of plant materia~ thnt complement the nn__h~ni ehn _r~__er of t~-~- .Pacific Northwest and which are adaptnble tO the hydrologi_'cai chara~e_ristics of the reifion. should provide specificity as to n_n_~ve plnnt _t3~pes in orC~r EN-34 The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development. EN-3$ The City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants in landscaping for both public and private projects. EN-36 The City shall update and amend its landscaping ordinances to ensure that sufficient landscaping is a required coraponcnt of all development. Emphasis should be placed on higher quality and quantity of landscaping. NOTE: Excerpts only. Only sections of this Chapter proposed for amendment are included. CHAPTER 9 THE ENVIRONMENT Introduction One of the key attractions of Auburn and the Puget Sound Region has always been the abundant natural resources found throughout the area. The Green River Valley was once a major supplier of agricultural goods for the region and farming remains in some parts of the valley. Thick forests, wetlands, and wildlife habitats are found throughout the area. As the area develops, many of these features, which serve to make the area attractive in the furst place, are being lost. The strong emphasis placed on the designation and protection of resource lands and critical areas in the Growth Management Act, the Countywide Policies and this plan reflect the important role that these areas play in maintaining the health, safety and welfare of the area's citizens. Issues Environmental Constraints and Land Use The City's overall environmental policy should describe the kinds of environmental information and factors that are important to the community. This information can be used to decide if, where and how certain kinds of development and other activities should be allowed. City policy should recognize the natural constraints placed on development by such factors as unstable slopes, flooding and wetlands. A critical environmental concern is the proper management of gravel extraction. This is an industry which has been active in Auburn for many years and which remains a viable industry. The City should establish clear policies to guide the retention of valued aspects of the City's environment, such as protection of the City's open space and significant wildlife habitats. The policy should seek to ensure ample Objective 18.2. Environment ] be severely impacted or destroyed by the uncontrolled release of contaminated storm waters. Prior to utilizing natural systems for storm drainage purposes, the City shall carefully consider the potential for adverse impacts through the environmental review process. Important natural systems shall not be used for storm drah~age storage or conveyance, unless it can be demonstrated that adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level EN-17 The City recognizes that stormwater treatment facilities do not function efficiently unless maintained. The City shall strive to ensure that public and private stormwater collection, detention and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning as designed. EN17A Encourage the use of low impact development techniques i, public and private development proposals in order to minimize impervious surfaces and improve war_er qua!~ty. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of air resources in the City and Region. Policies: EN-18 EN-19 EN-20 EN-21 EN-22 The City shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of 'air quality as will protect human health, prevent injury to plant and animal life, prevent injury to property, foster the comfort and convenience of area inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of the area. The City will continue to support and rely on the various State, Federal and local programs to continue to protect and enhance air quality. The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and encourage landscaping in order to provide filtering of suspended particulates. The City shall support an increased role for public transportation as a means to reduce locally generated air emissions. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air quality as a part of its environmental review process and require. any appropriate mitigating measut;es. Page 9-5 J Chapter 9 I Objective 18.3. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of land, wildlife and vegetative resources in the City and region. Policies: Objective 18.4. l ?age g-6I EN-23 The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered species of plants and animals found within the City by preventing the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and groundcover; by promoting the design and development of landscaped areas which provide food and cover for wildlife; and by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat. EN-24 The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of land, known or suspected fish and wildlife habitats (Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate' mitigating measures. Such mitigation may involve the retention of significant habitats and the use of native landscape vegetation. EN-25 The preferred method of crossing a watercourse that has habitat suitable for anadromous fish use or that has the potential to be rehabilitated for fish use in the future is a bridge. The use of culverts shall be discouraged as a crossing method for such watercourses. Culvert systems may be considered if streambeds similar to. natural channels can be provided, no loss of anadromous fish habitat will occur or the cost of a bridge is prohibitive as reasonable method of mitigation. EN-26 The City shall work in collaboration with other agenciesl the development community and other affected or interested parties to protect identified wildlife corridors and encourage the clustering of significant or adjacent resources to maintain connectivity of these systems. To continue to enhance and maintain the quality of important wetland resources in the City and region. EN-27 The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological roles that wetlands play in providing plant and animal habitat, protecting water quality, reducing the need for man-made flood and storm drainage systems, maintaining water quality, and in providing recreational, open space, educational and cultural EN-28 EN-29 EN-30 EN-31 EN-32 Environment opportunities. The City will consider these roles and functions in all new development, and will also pursue opportunRies to enhance the exi~in_o wetland system when these multiple benefits can be achieved, The City recognizes that wetlands provide varying degrees of biological and hydrological functions and values to the community depending on the size, complexity and location of the individual system, and that the overall degree of functions and values should be considered when reviewing proposals which impact wetlands. In a similar manner, the levels of protection afforded to a wetland shall be consistent with its existing function and values. The City shall continue to promote policies and practices of enhancing the wetlands that are hydraulically connected to the river systems to improve fish resources and aquatic habitat. The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of wetland resources as part of its environmental review process and shall require appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures of important wetland areas. Such mitigation may involve conservation, enhancement or restoration or replacement of important wetlands, and provisions for appropriate buffering. The goal of the mitigation should be no net loss of wetland functions and values. A permanent deed restriction shall be placed on any wetlands created or enhanced to ensure that they are preserved in perpetuity. Wetlands which are associated with a river or stream, or provide significant plant and animal habitat opportunities are recognized by the City as the most important wetland systems, and shall receive the highest degree of protection and mitigation through conservation, enhancement or relocation measures. Wetlands which are limited in size, are isolated from major hydrological systems or provide limited hydrological or plant and animal habitat opportunities may be considered by the City for development and displacement in conjunction with appropriate mitigation. Speculative filling of wetlands shall only be permitted if in compliance with the Special Area Management Plan for Mill Creek, when it is adopted. It is the City's intent to pursue development of an area-wide wetlands management program for the entire City to establish a Page 9-7 ~ Chapter 9 I systems approach to wetlands management. The City shall work with adjacent communities to adopt and implement the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Mill Creek Basin, a draft version of which has been developed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the SA/vIP is to establish uniform wetland definitions and methodology throughout the planning area, to develop a regional consensus and predictability by identifying important wetlands which must be conserved and less important wetlands which may be developed. The SAMP is intended to ensure a balance of the City's commitment between environmental and economic development interests. The City shall strive to streamline the permitting process for development in the areas covered by the SAMP. Map 9.3: General Location of Wetlands Map Note: This map provides an illustration of wetlands located within Auburn. Prepared on an area-wide basis, the inventory map provides a general delineation of known wetlands based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definition and the 1989 Federal Manual For Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands field methodology. It is important to note that this map is only a wetland inventory and not a wetland plan. Over time wetlands develop, expand and contract in conjunction with changing climatic, natural and artificial conditions. The map does not imply that a parcel covered by a wetland designation is fully occupied by wetlands. It is an indicator, however, that an in depth wetland delineation is required. Therefore, future site specific wetland studies conducted by the property owner will identify the precise location, delineation and functional characteristics of known wetland areas, and additional wetland areas not previously inventoried. The Auburn Planning Department has wetland reports that can provide information regarding soils, hydrology, vegetation and wildlife for these wetlands. Objective 18.5. Page 9-8 I To recognize the aesthetic, environmental and use benefits of vegetation and to promote its retention and propagation. Consideration should be ~iven to promotln_~ the use of native veeet_ation Policies: EN-33 The Cid reco_t, ni~.es the important benefits of native vegetation including its role in a.ractln_~ native wildilfe~ Environment preservine the natural hydrolo_~¥~ and maintainin~ the natural character of the Pacific Northwest re~ion. Native vegetation can also reduce the use of pesticides (thereby reducimt the amount of contamninan£~ that may enter nearby water system.~) and reduce waterin_~ required of non native species (thereby oromotin~ conservation), The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an integral part of public and private development plans by, for example: o .Encoura~ng the use of native plants in street landscapes and in public facilities. Providine ~reater clarity in development re~datious in how native plants can be used in private development pro_m~sals. o Pursuine opportunities to educate the public about the, benefits of native plant~. EN-33A Development rem;!a_tious shall emphasize the use of native, plant materials that complement the natural character of thc Pacific Northwest and which are adaptable to the climat_ic h.vdroloeical characteristics of the reeion. Reeula_n_'on~ .should provide specificity, as to native plant types in order tn facilitate their use. EN-34 The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development. - EN-35 The' City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants in landscaping for both public and private projects. EN-36 The City shall update and amend its landscaping ordinances to ensure that sufficient landscaping is a required component of all development. Emphasis should be placed on higher quality and quantity of landscaping. EN-37 The City shall strengthen the tree protection ordinance targeted at protecting large stands of trees and significant trees within the City. EN-38 The City shall develop a tree planting and maintenance program. Page 9-9 ] STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 128 - 10~ Avenue SE · PO Box 42525 ° Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 · (360) 725.4000 September 25, 2003 Ms. Karen Ekrem, Chair Auburn Planning Commission 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001-4998 Dear Ms Ekrem: We appreciate that your staff sent the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) the proposed amendments to Auburn's comprehensive plan that we received on September 18, 2003. We recognize the substantial investment of time, energy, and resources that this document represents, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment. We especially like the following about your amendments: New policy EN-17A states that the City of Auburn will encourage the use of Iow impact development techniques in public and private development proposals in order to minimize impervious surfaces and improve water quality. The techniques of low impact development (LID) can help to minimize the adverse impacts of development, especially where development is proposed close to critical areas and their buffers. The primary goal of LID is to generate no measurable impacts to aquatic environments by mimicking the predevelopment site hydrology. LID practices manage rainfall at the source using small, cost-effective landscape features at the lot level rather than discharging stormwater off site. LID practices may include reducing impervious surfaces in site design, minimizing · disturbances to native soils and vegetation during development, and constructing a variety of micro-scale landscape features at the lot level to infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff. Because they maintain or replicate the natural hydrology of the site, the benefits to the environment include water quality, aquifer recharge, flood protection, maintenance of in- stream flows, and habitat protection. We suggest that you provide developers with guidance on how to use low impact development techniques, and if possible, provide incentives to use these practices. Best management practices are available from the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSAT), the Washington Department of Ecology, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other sources. Kathy Taylor of PSAT would be happy to provide you with more information. You can reach her at (253) 333-4920. I'I l"l Ms. Karen Ekrem September 25, 2003 Page 2 New policy EN-33 recognizes the multiple benefits of using native plants for landscaping. The policy recognizes that the use of native plants preserves natural hydrology, maintains the natural character of the Pacific Northwest, reduces the use of pesticides, and reduces the watering required by non-native species. Policy EN-33A states that development regulations shall emphasize the use of native plants and states that regulations should specify the types of plants that should be used. We encourage Auburn to provide developers and homeowners with a list of recommended native plants for ease in implementing this policy. An example of such a list is enclosed from the City of Bellingham that lists plants, shrubs and trees for different soil and sun conditions. This is available on their Web site at http://www.cob.org/planning/data/native_plants_brochure.pdf. We congratulate the Auburn Planning Commission and its staff for the good work these amendments embody. If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth management issues, please call me at (360) 725-3064 or Ike Nwankwo at (360) 725-3056. We extend our continued support to the City of Auburn in achieving the goals of growth management. Sincerely, Anne Aurelia Fritzel Growth Management Planner Growth Management Services AAF:Iw Enclosure CC: The Honorable Peter Lewis, Mayor of Auburn David Osaki, Community Development Administrator, City of Auburn Ike Nwankwo, Manager, Technical and Financial Assistance, CTED PFF #5 Chapter 7- Transportation Element Update Figure 7.3 with updated Six- Year TIP (separate figure) Washington State _ Department of Transportation Douglas B. MacDonald Secretary of Transportation October 29, 2003 Mr. David Osaki, Community Development Administrator City of Auburn, Dept. of Planning & Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Strategic Planning & Programming Urban Planning Office 401 Second Avenue South, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104-2887 206-464-12601 Fax 206-4~ TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdoLwa.goV ~., Re: 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update WSDOT Review comments Dear Mr. Osaki: We are in receipt of the city's 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update. Thank you for the, opportunity to review and comment on the update. Our review and comments are focused on the transportation information and updates in the document. The Transportation Element update includes an updated Six-Year. TIP spreadsheet (Figure 7.3) and an update to the six-year capital facilities plan (PFF#5 & P/Tg6). I would like to point out that all regionally significant projects in your TIP should also be listed in PSRC's regional long-range transportation plan, Destination 2030. Included in the spreadsheet are three projects under the heading "Recommendation for WSDOT Sponsored Projects". Since these projects are listed as "WSDOT sponsored", I will assume that the anticipated funding sources of "other" and "grant" would be the State government, Federal government or both. The first project (g47), SR 167 Widening, is included on the current Regiorlal Transportation Investment District (RTID) package list and PSRC's long-term transportation plan, Destination 2030. However the TIP's indication that $1.3 billion in funding may be available between 2006 and 2009 may be optimistic. The "nickel tax" appropriation for this project accounts for $9.6 million between the years of 2005 and 2007. The project may then continue depending on the outcome of the RTID package. Since the full RTID package is still being debated and modified for a future presentation to the voters for their acceptance, the additional fimding amount and timing is unknown. Mr. David Osaki October 29, 2003 Page 2 The second project listed (g48) is for the widening of SR 164 between Dogwood Street SE and the White River amphitheatre. While this widening project has been identified in the State's Highway System Plan (HSP) and Destination 2030, it is not currently funded and probably will not be funded by the state as soon as the City's TIP timeframe indicates. Finally, the third project (g49), SR 164 Bypass, is not in the HSP or Destination 2030. It has been suggested as an option that should be explored in the SR-164 Corridor Study (currently inactix3e due to lack of funding). If funding becomes available to continue this study, such a connection will be considered during the course of that effort. However, there are a number of issues that must be examined and resolved before a bypass project could be added to the state and regional transportation plans. Without the project being included in the State or regional long-range plans, no funding has been earmarked or identified for future commitment by the state. Please remember that under RCW 36.70A.070 sec-6.a, iii.F, the law requires the transportation element of local comprehensive plans to reflect the needs of the state- owned transportation facilities and be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan. The statewide multimodal transportation plan referred to is Washington's Transportation Plan and the state owned element of that plan is the State Highway System Plan. Under RCW 36.70A.070 sec-6.a, iv.A&B, the transportation element of local comprehensive plans need to reflect financial realities for funding sources as well as coordination with WSDOT. Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your 2003 Comprehensive Plan update. If you have any questions about these comments or require any other information please give me a call at 206-464-1280. Sincerely, Tom Senior Transportation Planner WSDOT Urban Planning Office CCi David Anderson, DCTED Rocky Piro, PSRC Craig Stone, NW Region Bill Wiebe, OSC P/T#6 Update to Six-Year Capital Facilities Plan (Time Frame of 2004-2009) Addendum to 2003- 2008 Capital Facilities Plan Updated Project Lists for Period 2004 - 2009 CAPITAL COSTS OF FACILITIER 2004-2009 COST 2003-2008 COST TYPE OF FACILITY (x $1,000) (x $1,0001 CHANGE Airport 2,271 1,871 400 Cemetery 490 490 Community Center 3,300 3,300 Community Improvement 8,715 10,903 (2,188) Fire Projec~on 300 1,610 (1,310) General Municipal Buildings 18,200 30,700 (12,500) Golf Course 3,405 3,575 (170) Parks and Recreation 7,610 8,200 (590) Sewer 13,078 8,430 4,648 Storm Drainage 5,647 6,250 (603) Transpoi'~aiJon 237,836 111,635 126,201 Water .6,887 5,398 1,489 TOTAL 307,739 192,362 1 t$,377 FINANCING FOR CAPITAL FACILmES 2004-2009 2003-2008 REVENUE SOURCE (X $,1,000) (X $1,000) Change CAPITAL FACILITY Existing Revenue Operating Revenue 259 219 40 Airport 160 160 - Cemetery Endowed Care Intere$~ 330 330 - Cemetery General Fund 315 300 15 Community Improvement 300 1,610 (1,310) Fire Protection 200 200 - General and Municipal Buildings 1,170 890 280 Parks and Recreation Capital Projects Fund 3,200 5,603 (2,403) Community Improvement Commercial Retail Fund 200 200 Community Improvement General Government Revenues 5,000 - 5,000 General and Municipal Buildings User Fe~ 630 800 (170,) Golf Course Real E$~a~e Excise Tax 1,975 2,595 (620)~ Parks and Recreation City Revenue 8,538 14,897 (6,359) Transportation Utility Revenue 6,022 6,621 (599) Sewer 5,792 5,148 644 Water 5,647 6,250 (603) Storm Draina~le King Count), Open Space Bond 27 40 (13) Transportation Subtotal 39,765 45~663 (5~898) Nc~v Revenues FAA Grant 1,956 1,596 360 'Airport State Grant 56 56 - Airport Other Grants 800 - 800 Parks and Recreation KC Youth Sports G~a~-~[ 50 50 - Parks and Recreation Community Development Block Grai-lt 150 (150) Parks and Recreation King County Conservation Futures 600 600 - Parks and Recreation State Grant (lAC) 600 600 - Parks and Recreation Salmon Recovery Fund 240 240 - Parks and Recreation S[a~e Aquatic Lands 300 300 - Parks and Recreation Washington H;$;.(,(ic Preservation Grant 400 400 Parks and Recreation Developer 1,200 2,100 (900) Parks and Recreation 3,440 7,900 (4,460) Transportation Mitigation (MIT, LID, off, er a~lencies,etc.) 47,686 10,435 37,251 Transportation Impact Fss~ 1,395 1,305 90 Transrnortation Private Donation 200 125 75 Parks and Recreation American Le~lion Post 78 75 150 (75) Parks and Recreation Voted GO Bonds 3,300 3,300 - Community Center 5,000 5,000 Community Improvement 7,000 30,500 (23,500) ;General MUnicipal Buildings 2,775 2,775 Golf Course Cer~;~.:.ates of Participation 6,000 - 6,000 General and Municipal Buildings Grants 176,750 77,058 99,692 Transportation Muckleshoot Tribe 5,064 1,809 3,255 Sc~.;.=r Public Works Trust Fund Loan 915 250 665 Water 1,992 1,992 Sewer City of Al~lona 180 180 Water Subtotal 267,974 146,699 121~275 TOTAL 307,739 192,362 1 t5,377 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Pm~ects Are Times $1,000) AIRPORT cOSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ,.TOTAL Capacity Project~: ' · . 1. Phase I Planning of 23 acre sits Cost 75.0 75.0 150.0 Rev - FAA Grant t 67.5 67.5 135.0 Rev - Operatir, g Revenue 7.5 7.5 ' 15.0 Subtotal 0.0 75.0 75.0 0;0 0.0 0.0 150.0 Non-Capacity Project,: 2. Pmpe~y, Acqu;$i~on - Park and Ride Cost 100.0 700.0 800.0 Rev - FAA Grant 90.0 630.0 720.0 Rev - Operating Revenue 10.0 70.0 80.0 3. Parallel Taxiways Slurry Seal Cost 95.0 95.0 Rev - State Grant 47.5 47.5 Rev - Operati.g Revenue 47.5 47.5 4.~Runway Rehabli~a;.;on F.~;.;mated Project Cost: 900.0 Cost 900.0' 900.(3 'Rev - FAA Grant 810.0 810.(~ Rev - Operating Revenue 90.0 90.0. 5.Transient &Northem Based Aircra~ A )ron Slurr! Seal Cost 77.5 77.5 Rev - FAA Grant 69.7 69.7 Rev - S;~= Grant 3.9 3.S ~Rev - Operating Revenue 3.9 3.S 6. Airport West Access S;~hin~ ] & Parkin ~1 Improvements Cost 130.0 130.0 Rev - FAA Grant 117.0 117.0 Rev - Operating Revenue 13.0 13.0 7. 'Airport Security Fencing {Park and Ride) Cost 50.0 50.0. Rev - FAA Grant 45.0 45.0 Rev - Operating Revenue 5.0 5.0 COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 8. No~u'~ Taxilane Fog Seal ' · ' ' Cost 2.6 2,6 Rev - Slate Grant 1.3 1.3 Rev - Operating Revenue 1.3 1.3 9. South Apron Slumy Seal Cost 65.8 65.8 Rev - FAA Grant 59.2 59.2 Rev - S'~ate Grant 3.3 3.3 Rev - Operai{~g Revenue 3.3 3.3 Subtotal 900.0 77.5 280.0 863.4 0.0 0.0 2, t20.9 SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES COSTS: {CapaCity Projects 0.0 75.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.0 Non-CapacitY Projects 900.0 77.5 '280.0 863.4 0.0 0.0 2,120~9 Total Costs 900.0 152.5 355.0 863.4 0.0 0.0 2,270.9 EXISTING REVENUES: Rev - Operating Revenue 90.0 11.4 35.5 122.1 0.0 0.0 259.0 Subtotal 90.0 11.4 35.5 1~:~ 1 0.0 0.0 259.0 NEW REVENUES: Rev - FAA Grant 810.0 137.2 319.5 689.2 0.0 0.0 1,955.9 Rev, Sia~e Grant 0.0 3.9 0.0 52.1 0.0 0.0 56.0 Subtolal 810.0 141.1 319.5 741.3 0.0 0.0 2,01~.9 Total Revenues 900.0 152.5 355.0 863.4 0.0 0.0 2,270.9 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 O. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I I I CFP PROJEC¥$ AND FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) I I CEM~-~ERY COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Cai~acity Projects 1. New Mausoleum (ph '1 & 2) Cost 140.0 150.0 290.0 Rev - Endowed Care Int. 140.0 40.0 180.0 Rev - Opera~rwg Revenue , 110.0 110.0 2. Section 10 (Pha,se 1), Cost 10°.0 ' ' ioo.0 Rev - Endowed Care Int. 100.0 · 100.0 3. i Section 6A Construction Cost . 100.0 100.0 ReV - Endowed Care Int. ~ 50.0 50.0 Rev - Operating Revenue 5010 50.0 Subtotal 0.0 240.0 250.0 '0.0 · 0.0 0.0 490.0 J SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES COS]S: . Capacity Projects 0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 490.0 Total Co~;~ 0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 490.0' EXis¥iNG REVENUES: Rev - Endowed Care Int. 0.0 240.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 330.0 Rev- Operating RevenUe 0.0 0.0 160.0 0.0 0.0 160.0 Subto[a; 0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 490.0 Total Revenues 0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0' 0.0 490.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I J J CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) I I COMMUNITY CEN'~ t:R COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ,2009 TOTAL ·Cal~aC~, Projects: 1. Convert and Expand Existin ] YMCA to a Community Building (+~5,000 sq ft) Cost 3,300.0 3,300.0 Rev - G.O. Bonds 3,300.0 3,300.0 SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES COSTS: .... ' I Capacity Projects 0.0 3,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,300.0 Total Costs 0.0 3,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,300.0 EXiS¥iNG REVENUES: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I NEW REVENUES: Rev-G.O. Bonds 0.0 3,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,300.0 Subtotal 0.0 3,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,300.0 Total Revenues 0.0 3,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,300.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0.0 0.0 0.0 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) I I COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ~2009 TOTAL Non-Capacity Projects: 1. Dowii~wn Public/Private Redevelopment: purchase property;construct new Buildin~n~;renovate ex,ting buildings Cost 700.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 3,200.0 Rev - Capital Projects Fd 700.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 3,200.0 2. Gateway Projects (one major project every 2-3 years; minor ;latewaylbeautiflcation projects each year) Cost 30.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 315.0 Rev - General Fund 30.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 315.0 3. Second Downtown Parking Garage Cost 5,000.0 5,000.0 Rev - G.O. Bonds 5,000.0 5,000.0 4. Transit Station Retail Space Tenant Improvements Cost 200.0 200.0 Rev - Commercial Retail Fd 200.0 200.0 I SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES COSTS: Capacity Projects Non-Capacity Projects 930.0 5,585.0 515.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 8,715.0 Total Costs 930.0 5,585.0 515.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 8,715.0 EXISTING REVENUES: Rev - General Fund 30.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 315.0 Rev - Capital Projects Fund 700.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 3,200.0 , Rev - Commercial Retail Fd 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200,0 Subtotal 930.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 3,715.0 NEW REVENUES: Rev ~ G.O. Bonds 0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,000.0 Subtotal 0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,000.0 Total Revenues 930.0 5,585.0 515.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 8,7t5.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) Fibre PROTEC¥iON .COSTS/REVENUES ..2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ,2009 TOTAL Non-Capacity Project: ~. Appa~a[ds Replacement: En~lines -- 20 year and Aid Vehicle -- ~5 year replacement schedule Costs 50.0, 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 Rev - General Fund Transfer 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES COSTS: ,, ICapacity Projec~ 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 INon-Capacity Projects 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 Total Costs 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 "EXiSTiNG REVENUES: Rev - General Fund Transfer 50.0 50.0 50.0' 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 Total Revenues '50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ill IT~T-- I I I CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (Ail Proiects Are Times $1,000) GENERAL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Capacity Projects: '1. New Public Safety Buildin ;] (+XXXXXX sq It) Cost 11,000.0 11,000.0 Rev - Certificates of Participation 6,000.0 6,000.0 Rev - General Gov't Rev 5,000.0 5,000.0 Non-Capacity Projects: 2.Fire S{a;.;on Replacement/Relocation Cost - Land 1,000.0 1,000.0 Cost- Construction 3,000.0 3,000.0 6,000.0 Rev - G.O. Bonds 4,000.0 3,000.0 7,000.0 3.City Hall: Plaza Restoration Cost 200.0 200.0 Rev - General Fund 200.0 200.0 SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES COSTS: Capacity Proiects 0.0 11,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,000.0 Non-Capacity Projects 200.0 4,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 7~200.0 Total Costs 200.0 15,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0 18,200.0 EXISTING REVENUES: Rev - General Fund 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 Rev - General Gov't Rev 0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,000.0 Subtotal 200.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,200.0 NEw REVENUES: rRev- G.O Bonds 0.0 4,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0 7,000.0 Rev- Certificates of Participation 0.0 6,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,000.0 Subtotal 0.0 10,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0 13,000.0 Total Revenues 200.0 15,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0 18,200.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) I I GOLF COURSE ~COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 .TOTAL Non-Capacity Projec~ 1. Con~;~dct New Clubhouse & Parking Cost 2,775.0 2,775.0 Rev - G.O. Bond 2,775.0 2,775.0 2 Rebuild No. 15~t4,'17 Fain~a,! & Green Cost 165.0 215.0 380.0 Rev - Greens Fees 165.0 215.0 380.0 3 Irrigate No. 3~4~5 Fairway Cost 150.0 150.0 Rev - Greens Fees 150.0 150~0 4 Miscellaneous Improvements Cost 50.0 50.0 100.0 Rev - Greens Fees 50.0 50.0 100.0 I SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES COSTS: Non-Capacity Projects Total Cos~ 165.0 2,990.0 150.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 3,405.0 EXISTING REVENUES: Rev - Greens Fe~ 165.0 215.0 150.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 630.0 Subtota 165.0 215.0 150.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 630.0 NEW REVENUES: _ 'Rev- G.O. Bond 0.0 2,775.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,775.0 Subtotal 0.0 2,775.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,775.0 Total Revenues 165.0 2,990.0 150.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 3,405.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) PARKS AND RECREATION COSTS/REVENUES 2Q04 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Cai ~acity Projects: Coi~ii~dnity Parks 1. Lakelai~,~ Hills Community Park (8 acres) Devc:op passive park=, playloy, irrigation~ etc. Cost 250.0 250.0 Rev- Developer 200.0 200.0 Rev- Reet 50.0 50.0 2. Lakeland Hills (40 acres) Develop open space, re.~{i*uorns, active space, playtoy~ trails, and )lcnic shelter Cost 2,000.0 2,000.0 Rev- Reet 200.0 200.0 Rev - Developer 1,000.0 1,000.0 Rev - Other Grants 800.0 800.0 Sub~{a; 0.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 2,250.0 Non-Capacity Projects: '.%'c.'ghborhood Parks 3. Cedar Lanes Park Development Landscape development~ trail work~ tables, picnic area~ and play to if. Cost 150.0 150.0 Rev - REET 75.0 75.0 Rev - Private Funds 75.0 75.0 Community Parks 4. Olson Canyon Farm ;~p:c.,'nent maser plan - Building and Grounds. Cost I 300.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 1,050.0 .Rev - Grant - Wa St Histodc Preservation 150.0 125.0 125.0 400.0 Rev - Pdvate Donation 125.0 125.0 Rev. General Fund 150.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 525.0 5. Les Gove Park Improve,~ent In1,,~a~on, playground, ~;,~;,,klng fountains~ and ballfleld enhancements. Cost 250.0 250,0 Rev- General Fund 200.0 200.0 Rev- King Co. Youlh Sports Grant 50.0 50.0 6. Veteran's Park Redevelopment ;Con~i~unity Building Replacement Cost 175.0 175.0 Rev - General Fund 100.0 100.0 Rev - American Legion Post 78 75.0 75.0 7. Fenster Farm Site Plan/Phase I Development Coordinate with King Co and S,';-{e on development with natural habitat are; ~. Cost 25.0 600.0 625.0 Rev - General Fund 25.0 60.0 85.0 Rev - State Salmon Recovery Fund 240.0 240.0 Rev - State Aquatic Lands 300.0 Enhancement 300.0 COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAl 8. Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan Coord~na~ wlth ASD on Master Site Plan for 29 acre site. Cost 30.0 30.0 Rev - General Fund 30.0 30.0 9. h-~{e,-drban Trail Trail enhancements Cost 50.0 50.0 Rev - General Fund 50.0 50.0 10. Fulmer Park Add;;Jon Develop additional acre received from water util~ f. Cost 150.0 150.0 Rev - REET 150.0 150.0 11. ~L~c. ;i-~-,proveme~s Major park Improvements Including athletic fields, shelters, roofs, )laygroundsr and restroonls. Cost 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 500.0 Rev - REET 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 500.0 12. Park Acquistions Acquisitions to occur based on demand and deficiencies includinG corridors and trai~, . Cost 600.0 200.0 600.0 200.0 600.0 2,200.0 Rev- R~-~: I 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 1,000.0 Rev - S~a~e Grant (lAC) 200.0 200.0 200.0 600.0 Rev - KCCF 200.0 200.0 200.0 600.0 Special Use Areas 13.~Public Art Cost 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 180.0 Rev - General Fund 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 180.0 Subto~a; 180.0 1,710.0 1,180.0 980.0 580.0 730.0 5,360.0 SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES COSTS: Capacity Projects Community Parks 0.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 2,250.0 Subtoiai 0.0 -~r~-.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 2,250.0 Non-Ca~_~_city Projects Neighborhood Parks 150.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.0 Community Parks 0.0 1,680.0 1,150.0 950.0 550.0 700.0 5,030.0 Special Use Areas 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 180.0 Subtotal 180.0 1,710.0 1,180.0 980.0 580.0 '730.0 5,360.0 Total Cc~ 180.0 1,960.0 1,180.0 980.0 580.0 2,730.0 7,610.0 ICOSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 ,,2006 2007 2008 ,,200~ ,TOTAL EXISTING REVENUES: Rev- General Fund 30.0 585.0 215.0 155.0 155.0 30.0 1,170.0 Rev - Real Es~a[e Exdse Tax 75.0 500.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 500.0 1,975.0 Subto~a; 105.0 1,085.0 5t5.0 455.0 455.0 530.0 3,145.0 NE;; REVENUES: Rev - King Co. Youth Sports Grant 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 Rev - Developer 0.0 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 1,200.0 Rev - KCCF 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 Rev - State Grant ([AC) 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 600.0 Rev - State Salmon Recovery Fund 0.0 0.0 240.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 240.0 Rev - State Aquatic Lands 0.0 0.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.0 Rev - Wa St Histodc Preservation Grt 0.0 150.0 125.0 125.0 0,0 0.0 400.0 Rev - Pdvate Donation 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 125,0 0.0 200.0 Rev - Amedcan Legion Post 78 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 Rev - Other Grants 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 800,0 800.0 Sub,;a; 75.0 87~.0 665.0 525.0 125.0 2,_9_n0.0 4,465.0 To~a; Revenues 180.0 ~ 1,960.0 1,180.0 980.0 580.0 2,730.0 7~610.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) SEWER COSTs/REVENuES 2004 2008 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Capacity Projects (Expansions) 1 Auburn Way South Sanitary Sewer Replacement I Upgrade - C9056 - Section B,C,D,E,A The construction of this project is considered 40%. Repair and 60% Expansion Expansion - Increases the service ability of the AWS sewer line !Cost 525.0 1,966.7 730.2 1,567.2 .456.7 5,245.8 Rev'- City 25.0 - 6.9 963.8 70.3 1,066.1 Rev, PINTF 500.0 1,142.0 1,642.0 Rev - MIT 824.7 723.3 603.4 386.4 2,537.8 2 Auburn Way South Sanitary Sewer Replacement I Upgrade - Design t00% The construction of this project is considered 40% Repair and 60% Expansion Expansion - Increases the service ability of the AVVS sewer line Cost 850.0 850.0 Rev - City 241.4 241.4 Rev - MIT 608.6 608.6 Subtotal 1,375.0 1,966.7 730.2 1,567.2 456.7 - 6,095.8 Non-Capacity Projects: 3 Auburn Way South Sanitary Sewer Replacement I Up{Irade - C9056 - Section B,C,D,E,A !The construction of this project is considered 40% Repair and 60% Expansion Repair Replacement - increasing the useful life of the facilities Cost 350.0 1,311.1 486.8 1,044.8 304.5 3,497.2 Rev - City - 279.1 260.9 .642.6 46.9 1,229.5 Rev - PVVi'F 350.0 350.0 Rev - MiT 1,032.0 225.9 402.2 257.6 1,917.7 4 2003 - 2004 Renewal and Replacement of Dama~led and Broken Sewer Lines - Renewal and Replacement Cost 1,275.0 25.0 1,300.0 Rev - City 1,275.0 25.0 1,300.0 5 2005 Renewal and Replacement of Dama{led and Broken Sawer Lines ;Renewal and Replacement Cost 75.0 150.0 225.0 Rev - City 75.0 150.0 225.0 6 2007 Renewal and Replacement of Damat;led'and Broken Sewer Linea Renewal and Replacement Cost 125.0 1,250.0 1,375.0 Rev - City 125.0 1,250.0 1,375.0 7 2009 Renewal and Replacement of Damaged and Broken Sewer Unes' Renewal and Replacement Cost 25.0 150.0 175.0 Rev - City 25.0 150.0 175.0 8 20tl Renewal and Replacement of Dama~led and Broken Sewer Unes Renewal and Replacement Cost Rev - City 0.0 9 Sewer Comprehensive Plan Update ~ MS711 Improvement - Update the existin.r sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. Cost 60.0 25.0 85.0 Rev - City ' 60.0 25.0 85.0 10 F Street and Rainier Riddle & Rainier Shadows PS Invesfl~lation and Modifications backflow prevention devices and redundant float alarms Cost 20.0 100.0' 120.0 Rev - City 20.0 100.0 120.0 1t S;phon Fl°W Divemion Divert Flows away from the Cobble Creek Community and the river siphon located next to the golf course. Cost 55.0 55.0 Rev - City .55.0 55.0 12 Goedecke Half Street Improvement Support the VVest Valley irnpmvements frontin~l Goedecke South. Cost 150.0 150.0 Rev - City 150.0 150.0 · Subto~l 1,925.0 1,586.1 611.8 2,354.8 354.5 150.0 6,982.2 SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUEs I COSTS: 'Capacity. Projects 1,375.0 1,966.7 730.2 1,567.2 456.7~ 0.0 6,095.8 Non-Capacity Projects 1,925.0 1,586.1 611.8 2,354.8 354.5 150.0 * 6,982.2 . To~al Costs 3,300.0 3,552.8 1,342.0 3,gPP 0 811.2 150.0 13,078.0 EXISTING REVENUES: Rev - City 1,841.4 554.1 392.8 2,916.4; 167.2 150.0 6,021.9 Subtotal 1,841.4 554.1 392.8 2,916.4 167.2 150.0 6,021.9 NEW REVENUES: Rev - MIT 608.6 1,856.7' 949.2 1,005.6 644.0~ 0.0 5,064.1 Rev - PW'I'F 850.0 1,142.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,992.0 Subtotal 1,458.6 2,998.7 949.2 1,005.6 644.0 0.0 7,056.1 Total Revenues 3,300.0 3,552.8 1,342.0 3,97~.0 811.2 150.0 13,078.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CFP PROJEC¥,~ AND FINANCING PLAN (AI~ Projects Are T'~nes $1,000) STORM CITY OF AUBURN I COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 200~ 2007 2008 2009 TOTAl I Developer Participation Cost effective utility participation in future Undesignated develc ~er projects Cost 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 Rev - City 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 SUB-TOTAL COSTS 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 Non-Capacity Projects: 2 Pipelines & Surface Conveyance BC-23 Improvement- Upgrade existing conve ~ance system along K St. SE from 19t~ to 21st St. SE Cost 30.0 30.0 Rev - City 30.0 30.0 BC-14 Improvement- Upgrade existing lnJnk system from along R St SE from 21st to 25th St SE Cost 1,300.0 1,300.0 Rev - City 1,300.0 . 1,300.0, BC-22 Improvement - Construct overflow infiltration facility at Pioneer Elementary School Cost 20.0 1,456.0 1,476.0 Rev- City 20.0 1,456.0 1,476.0 E-2 Improvement - Increase capacity of existing clrainac~ e ditch along H St. NW extended from 61h St. to 15th St NW Cost 20.0 479.0 499.0 Rev - City 20.0 479.0 499.0 BC-24 Improvement - C6nstmct ovedlow infiltration facility at Terminal Park Elementary School Cost 50.0 952.0 1,002.0 1 Rev - City 50.0 952.0 1,002.0 3 Retention, Detention, Water Quality Local Capital Improvement Projects - Pond Improvements Cost 125.0 .100.0. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 625.0 Rev - city 125.0 10o. o 10o.0 10o.0 10o.0 10o.0 625.o Mill Creek Enhancement Improvement - Storm Drainage Utility Participation Cost 20.0 20.0 Rev - City 20.0 20.0 P-2 Improvement- Construct Clay St. Water Quality Facility I I I Rev - City 145.0 145.0 I 4 Cc.~p. Plan Revision, Regu;a~ Comprehensive Drainage Plan Up~a~e Cost 250.0 250.0 Rev - City 250.0 250.0 SUB-TOTAL COST~ 1,565.0 2,035.0 1,197.0 100.0 350.0 100.0 5,347.0 Sb~;MARY: CC~3¥S AND REVENUE,~ COSTS: Capacity Projects 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 No~-~,a pacity Projects 1,565.0 2,035.0 i,197.0 100.0 350.0 100.0 5,347.0 To~a; Costs 1,615.0 2,085.0 1,247.0 150.0 400.0 150.0 5,647.0 !Ex;~;;hd Revenues Rev-City I 1,615.0 2,085.0 1,247.0 150.0 400.0 150.0 5,647.0 I Total Revenue 1,615.0~ 2,085.0 1,247.O 150.0 400.0 150.0 5,647.0 I D;;;,t, mnce 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Proje~s Am Times $1,000) TRANSPORTATION c;i I ¥ OF AUBURN COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL CAPACITY PROJE¢ i :~: ., 1. 3rd Street SE/'Cross Street SE - S. Division to Auburn Way South E~,,-_-.'_~ Project Cos;.: 1,746.0 Cost 1,720.0 Rev -City 326.0 1,720.0 326.0 Rev - Grant 1,183.0 1,183.0 Rev - Impact F~= 211.0 211.0 2. S 277th - AWN to Green River Br~d~e Esti~ate~ Project Co~t; 2,770.0 Cost 5.0 325.0 300.0 630.0 Rev -City 5.O 65.0 60.0 130.0 Rev - Grant 260.0 240.0 500.0 3. A' Street NIN - Phase 1 Estim=-~--.1 Project Cost: 7,676.0 Cost 10.0 100.0 923.0 921.0 2,000.0 3,418.0 7,372.0 Rev - City 10.0 75.0 75.0 200.0 342.0 702.0 Rev - Grant 738.0 736.0 1,600.0 2,734.0 5,808.0 Rev - Impact F=~= 100.0 50.0 50.0 200J Rev - Other 50.0 60.0 200.0 342.0 662.i 4. "M' Street SE - BNSF grade separation F~::ma~eG Project Cc,~; 24,651.0 Cost 5.0 295.0 5,000.0 7,929.0 13,229.0 Rev - City 21.0 560.0 215.0 796.0 Rev - Grant 240.0 4,200.0 7,363.0 11,803.0 Rev - Impact Fees 5.0 34.0 100.0 139.0 Rev - Other 240.0 251.0 491.0 5. 41st Street SE and A Str-,,e~ SE Es[;i~a;~l Pro,lect Cost: 334.0 Cost 202.0 Rev - City 172.0 202.0 Rev - Impact Fees ~ 172.0 Rev - Other 30.0 0.0 30.0 6. 'C' Street ;;',';. W-..ct .'.-'..~.-'~ to 3rd .... nee t=-';;,~.-e~, Project Cost: 1,550.0 Cost Rev - City 150.0 500.0. 900.0 1,550.0 16.0 60.0 76.0 Rev - Grant 120.0 400.0 720.0 1,240.0 Rev - Impact Fees 14.0 100.0 120.0 234.0 7. ' F' St;-',,~t SE - 4th S~ee{ SE to Auburn Way South Ea;;,r.a.-te'J Project Cos{: 1,500.0 Cost 50.0 100.0 1,350.0 1,500.C Rev - City 20.0 84.0 104.C Rev - Grant 80.0 1,080.0 1,150.0 Rev - Impact Fees 50.0 186.0 236.O 8. 8th S~-ee;. NE and Auburn Wa), North _F~mated Project CosL 350.0 I CO~i~/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Cost 350.0 350.0 Rev - City 336.0 336.0 Rev - Other 14.0 14.0 9. "I' Street NE - 32nd St~,,~ NE to 33rd S~;. NE E~-,atad Project Coa~: 300.0 Cost 240.0 240.0 Rev - Developer 240.0 240.( 10. C St SW Elingson Road to tSth St SW Ea~me~,,/, Project Cost: 4,000.0 Cost 4,000.0 4,000.0 Rev - Grant 2,000.0 2,000.0 Rev - Developer 2,000.0 2,000.0 1t 15ffi Street SW Recc,-~-uctlon F.a~;.,a~ Project Co~: 2,400 Cost 1,000.0 1,390.0 2,390.(] Rev - City 30.0 30.0 Rev - Grant 970.0 1,390.0 2,360.0 t2 ' I' Street NE - 40th Street NE to 52nd Street NE Ea[;,,&~d Project Cost: 5,300.0 Cost 45.0 495.0 800.0 4,000.0 5,340.0 Rev - City 45.0 45.0 Rev - Developer 400.0 800.0 1,200.0 Rev - impact F~$ 95.0 95.0 Rev - Other 4,000.0 4,000.0 t3 Auburn Way S 6th Sti-~e~ SE to M Street SE (Phase 1, 2 and 3) State Pro lect Ea:.',,a~T,d P~ect Coa[: 1,787.0 Cost 1,409.0 1,409.0 Rev - City 864.0 864.0 Rev - Grant 545.0 545.0 14 'M' St NE - E Main to 8th NE,~i-vey Rd Cost 200.0 500.0 930.0 1,630.(] Rev - City 40.0 30.0 70.0 Rev - Grant 160.0 400.0. 720.0 1,280.0 Rev - Impact Fees 100.0 180.0 280.(] 15 'A' S~--ee~ NW - Phase 2 F.~[;,~;~-'.~__ Project Co~; 2,516.0 Cost Rev o Cit~ 382.0 382.0 76.0 78.0 Rev - Grant 306.0 306.(: t6 SR 18 · boun&'6~ St. SE to Auburn Wa~ South inclrIG;r~ grade _sef~_~_raflon at BNSF yard F~-.'_.':~ia~d Project Coa;~ 30,000.0 Cost Rev - Other 4,000.0 4 000.0 4,000.0 4,000.0 17 'D' SL;-,,e~ NW - 37th NWto 44th NW E~;~ _~_._~ Project Cost: 2,t70.0 Cost 170.0 170.£ Rev - City 34.0 34.0 Rev - Grant 136.0 136.0 8 A Str-ee~. Loop F-~k;~a~cl Project Cost: 455.0 Cost 405.0 405.0 'Rev - City 122.5 122.5 Rev - Grant 282.5 282.5 COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 19 SinS4 Bypass Estimated PrGject Co,i; ~$30.0 Cost 2,600.0 1,000.0 750.0 1,500.0 2,300.0 8,150.0 Rev - City 0.0 Rev - Other 520.0 200.0 150.0 300.0 460.0 1,630.0 Rev - Grant 2,080.0 800.0 600.0 1,200.0 1,840.0 6,520.( 20 Clty',~d,e ITS Project ----~_,~d_ Project Cc~_.'_: _~,_a$5.0 Cost 300.0 1,700.0 2,000.0 Rev - Grant 1,700.0 1,700.0 Rev - Other 300.0 300.0 2t AWS (SR164) Do~--.vc, od St SE to MIT Amp. ~_."_.~__~d__ P~o,lect Cost: 35,070.0 Cost 1,750.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 9,320.0 10,000.0 27,070.(; Rev - Grant 1,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 7,456.0 8,000.0 21,85~.0 Rev - Other 350.0 600.0 600.0 1,864.0 2,000.0 5,414.0 22 SR 167 Widenln~l - SR 405 to Pierce Ct Line, S;--i~ Project, RTID Project E~;iiiatad ProJect Co~; t,300,000.0 Cost 30,000.0 30,000.0 30,000.0 50,000.0 Rev - Cit7 140,000.0 0.0 Rev - Grant 24,000.0 24,000.0 24,000.0 40,000.0 112,000.0 Rev - Other 6,000.0 6,000.0 6,000.0 10,000.0 28,000.0 23 3rd Stree{ Gm_~_ Separa~on 1=~::~.~;~.4 Project CctV: 34,772.0 Cost 10.0 10. Rev - Grant 10.0= 10.0 24 South 277~ G~e Separation E~;-;~_~d_ Pr~e,~ Co~L 13,688.0 Cost 40.0 40.0 Rev - Cit~ 40.0 40.0 Subtotal 4,15t.0 12,-~85.0 37,213.0 40,666.0 49,315.0 80,159.0 223~789.0 NON-CAPACITY PROJE(,,- ~ 25 Lea Hill Slide S!_~,~_.155th Sb--,,e~ Repair E-~-'--'.-~ia~ed Project C~-- '175.0 Cost 120.0 120.0 Rev - City 120.0 120.0 2~ $27/m - AWN to F~,~i:..l~e Rd. We{land E~:J._-._~:_;.-d_ pm,_~__ C_-,~__ 55.0 Cost 25.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 ,6.0 6.0 55.( Rev - City 25.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 55.0 27 ',¥==t Valley Highway Pea-31ey Canyon Rd. to 15th Street SW connects two S_~_e E~[;,,,ated Project C,:~;; 1,606.0 Cost 529.0 Rev - City 529.( Rev - Grant 385.0 0.( 385.~ Rev - Other 144.0 144.(3 28iDo~.'_.~.-..,v~l. Lighting Pro,d~m. E~.'-.'~:._:__.~d_ Projec~ CctV-* t60.0 Cost 100 Rev - City 10.0 10.010'0 COST~/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 29 B St. .%'W ~,',,"e.'j_.~.~d M~atJon .. ~u,,:~ ProJect Cc~=.'= 6.0 Cost 4.0 Rev - City 4.0 4.0 4.0 30 Kersey Way - Oravetz Rd. Signal E~G~-; ~.~J Proje~ Cost: 202.0 Cost 174.0 174. Rev - City 14.0 14.0 Rev - Grant 160.0 160.0 31 Cr_~_~_!ng Gate UPRR and We~;. Main S~--~e~ F~;~,~.~d Pro~'t C~;.~ 250.0 Cost 245.0 245.C Rev - Grant 245.0 245J 32 TmL~_~_~'~[;on Plan U~ E~;;,,a~:l Project Cost: 169.0 Cost 32.0 32.0 Rev - City 32.0 32.0 33 'M' Stree~ SE - 37th SE to 29th SE (Class II bike lane co~_t Is $t80,000) E~[;,.ated Project Cost: 1,880.0 Cost 10.0 200.0 500.0 710.0 Rev - City 10.0 Rev - Grant 10.0 0.C Rev- Other 200.0 500.0 700.0 34i BNSFIEast Valley .~",~¥ Pe~[,;an ;~;,,ated P;oject Cost: 3,640.0 Cost 140.0 150.0 300.0 3,000.0 3,590.0 Rev - City 0.0 30.0 60.0 600.0 690.0 Rev - Grant 113.0: 120.0 240.0 2,400.0 2,873.0 Rev - King Co. Open Space Etd 27.0 27.0 35 A Street SE Pe~;an ---:-::;:---.'-~ Project Cost: t38.0 Cost 138.0 138.0 Rev - City 28.0 28.0 Rev - Grant 110.0 110.0 36 Cit~-~,-i~e Sidewalk Improvement Projects E~[;~&~,d Pro~t Cost: 2,000.0 Cost 100.O 350.0 350.0 350.( 350.0 350.0 1,850.0 Rev - City 100.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 450.~ Rev - Other 280.0 ' 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 1,400.(~ 37 Pavement P~.~,-~aflon Arterial . Cost 400.0 500.0 500.0 250.0 2.~0.0 250.0 2,150.0 Rev - City 400.0 500.0 500.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 2,150.0 38 City',v~,e Pe(;e~,;an C;o~.~;n~l Prot~m, E-_:_'.:,:~;__.~I_ Pro;ec;'. Cost: 150.0 Cost 50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 150.C Rev ~ C~ 50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 150.0 39 Street Asset Mana,~ment Estimated Project Co~;~ 150.0 Cost 50.0 50.0 Rev - City 50.0 50.0 40 Citywide Road'~.~ Safety ;i~;,--~-;-.-,-,~,--,m Improve,T~ents E~;~ated Project Cost: 1~406.0 COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Cost 200.0 200.0 200.0 600.0 Rev - City 200.0 200.0 200.0 600.0 41 Right of Way Acquisiflon/Gra~ AdminL~i,,=;;on Estima~,,d Project Cost: 300.0 Cost 50.0 50.0 100.i Rev - City 50.0 50.0 100.0 Non-Mo;~;,.=d Projects 42 A,_,b,_,m Black Diamond Rd {Class t or 2) - 1st SE to ECL r:e"~-,-,&;~l Project Cost: 75.0 Cost 75.0 75.0 . Rev - City 75.0 75.0 43 White River Trail head (C;ass 1) Rc,~r, er Park to F_~__ Valley Hwy F-.~i;ma',~, Project COS;~ 360.0 Cost 360.0 360.(3 Rev - City 72.0 72.0 Rev - Grant 288.0 288.0 44 37th St. SE/R St. SE Connector (C;a~ 1) - ~c,-~ Pike to R St. SE _;_efi__ma~ Project Cost: t25.0 Cost 25.0 100.0 125.0 Rev - City 0.0 Rev - Grant 20.0 80.0 100.0 Rev - Other 5.0 20.0 25.0 45 Green River Trail, Phase I (Class I Trail) - Design work, from Green River Acces__e to Brannsn Park Estimated Project Cos;; 620.0 Cost 125.0 495.0 620.( Rev - City 0.0 Rev - Grant 100.0 395.0 495.0 Rev - Other 25.0 100.0 125.0 46 ~,¥es~ Main St. Pe~./Bike Im~,-ovements {Claes 2) - ;iibarti~,a~ Trail to Transit Center Es.'-..-,,atsd Project Cos;; 1,720.0 Cost 26.0 84.0 190.0 1,420.0 1,720.C Rev - City 4.0 4.0 Rev - Grant 22.0 63.0 150.0 1,130.0 1,365.0. Rev - Other 21.0 40.0 290.0 351.0 47 Gi-~ei~ River Trail Phase 2 (Class t) Brannan Park to 2nd SL SE E_~.~,,~,'__,~d Projec~ Cost: 730.0 : Cost Rev - City 150.0 150.0 Rev - Grant 0.C Rev - Other 120.0 120.I 30.0 30.0 48 Green River Trail P~_~e_ 3 (C;a~.~ 1) 2nd St. SE to SR t8 E---:_::-&~ed Proj~ Cost: 725.0 Cost Rev - C~ 150.0 150.0 Rev - Grant 0.0 Rev - Other 120.0 120.0 30.0 30.0 49 Kersey Way Trail E~;~,._~_,~,j Project Cos~.: 75.0 Cost Rev - Other 75 75.( 75 75.0 50 C St SW (3rd St SW to 15th St SW Estl~e.'_ed Project Cos~ 75.0 Cost 75.0 :Rev - Other 75.0 75.0 COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 ,2008 2009 TOTAL $1 A St SE along BNSF E~;~..-_-.'__~_ Project Cost: 190.0 Cost 190.0 190.0 Rev - Other 190.0 190.(1 Sub~o;.a; 1,931.0 1,979.0 1,754.0 $,~.36.0 1,421.0 1,$26.0 14,047.0 J SUMM_~RY: CO~¥~ AND REVEN!m~$ COSTS: Capacity Projects 4,151.0 12,285.0 37,213.0 40,666.0 49,315.0 80,159.0 223,789.0 Non-Capacity P[ojects 17931.0 17979.0 lr754,0 57436.0 lr421.0 1~526.0 14~047.0 Total Co~[s 6,082.0 t4,254.0 38,087.0 46,102.0 50,736.0 8t,085.0 237,836.0 EXISTING REVENUES: Rev - City 2,579.5 1,413.0 1,029.0 1,182.0 1,205.0 1,129.0 8,537.,r Rev - KC Open Space Bond 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 Sub{o[al 2,606.5 1,413.0 1,029.0 1,182.0 1,205.0 1,129.0 8,564.5 NEW REVENUES: Rev - D~w~er 0.0 2,640.0 800.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,440.0 Rev- ~r* 474.0 1,185.0 7,180.0 11,670.0 9,264.0 17,913.0 47,686.0 Rev - Grants 2,785.5 8,781.0 29,908.0 32,966.0 40,087.0 62,243.0 176,750.5 Rev - Impact Fees ~, 216.0 245.0 50.0 284.0 200.0 400.0 1~395.0 Subtotal 3,475.5 12,851.0 37,938.0 44,920.0 49,531.0 80,556.0 229,271.5 * Mitigation agree,3-~ents, Other a ~encies Total Revenue 6,082.0 14,254.0 38,967.0 46,102.0 50,736.0 8t,685.0 237,838.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CFP PROJEC¥~ AND FINANCING PLAN CiTY OF AUBURN I , COSTS/REVENUES ,2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL ; ~_nsion - Cc.-,s~uct a new v."-~ house facility to allow reduncy in Ihe Lakeland Hills area, as ~ in Ihe 2000 W~- Co,-~,p Plan DRAFT (WS-115) Cost 100.0 500.0 600.0 Rev -City · 100.0 500.0 600.0 Cost 100.0 100.0 Rev - City 100.0 100.0 Cost 136.0 136.0 Rev - City 136.0 136.0 Cost 56.0 287.0 343.0 ... Rev - City 56.0 287.0 343.0 DS-632-709 Aubum Way N~,~'~ Pipeline Co,~, Cost 27.0 131.0 1 56.0 Rev - City 27.0 131.0 156.0 4 $ ,_, ~T.~-'_~ .' 336.0 527.0 367.0 287.0 0.0 0.0 1.517.0 Cost 500.0 500.0 0.0 : 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 Rev-C,i~y ~ 500.0 . S00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~.000.0___ 6 Wellhead Protection Pro.-am - ~ost 0.0 ~ 50.0 [ 50.0 0.0 0.0 150.0 Rev. PWTF H:'I-~'nO~CFP's~X)3-2008 Water CFP~Is COSTS/REVENUES 2004 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN WATER CITY OF AUBURN 11 5.0 200--8 2009 TdTAL described in 2000 Com~ Plan DRAFT as DS.f/# & PR-~. DS-643-'1010 M Sheet Si Cost 39.4 ~ 328.6 Rev - 39.4 328.6 Cost 46.0 382.0 Rev - Ci~ 46.0 382.0 R Stz~t SE Cost 153,0 t 0.0 Rev - City 153.0 0.0 ,~OfO 22nd Street SE Pipeline DS-63f.709 E Street NE Pi i~_~_~placement Rev - City ] 22.5 388.0 368,0 428.0 428.0 153.0 153,0 400.0 400.0 12 ~ Area, as described in 2000 Com~ Plan DRAFT. - ~_~cribed in 2000~Con~ Plan .DRAFT as OP-102. - and Well Im vemen~ Cost 0.0 20.0 ~--~"-'~-"~ ~ ~- ...... _Rev-C' 0.0 20.0 ~ ~ ~-- Lea Hill Booster Pure Station U fade ~ ~ ~e wflh New Lea Hill Booster Pump__Station for increased demand to ~ service area and~ ~escribed in2000 Comp~Plan DRAFT as BP.107. 1,~.~.0 0.0 ~ co. 900'O_i-L~~ 27.5 27.5 I ~uu.u ~ I 100.0 I 100.0~ 0.0 ~ -'-'"'="="--- = oo.o 4o0.0 ..... 400.0 PR'fO~3~t---~-~ Ralocation -"~ ' -- - -t 10.0 ~nt - Rez~ the Lakeland HBs Service Area, as dascr~ed in 2000 ~ Plan DRAFT. 670.0 670.0 Cost ~ 126.0 Rev -'City 126.0 126.0 Rev - PWTF H:TgnOtCFP's~003-2008 Water CFP.xls 150.0 150.0 20.0 20.0 200.0 900.0 CFP PROdECT$ AND FINANCING PLAN ~i¥'~ OF AUBURN ! COSTS/REVENUES I 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 17 Lea Hill Sei-~ce Area Rezone (PZ-102) ' ,,-i:,-~vement - Rezo~-~ the Lea Hill Sevice Area, as desc~_-~_ in 2000 Comp Plan DRAFT. Cost .102.0 102.0 Rev - City 102.0 102.0 18 Coal Creek Sp,-~r~ ;,~,,ven-~-~ - UlUlate ex~r,~ wult~ and valves. Cosl 75.0 75.0 Rev-Cily 75.0 75.0 '19 Vu:nembillty A~c..~.~-~,-~t. Improven~-~{ - Based on Vulnerab~*y Study. . Cost 50.0 50.0 Rev-C~y 50.0 50.0 20 Well 5 $~-&~, Irnp,-ovemept. - Provide a pump save~ and poss~e manual transfer switch. Cost 75.0 75.0 Rev-City 75.0 '75.0 Sub-To, a; 1~60.5 1,729.5 755.0 1~324.5 100.0 0.0 Summary: C__~_ end Revenues COSTS: Capacity Projects 336.0 527.0 367.0 287.0 0.0 0.0 1,517.0 Non-Capacity Projects 1,460.5 1,7:29.5 755.0 1,324.5 100.0 0.0 5,369.5' Total Costs 1,796.5 2,256.5 1,122.0 1,611.5 100.0 0.0 6~886.5 EXISTING REVENUES: IRev - City 1,781.5 ~.756.5 942.0 711.5 100.0 0.0 5~791.5 !Rev - Algona 0.0 0.0 180.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 180.0 Pulflic Works Trust Fund 15.0 0.0 0.0 900.0 0.0 0.0 915.0 Total Revenue 1,796.5 2,255.5 1,122.0 1,611.5 100.0 0.0 6,886.5 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H:TimO~.CFP's~2003-2008 Water CFP.xls II I I To: From: Subject: Planning Commission Lanny Pefitjean, Grant/Fixed Asset Accountant Updated Capital Facilities Plan 2004 throUgh 2009 Attached are the following schedules related to the updated capital facilities plan for the period 2004 through 2009: (1) Recap of total costs of projects by type of facility. The schedule compares the total costs for 2003 - 2008 Plan with the total cost for 2004 -2009 Plan and the dollar change. (2) CFP Projects and Financing Plan for 2004 - 2009.. This schedule shows the projects by type of facility. For each project, the specific sources and amounts of revenue are shown which are anticipated to be used to pay for the proposed capital projects. (3) Status of Projects on the 2003 - 2008 Plan. This schedule shows the status of projects listed on the 2003 - 2008 plan and all new projects that have been added to the 2004 - 2009 plan. Mernorandum FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission, City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department October 1,2003 Policy/Text Amendment #6 (Capital Facilities Plan Update) The Finance Depadment has prepared updated CFP schedules to reflect two corrections. The attached memorandum from the Finance Department to the Planning Commission identifies those corrections and new CFP schedules have been prepared (attached). Please replace the entire set of CFP schedules (P/T#6) in your notebook with the attached materials. Thank you. From: Subject: Planning Commission Lanny Petitjean, Capital Asset/Grant Accountant Corrections to 2(X)4-2009 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Two corrections have been made to the.CFP schedules handed out to you at the study session. Under Parks and Recreation, the YMCA Ballfields project was deleted because it is not a capital project, and the Lakeland Hills Community Park (8 acres) Project cost was increased from $160,000 to $250,000. This project is scheduled for 2005. Ail schedules were changed to reflect the above changes. i ~ !- I Ir TABLE A-3 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCIHG PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) AIRPORT COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006. ,' 2007 2008 2009 Ca'--~mcity Projects: ~ ~ ~ .... ~ TOTAL 1.Phase ~ Planning of 23 acre ;Cost 75.0 75.0 150.0 Rev - FAA Grant 67.5 67.5' 135.0 Rev - Operati~g Revenue 7.5 7.5 15.0 Subtol:al 0.0, 75.0 75.0 0.0 0.0= 0.0 150.0 Non-Capacity Project: 2. ProPerty AcquisYdon - Park and Ride Cost 100.0 700.0' 800.( Rev - FAA Grant 90.0 630.0 720.( Rev - Operating Revenue 10.0 70.0 80.0 3. Parallel Taxiways Slurry Seal Cost 95.0 95.0 Rev - State Grant 47.5 47.5 Rev - Operating Revenue 47.5 47.5 4. Runway. Rehabii;'~aGon Es[imated Project Cost: 900.0 Cost 900.0 900.0 Rev - FAA Grant 810.0 810.0 Rev - Operating Revenue 90.0 90.( 5., Traii=...;ent &Northem Based Airc~a;~ A ~ron Slurr ' Seal Cost 77.5 77.5 Rev - FAA Grant 69.7 69.7 'Rev _ S~a~e Grant 3.9 3.<, Rev - Operating Revenue 3.9 3.9 6. ;Airport West Access Signing & Parking Improvements Cost 130.0 130.0 :Rev - FAA Grant 117.O 117.0 Rev - Ope~aiJ.g Revenue 13.0 13.0 7., Airport Security Fencing (Park and Ride) Cost 50.0 50.0 Rev - FAA Grant 45.0 45.0 Rev - Opera~i~-~g Revenue 5.0 5.(; COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL 8. Noi~'~ Taxilane Fog Seal "' ' Cost 2.6 2.6 Rev - State Grant 1.3' 1.: Rev - Operating Revenue 1.3 1.3 9. South Apron Slurry Seal Cost 65.8 65.8 Rev - FAA Grant 59.2 59.2 Rev - State Grant 3.3 3.3 Rev - Operating Revenue 3.3 3.3 Subtotal 900.0 77.5 280.0 863.4 0.0 0.0 2,120.9 COSTS: SU.¥..-M~RY: COS¥$ AND REVENUES Capacity Projects 0.0 75.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.0 Non-Capacity Projects 900.0 77.5 280.0 863.4 0.0 0.0 2,120.9 Total Costs. 900.0 :[52.5 355.0 863.4 0.0 0.0 2,270.9 EXISTING REVENUES: Rev - Operat;i,~ Revenue 90.0 11.4 35.5 122.1 0.0 0.0 259.0 Subtotal 90.0 11.4 35.5 122.1 0.0 0.0 259.0 NEW REVENUES: Rev - FAA Grant 810.0 137.2 319.5 689.2 0.0 0.0 1,955.9 Rev - Sta{e Grant 0.0 3.9 0.0 52.1 0.0 0.0 56.0 Subtotal 810.0 141.1 319.5 741.3 0.0 0.0 2,011.9 Total Revenues 900.0 152.5 355.0 863.4 0.0 0.0 2,270.9 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 TABLE C-3 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (,~ Projec~ ~ Times $1,000) I I Cl=~. COSTS/REVENUES .,2.004 2005 .2006 ,2007 .,2008 ,2009 TOTAL Cai~acity Projec~ ~. Nc=: _u_~usoleum (ph ~ & 2) Cost 140.0 150.0 290.0 Rev - Endowed Care InL 140.0 40.0 180.0 Rev - Ope~a[ing Revenue 110.0 110.0 2. seceon ~0 (pha~, l) Cost 100.0 100.0 Rev- Endc':.md Care Int. 100.0 100.0 3. ,Section 6A Co~61~dction Cost 100.0 100.0 Rev - Endc':;cd Cam InL 50.0 50.0 Rev.- Ope~a~g Revenue 50.0 50.0 $ab;~al 0.0 2 .a0.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 490.0 I SU_'_--'.~_a, Ry: COSTS AND REVENUES COSTS: Capec.'.~ Projects 0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 490.0 To-la! Co~ 0.0 2 .m]-.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 490.0 EXJSTING REVENUES: Rev - End~.vcd Care Int. 0.0 240.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 330.0 Rev - Ope~,[;f.~g Revenue 0.0 0.0 160:0 0.0 0.0 160.0 Subto~ 0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 490.0 Total Revenues 0.0 240.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 490.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.(], 0.0 TABLE CC-3 CFP PROJECTS AHD FINANCING PLAN (All P~ Are Times $1,000) I I CO;,;~;UNi'i Y' CEN i ,-~ COSTS/REVENUES. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Cai~ac,~'.y Project: 1. Conver~ and F. xp~nd Existin ;;! YMCA to a Community Building (+35~000 sq Co~, 3,300.0 3,300.0 Rev - G.O. Bo~-,~ 3,300.0 3,300.0 SU_M___MARY: COSTS AND REVENUES ,I COSTS: Capac;~-)~ Projects 0.0 .3,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,300.0 To[aiCo~ 0.0 3,300.0 0.0 0.O 0.0 O.0 3,300.0 .EXi~TiNG REVENUESi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I FIE','; REVENUES: !Rev-G.O. Bonds 0.0 3,300.0 0.O -' 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,300.0 Sub~(,iu~ 0.0 3,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,300.0 To~a~Revenues 0.0 3,300.0 0.O 0.0 O.0 0.0 3,300.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 rTABLE CI.3 CFP PROdEC¥$ AND FINANCING PLAN (All Pro~-=~"ts ~ Times $1,000) I i CO~;,~'JNITY "'" .... - .~OSTS/REVENUES 2004 ,2005 2006 ;2007 2008, 2009 TOTAL Non.,C~ ~-~:.-Uy Project: 1. Downtown Public~-,va{e Redevelopment:' purchase property;construct new Buildin~s;rsnov-~___,, existlnn b,_,!~..'..--.-~; '" Cost 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 3,000.0 Rev*- Ca~;~l Projects Fd 500,0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 3,000.0 2. Gateway ProJ~c;~ (one major project every 2-3 years; minor nataway/beautiflcation pro; ~ each year) Cost 30.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 315.O Rev - General Fund 30.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 315.0 3. Second Downtown Parkin;; Garage Cost 5,000.0 5,000.0 Rev - (~.O. Bonds 5,000.0 5,000.0 4. Transit S{a~;on Retail Space Tenant Im =rovements .. Cost 200.0 200.0 Rev - General Fund 200.0 200.0 I SUM.MARY: CO$¥$ ANDREVENUES COSTS: Non-Capac_~.'_~y P~ 730.0 5,585.0 515.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 8,515.0 Total Costs 730.0 5,~.-_$.0 515.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 8~515.0 'EXIs~iNG REVENUES: Rev - General Fund 230.0 85.0 15.0 85.0 1~.0 85.0 515.0 Rev - Capital Projects Fund 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 3,000.0 Su~,~;~i 730.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 3,515.0 NEW REVENUES: Rev - G.O. Bonds 0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,000.0 Sub{o{a 0.0 5,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,000.0 To~al Revenues 730.0 5,585.0 515.0 585.0 515.0 585.0 8,5t5.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0/ TABLE F-3 I ' CFP PROJEGTS AND FINANCING PLAN FIRE PROTEctiON COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 .2006 2007 2008 ,2009 TOTAL Non-Capacity P'roJec;~ .' 1. Appara;~e Replacement: En ;;lines = 20 year and Aid Vehicla = 15 fear replacement _~c.hedule Costs 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 Rev - General. Fund Transfer 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES I, COS¥$: Capacity Pro~--ts 0.0 0.0 0.0 · 0.0 0:0 0.0 0.0 Non-Capacity Projects 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 To,a; Cc~;~ 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 EXlSTiHG REVENUES: !Rev - General Fund Transfer 50.0 50.0 50.0 50:0 50.0 50.0 300.0 To;al Revenues 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 TABLE GM-3 CFP PROdECT$ AND FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) GENERAL MUNICIPAL BU!LD;NGS 3OSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005. 2006 .,2007 2008 2009 ,TOTAL Capacity Projects: 1. New Public Safety Bui;G;ii ! (+XXXXXX sq It) Cost 11,000.0 11,000.0 Rev- C,e~-~,;ates of Participation 11,000.0 11,000.0 Non'-Cap--c.-ity Pn~ects: 2. Fire S.'~-Gon RepleCen-,ent/Relocatlon Cost - Land 1,000.0 1,000.0 Cost - Construction 3,000.0 3,000.0 6,000.0 Rev - G.O. Bonds 4,000.0 3,000.0 7,000.0 Rev - General Fund · 0.0 3. City Hall: P;aza Cost 200.0 200.0 Rev - General Fund 200.0 200.0 I SUMM_~.RY: COSTS AND REVENUES COSTS: Capac~ Projects o.o 11,00o. o o.o o.0 0.0 ~ 1,00o.0 Non-Capec~ Projects 200.0 4~000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 7r200.0 TotalC,~ 200.0 ~S,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0.0 ~8,200.0 'Exis¥i~ RL=VENUES: Rev - C-,eneml Fund 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 NEW REVENUES: Rev - G.O Bonds 0.0 4,000.0 0.0 3,000.0 0.0 0..0 7,000.0 Rev - Ce urn, -:,~__e$ of Participation 0.0 11,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,000.0 TABLE GC-3 I CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Projec mes $1,000) I GOLF COURSE 3OSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 .2006 2007 ,2008 ,2009 TOTAL Non-C_-=_~_c~y ProJects I.Cor,~;~dct New Clubho[,~e & Parking Cost 2,775.0 2,775.0 Rev - G.O. Bond 2,775.0 2,775.0 2 Rebuild No. t3~'14~17 Fairwa ! & Green Cost 165.0 215.0 380.0 Rev - Greens Fc-~.~ 165.0 215.0 380.0 ,,,,uaw No. 3~4~$ Fa~i-~ay Cost 150.0 150.0 Rev - Greens Fees 150.0 ,150.0 4 ~i;~c=l~neous Improveme~,L~ Cost 50.0 50.0 100.0 Rev - Greens Fc~ 50.0 50.0 100~0 J SU _M_._M_a,R¥: COSTS AND REVENUES Co$1-s: Non-Capacity Pro~=ts T~[ai C,,T~b 165.0 2,990.0 150.l] 50.0 50.0 0.0 $,.~J5.0 EXi$11NG REvENUES: Rev - Gm. cas Fcc..~ 165.0 215.0 150.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 630.0 Subtotal 165.0 215.0 150.'0 50.0 50.0 0.0 630.0 NEW REVENUES: Rev - G.O. Bond 0.0 2,775.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,775.0 Subtota 0.0 2,775.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,775.0 Tetal ~,evenues 165.l] 2,990.0 ~.~3_.l] 50.l] BALANCE ,0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Proj_ _,~ts__ Are Times $1,000 I I PARKS AND RECRE.~.TION Ca :)acity Projects: - !Community 1. Lakeland H~=~ Co,T,~imity Park (8 acres) Develop passive parks, play toy, irrigation, etc. Cost 250.0 250.0 Rev - Developer 200.0 200.0 Rev - Reet 50.0 50.0 Sub~o[al 0.0 -~r'o.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.0 Non-Capacity Pr_~_ s: Neighborhood Parks 3. Ced=___r Ler, e~ Park Development Landscape development~ trail v~,,~,~ tables~ pi¢idc area, and play toy. Cost 150.0 150.0 Rev - Capital Projects Fund 75.0 75.0 Rev - Private Funds 75.0 75.0 'Community Parks 4. Olson Canyon Farm Imp;e~-,ent ~__-3.~r plan - Building and Grounds. Cost I 300.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 1,050.0 Rev- Grant - Wa St His~o~c Preservation 150.0 125.0 125.0 400.0 Rev - Private Donation 125.0 125.0 Rev. General Fund 150.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 525.0 5. L_,~_ Gove Park Imprcv~T,~nt Irri~on, p;ay.qround, dH.king foui~.'_~;_;-e~ and !~_ !_~eld enha~cements. Cost 250.0 250.0 Rev - General Fund 200.0 200.0 Rev- King Co. Youth Sports Grant 50.0 50.0 6., Veteran's Park Reds'¢siopment 'Community B~;.'..;;F~j Replace,Tent Cost 175.0 175.0 Rev - General Fund 100.0 100.0 Rev - American Legion Post 78 75.0 75.0 7. Fete;er Farm Site Plan/Pha~e t Coo~(;;,,a;i, ~,-~, IGr,3 Co and S;a;~ on devs'.-_'c-;-.T,e,-i~ with natural habitat 'Cost 25.0 600.0 625.0 Rev - General Fund 25.0 60,0 85.0 Rev - State Salmon Recovery Fund 240.0 240.0 Rev- State Aquatic Lands 300.0 Enhancement 300.0 8~. Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan ,- __ Coordinate with ASD on Master Site Plan for 29 acre site.- ....... ------------ __ Cost 30.0 30.0 __ Rev - General Fund ~ 30.~0 ~ ~ 30.--~- 9._.~. Interurban ?rail ........ __ Trail enhancements 10_.~. Fulmer Park Addition ............ Cost 150.0 150.0 Rev - RE~- ~ 150.0 150.0 Major r.,a~ imp;ovem~n~ includino a~letic fielder shelters, roofs, ~,;ay.~¢~,~ndet and Cost 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 500.0 Rev - R~-~T 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.(I 500.0 12. Park Acqu;~;Jons Acq,_,!_~.~lons to occur based on d~,--nand and deficiencies incl,_,_~.n; corridors and traih,. Cost 60O.0 200.0 600.0 200.0 60O.0 2~200.0 . Rev- R~-~- [ 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 1,000.0 Rev - State Grant (lAC) 200.0 200.0 200.0 600.0 ~ S_E~_ial Use Areas .......... 13. Public Art COSTS: SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES CommunibLParks 0.---~ 250.------~- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.----'---~ ~ Community Parks 0.~ 1,680.'-----'~ 1,150.--(~- 950.------6- 550.0 700.0 5,030.0 __ Subtotal, 180.0~ 1,710.0 1,180.0 980.0 580.0 730._.___~0 . 5,360._____~0 ICOSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL EXISTING REVENUES: Rev- General Fund 30.0 585.0 215.0 155:0 155.0 30.0 1,170.0 Rev - Capital Projects Fund 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 Rev- Real Es~aie Exdse Tax 0.0 500.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 1,700.0 Sub~,;a; 105.0 1,055.0 515.0 455.0 455.0 330.{)1 2,945;0 NEW REVENUES: Rev - King Co. Youth Sports Grant 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 Rev - Developer 0.0 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 Rev - KCCF 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 600.0 'Rev - State Grant (lAC) 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 600.0 Rev - Slate Salmon Recover/Fund 0.0 0.0 240.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 240.0 Rev - S'-u~e Aquatic Lands 0.0 0.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.0 Rev - Wa St His;,:,~c Preservation Grt 0.0 150.0 125.0 125.0 0.0 0.0 400.0 Rev - Pri~, ate Donation 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 125.0 0~0 200.0 Rev - American Legion Post 78 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 Sub~[a; 75.0 875,0 665.0 525.0 125.0 400.0 2,665.0 Total Revenues 180.0 1,960.0 1,180.0 980.0 580.0 '730.0 5,610.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 TABLE CFP PROJECTS AND*FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are 71rnes $1,000) SEWER i COSTS/REVENUES I 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL P ects (Expans s) I Auburn Wa), South Sanitary Sewer Re~=_¢_-~nt. ent I U~r~,.,'nde. C9056 - Section B,C,D;_i;-~A The construction of this project is c.o,-~.red 40% Repair and 60% E:-~:.a_nsion Expansion - Increa~.~ the service _~_!..'.~/of the AWS =,~:.'cr !ine Cost 525.0 1,966.7 730.2 1,567.2 456.7 5,245.8 Rev - City . 25.0 - 6.9 963.8 70.3 1,066:1 Rev - pW~LI; 500.0 1,142.0 1,642.0 Rev - MIT 824.7 723.3 603.4 386.4 2,537.8 2 Auburn Way South Sar,;;ary Sewer Re~,!acement I UPg _r.~_e. Desi0n 100% The ~or, str~_,~ of this project is considered 40% Repair and 60% Expansion .Expansion, Increases the service ability of the AWS =.~-_,~ line Cost 850.0 850.0 Rev - City 241.4 241.4 Rev - MIT 608.6 608.6 Subtotal 1,375.0 1,966.7 730.2 1,567.2 456.7 - 6,095.8 Non-Capac ProJects: 3 Aubum Way Sob;;, Sanitary Sewer Re~_~-..ement I Upg _ra,J_e - C9056 - Se,~___,~n B,C,D,E,A The cons~ of this project is considered 40% Repair and 60% Expansion Repair Replacement - increasing the useful life of the _facJ!~ties Cost 350.0 1,311.1 486.8 1,044.8 304.5 3,497.2 Rev - City - 279.1 260.9 642.6 46.9 1,229.5 Rev - PWTF 350.0 350.0 Rev - MIT 1,032.0 225.9 402_2 257.6 1,917.7 4 2003 - 2004 R~,r, ewal and Replacement of _n=_..m.=_;ed and Broken S=~,-=r Unes - Recc;.=l and Replacement Cost 1,275.0 25.0 1,300.0 Rev - City 1,275.0 25.0 1,300.0 5 2005 Rer:.=~-31 and Replacem~n~ of Da .n~,;_~_~l and Broken ~::-=;- Unes Renewal and Repiac~-n~,nt Cost. 75.0 150.0~ ~.';.0 Rev - City 75.0 150.0 225.0 6 2,007 Ren;~'al and Replacement of Damaged and Broken S=-~'=:' Unes Rer,~,~-al and Replac~-,~ant Cost 125.0 1,250.0 '1,375.0 Rev - City 125.0 1,250.0 1,375.0 7 2009 Rer:.=',~-al and Replacement of Da~=_,?,ed and Broken Sc';,'ar Unes Renewal and R_,~r!acement Cost Rev - C~ 25.0 150.0 175.0 25.0 150.0 175.0. 8 2011 Renew'al and Replacement of Da;naged and Broken Sow.-r Recc'.~l and Replacement Cost Rev - Cily 0.0 9 ~--".~'ar Compre~-~nsive Plan Upd~ - M871 t ,Improvement - Ul:~ate the ex~s{~ san_'__dery, sewer comprehensive plan. Cost 60.0 25.0 85.0 Rev - City 60.0 25.0 85.0 10 F Street a,'~G Rainier R~G~e & Rainlar Shadows PS Inve~_'-~a~on and back~;ow prevention dev-;ces and redundant float alarms .Cost 20.0 100.0~ 120.0 Rev - City 20.0 100.0 120.0 1t Siphon FI°w Divemlon Divert Flows away f~oi-, the Cobble Creek Community and the river siphon Iota{ed next to .the golf course. Cost 55.0 55.0 Rev - City 55.0 55.0 12 G_ned__~cke Halls .tr==t.. Imp~-oven~ent Support the ~.~.c.t Valley in-~,rove.~{s fron~r,g Goedecke South. Cost 150.0 ' ~ Rev - Cit~ 150.0 .... 150.0 SUMMARY: COSTS AND _REVENUES ~ COSTS: EXlS-----~NG REVENUES: ~ ~ ~~ . 1,841.4 554.1 392.8 2,916.4 167.2 .150.0 6,021.9 ~ Tofal Revenues 3,300.---~ 3,552.----~ 1,342.0 ~ 3,922.0 811.2 150.-----~-13,078 TABLE SD-3 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN (All Projects Are Times $1,000) STORM CITY OF AUBURN I COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 · TOTAL I D,%'sh3fler C(~ e~'ective utility par'~ici~afion in future und__~¥qated developer pror/ecls Cost 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 Rev - City 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 SUB-TOTAL COSTS 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50,0 300.0 2 PIps-','nes & Surface Conveyance ac-23 I Improvement - Upgrade existing conveyance system along K St. SE from 19th to 21st St. SE Cost 30.0 30.0 Rev - City 30.0 20.0 BC-14 Impmv~n-~,ent - Upgrade e~{~ng trunk s stem from along R St. SE from 21st to 2583 St SE Cost 1,300.0 1,300.0 Rev - City 1,300.0 1,300.0 BC-22 ';n-~,-~vement - Construct ove~-~',.~w inffi'u a[ion facility at Pioneer Elementary Schoo~ Cost 20.0 1,456.0 1,476.0 Rev - City 20.0 1,456.0 1,476.0 E~2 Impmve~T, ent - Increase capacity of ex~s6r~ drainage ditch alon~ H St. NW extended ~-o~ 6th St. to 15th SL NW Cost 20.0 479.0 499.0 Rev - City 20.0 479.0 499.0 BC-24 impmvernent- Construct ovenlow ii~;;~-ation facility at Terminal Park Elementary School Cost 50.0 952.0 ~ 1,002.0 Rev - City 50.0 952.0 1,002.0 3 R.-'~--;~c,,3, D;:;.~tion, W,-'ts,- Cost ' 125.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 625.0 Rev - City 125.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 625.0 Mill Creek Enhancement Improvement - Storm Drainage Ij~ii[y PaF~pation Cost 20.0 20.0 Rev - City 20.0 20.0 P-2 ,-fm3vement - Construct Clay St. Water Quality Facility Rev - Ci~ 145.0 145.0 I 4 Comp. Plan Revision, Regulatory Comprehensive Drainage Plan Update Rev - City 250.0 __ 250.0 250.0 250.0 SUB-TOTAL COSTS 1,565.0 2,035.0 1,197.0 100.0 350.0 100.0 5,347.0 SUMM_J~RY: C0~¥~ AND Rt:'-~'ENUES COSTS: Ca~_~ity ~s 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 300.0 Non-C~ mcity Projects 1,565.0 2,035.0 1,197.0 100.0 350.0 100.0 5,347.0 T~_~.' Costs 1,615.0 2,085.0 1,247.0 150.0 400.0 150.0 5,647.0 ; --~;~- :-::,g Revenues Rev-City I 1,615.0 2,085.0 1,247.0 150.0 400.0 150.0 5,647.0 Total Re~ue 1,615.0 2,085.0 1,247.0 1 50.0 400.0 1 ~0.0 5,647.0 I D,Y;',e~'ence 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 COSTS/REVENUES ~004 CAPA CITY PROJECTS: 3rd Street SE/'Cross Street SE - S. Divisior Estimated P~ Cost: '1,748.0 326.0 211.0 Rev - Grant Estimated Project Cost: 2,__~0.0 Rev- Grant A' Street NW- Phase Estimated Pro, ct Cost: 7.676.0. Rev - Grant Rev - O~her 5.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 "M' Street SE - BNS~ratfon Cost Rev - Grant Rev - Other ?1st Street SE and A Street SE Estimated Project ~:~ ~0 ~ Pro, eot Cost: 1,5~0.0 5.0 5.0 172.0 Rev - Grant Fees Street SE - 4~ Stree~ SE to Auburn EsUma~ ProMct Rev - Grant Fees 8th Street NE and Aubum Way North CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN TRANSPORTATION ii I CITY OF AUBURN i 200_.__~7 2005 2006 to Auburn , South 100. g23.l 75.0 75.0 21.0 240.0 1SO.O__ 16.0 120.0 ~4.o 20.0 84.0 80.0 1,080.._._____~ 186J 2OO8 TOTAL 326.0 211.1 325.0 630.0 65.0 60.0 130. 260.1 240.0 500 702.0 200.0 4,200.. 0 __7,363._.___~0 L lOO.o __ 2,734.____~0 5,808._..__...____..__~ 200.0 342.0 662.-'--~ --~ 13,2~ 215.0 796.(3 11,803.. 0 139.0 491.0 202.0 172.0 0.0 30.0 · 1,550., 176,~ 1,240.0 134J 1,500J 104j 1,160.0 236.( COSTS/REVENUES to 33rd Street NE Cost Rev - Other I' Street NE - 32nd StreM NE EsUmat,,d Pro~ cost: ~ Cost 240.0 Rev - Develoj)er 240.0 C St SW Elin~lSOn Road to 15th St SW F-~mated Pm_~lect Cost: 4.~ -- cost Rev - Grant 2,000.0 Rev- Develo~0er 2,000.~ 15th Street SW Reconstruction cost ' ~ ~ Grant- ~ 20O6 ' I' Streat NE - 40th Street NE to 52nd Streat NE Estimated Pro~ Cost: 5,300.0 ~ Cost ~ . Rev - Developer 400.0 Rev - Other 495.0 800.0 2007 2008 TOTAL 350. 336.0 14.( 240.1 S 6Ih Stre~ SE to M Street SE State ' _Rev- C' ' 864 -- SR 18 e bound/61h SL SE to Auburn W~South incJudi~l .l~__~ratlon at BNSF_.~ard 37th NWto 44UI NW Pro, ct Cost: 2,170.__~0 Grant Grant 405.1 122.,' 282.,' 1,200.0 9s.o 382.0J 170.0! 405.0t 122.5I 282.51 2004 2005 2006 Rev - Other Rev - Grant COSTS/REVENUES ~ Estimated Pro/__ect Cost: 22,330.0 EsUmated p~ Cost: 2~0SS.0 Cost 300°0 Rev - Grant to Mrr Am_.~_~ Estimated Project Cost: 1,300,000.0 ~- Grant 520.0 1,700.. 0 1,7oo.~o Estimated Pro~*t Cost: 35,070.0 Cost Rev - Grant Rev - Other 350.0 and 8th St C~ ~rovement EsUma'md Project Cost: 466.0 Cost Rev - Other SR 167 Widening- SR 405 to Pierce Ct Une, State Project, RTID 10.0 Estimated Project Cost: 34,772.0 200.0 800.0 2007 7,50.~ 150.0 600.( Cost ~ 40.0 40.0 s_~_ub,ota~ ~2,2a5.~0 ~ 40,~._ 0 ~O/V-C,4PACrrY P~OJEC~... :~ : mated Pro~tect Cost: 175.0_J -- t 120.0 AWN to F~and MIU! aUon G6~~00 _ 6 0 6.0 6.0 West Valle~on Rd. to tSth Street SW connec~ two State rout~ G00.0 1,700.( 300.0 40.0 223,789.0 55.~ 55.0 529.0 0.0 385.0 COSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 TOTAL Rev - Other 144.Q 144.0 29 Dowr~__o.wn Li~;~;Jiq] Cost 10.0 10.0 Rev - City · 10.0 10.0~ E~;ii.at~d P;oject Co~t: 6.0 Cost 4.0 4.0 Rev - City 4.0 Cost 174.0 174.0 Rev - City 14.0 14.0 Rev. Grant 160.0 160.0 Cost 245.0 245.0 Rev - Grant 245.0 245.£ 33 Transpo,~iion P~ii Cost 32.0 32.0 Rev - Cily 32.0 32.0 34 'M' Street SE - 37th SE to 29th SE (Class II bike lane co~t Is $180,000) Cost 10.0 200.0 500.0. 710.E Rev - City 10.0 Rev - Grant 10.0 0.0 Rev - Other 200.0 500.0 700.0 Cost 140.0 150.0 300.0 3,000.0 3,590.£ Rev - City 0.O 30.0 60.0 600.0 690.(] Rev - Grant 113.0 120.0 240.0 2,400.0 2,873.0. Rev - Kir~ Co. Open Space Bd 27.0 27.0 35 A Stree~ SEr .........--'_ --~-_-.,,, Improvement Cost Rev - C~ 138.0 138.0 28.0 28J Rev - Grant 110.0 110.0 Cost 100.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 1,850.0 Rev - City 100.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 450.0 Rev - Other 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 280.0 1,400.(] Cost 400.0 ~.0 ~.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 2,150.0 Rev - C~ 400.0 500.0 ~.0 250.0 2~.0 250,0 2,150.0 Cost 50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.( 150.0 Rev - City 50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 150.0 2OO5 Infrastuctum Im~ents Estimated Pro~,ect Cost: 1/106.0 -----L----__ -- Cost ~ '~-00.0 50.0 4ubum Black Diamond Rd (Class I or 2)_ 1st SE ~o ECL Green River Trail Phase 2OO6 2oo~ 50.0 2007 2O08 2OO9 'F_s.~ ~ Cost: 7s.o Cost ~ - 360.0 '- Rev - Grant "-[ ~--,0 mn. nan Pa-~-- Re~- Ora.t -------1---- ~Pro~.. Cost: 1,720~ Rev- Gmn~ .ev-o~r Brannan Pall( to 2nd St. SE Green River Trail Phase 3 (C~ ss~) 2nd St. SE to SR 18 Pro, leer Cost: 725.0 Rev - Grant Rev - Other 'Trail Cost: 75.0 TOTAL 100.O 100: 75.~ 72.0 288J 125.0 100.0 25.0 495.0 125.1 4:0 1,365.0 351.4 150.0 0.0 120.0 150.1 COSTS/REVENt ~F.~ 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 .2009 TOTAL Cost ~ Rev - Other ........ 75 75.0 ---- 75 75.~ 51 c St SW (3~'d St SW to t Sth St SW -- Rev - Other 75.0 75.0 52 A St SE along BNSF ...... Estimated Project Cost: 190.0 Subtotal 1,931.0 ~ ~ 1,754.0 6,436.0 t,42t.0 1,$26..__.__~0 14,047.. 0 COSTS: ..... __ Total Costs 6,082.0 14,264.0 _38,967.0 46,102.0 S0,738._ 0~111,685.______~0 237,836.__~0 EXISTING RE'VZMUES: Rev - City 2,579.5 2,383.0 2,419.0 1,182.0 1,305.0 1,129.0 10,997.5 Rev- KC ~ 27.0 .0.0 0..._.____90 0.._.~0 0.0 0.0 27.0 __ Subtotal 2,606.5 2,383.0 2,419.0 1,182.O 1,305.0 1,129.0 11,024.5 .NEW REVENUES: ......... Rev - De'~ echo_per 0.0 2,640.0 800.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,440.0 __ Subtotal 3,475.~ 11,881.0 36,548.0 44,920.0 49,431.0 · 80,556.0 226,811.5 TABLE W-3 CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN ~ ~ T~nes SL_~_). WATER CiTY OF AUBURN · 9 ~ml ~ne Im. rov.e.~.~_. F~___:..hise R irements, L Closures, Concurrent w~h Road ~ ~- -{' ~m mvements - W~ 'Dmdbut~ Im~, desafr~ in 2000__C_C_C_C_C_C_C_C_C~ P~ DRAFTr_ as ~ ~. DS-643..~0~0 Street S~ne Replacement - ~-~ - Cost 39.4 328.6 - 'r-'~ ~:>8.0 DS.644.1109,11 lO 25_t~ S_beet SE Parallel Pipeline Constmcl~n ~-~ ~ I ~ T ~o '~ 428,0 428.0 Co~t ~&?,.O t 0.0 ~,.0 R~¥ -_2...C:~ 153.0 0.0 -- '153.0 DS-665.1009,1010 22nd Street SE Pi ne Replacement ~ DS-631-709EStreetNEPi ineR ement -- ~ ~ _ Cos~_. 5.0 22.5 -- 2T.5 12 Lakeland Hills Service Area Rezone PZ-103 - ~ ~ - Rez ' the Service Area, as dascnt)ed in 2000 Como Plan DRAFT Rev - ' ~ ~_ RevC.°.ctitv --~ ~0 - ~ -- .... ~ w., ~m~o..m...~ -~ -- 14 16 H:TirnO~CFP's~2003-2008 Water CFP.xls '--~.0 20.0 ' 0.0 20.0 - ~ea Hi, Booster~ U rode ~vement -Upgrade wilh New Lea Hill Booster Pump Station for increased demand ~o ~ in2000 C~Plan DRAFT as BP.107. t 1'000'0 f 100.0 ~ - ~oo.o ~ ~_~.ot service area and increased 0.0 0.0 126.0 126.0 150.0 150.0 20.0 20.0 1,100.0 200.0 900.0 TABLE W-3 CFP PROdEC; b AND FINANC!NG PLAN WA'~,-K CITY OF AUBURN [en_ Hill 8er~ce Area Rn--nne (PZ-102) Rez~,-~-~ the Lea Hill SeV~e Area, as _~-~_-_-~ed in 2000 Co~ ~ Plan DRAFT. Cost r 102.0 Rev - City 102.0 Coal Creek SF,,";~-,~7~ Cost 75.0 Rev-City 75.0 ~ on Vuine,-a~T,~l Study. Cost I 50.0 R~-C~ ~0.0 Co~ 75.0 Rev-City 75.0 Sub-To;~; 1,460.$ Total REVENUES: / . IPublic w°rks Trust Fund / [ Total Revenue 1,796.5 1,729.5 755.0 1,32a..5 and 527.0 1,729.5 367.0 755.0 1,122.0 287.0 1,324.5 1,611.5 2OO8 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL 102.0 102.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 1,517.0 5,369.5 1,781.5 ~.~-56.5 942.0 711.5 100.0 0.0 5,791.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 1,796.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,611.5 0.0 0.0 1,122.0 2,256.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 180.0 915.0 0.0 H:¥mnO~CFP's~2003-2008 Water CFP.xls To: From: Subject: Planning Commission Lanny Petitjean, Capital Asset/Grant Accountant New Park's Project added to Capital Facilities Plan The following Park's project has been added to the last year of the 2004 - 2009 Capital Facilities Plan: Community Park Lakeland Hills 40 acres (develop open space, restrooms, active space, playtoy, trails, and picnic shelter) Cost: $2,000,000 Rev - Reet $200,000 Rev - Grant $800,000 Rev - Developer $1,000,000 The attached schedules have been revised to 'include this new Park's project. · CFP Projects and Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation · Recap of Total Costs of Projects by Type of Facility · Status of Projects on the 2003 - 2008 Schedule TABLE PR-3 PARKS AND RECREATION r.,ml ~a¢ity Projects: Co,,,~n~]; Parks Cost 250.0 250.0 Rev - Dew._~V~r 200.0 200.0 Rev- Reet 50.0 50.0 ;Cost Rev - Reet 2,000.0 2,000.0 Rev - Developer 200.0 200.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 Rev - Other Grants 800.0 800.0 Su~,;~;~l 0.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,000.0 ;!,250.0 Non~_~ 3.~_-~___r Lanes Pa~ Cost 150.0 150.0 Rev- C~_~_-.';al Projects Fund 75.0 75.0 Rev- Private Funds 7'5.0 75.0 Cost I 300.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 1,050.0 Rev - Grant - Wa St Hi~turic Preserva~,n · 150.0 125.0 125.0 400.0 Rev - Pr~ate Donation 125.0 125.0 Rev. General Fund 150.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 525.0 Cost. 250.0 250.0 Rev - Ger~-a; Fund 200.0 200.0 Rev - King Co. Youth Sports Grant 50.0 ~50.0 Cost 175.0 1175.0 Rev - General Fund 100.0 100.0 Rev - American Legion Post 78 75.0 75.0 Cost 25.0 600.0 625.0 Rev - Oer.~; Fund 25.0 60.0 85.0 Rev - State Salmon Recovery Fund 240.0 2,40.0 Rev - State Aquatic Lands 300.0 Enhancement 300.0 JES Jacobsen Tree Farm Site Plan Coordinate with ASD off Master Site Plan for 29 acre sits. Cost Rev- General Fund Cost Rev- General Fund Addilion ) additional acre received from water Rev - REET - Cost inclu~tMotic Rev- REET · to occur based on demand and deficiencies i Cost Rev- REET Rev- Stale Gra~ Rev- KCCF. and mstroOms. 100.0 100.0 corridors and trails. 200.0 Public Art Cost 30.0 Rev - General Fund 30.0 t80.0 30.0 580.0 0.0 0.0 550.0' 30.0 Parks SUMMARY: COSTS AND REVENUES 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 180.0 ICOSTS/REVENUES 2004 2005 2006 ~007 ~ 200c,~ TOTAL EXISTING REV~.IE$: _ Rev - GeF~e,-al Fund 30.0 585.0 215.0 155.0 155.0 30.0 1,170.0 Rev - Capital Projects Fund 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 Rev - Real Estate Excise Tax 0.0 500.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 500.0 !,900.0 - $~b;x,~al 105.0 1,085.0 515.0 .z_r~_.O 4Aq _fl $-30.0 3,145.0 NEW Pa-VENUES: Rev - IC,~g Co. Youth Sports Grant .0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 Rev- Dc','c[oper . 0.0 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 '1,200.0 Rev- KCCF 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 600.0 Rev - Slab Grant (lAC) 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 200.0 600.0 Rev - $~-~ Sa~,;,~ Recovery Fund 0.0 0.0 '~40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 240.0 Rev- $~_~_ Aquatic LaF,~$ 0.0 0.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 300.0 Rev - Wa St His~.,-;c Pr-~=~z-rva~ Grt 0.0 150.0 125.0 125.0 0.0 0.0 400.0 Rev - Private D~a~n. 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 125.0 0.0 200.0 Rev - Ame~'~can Legion Post 78 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 Rev - Olher Gra~[~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 800.0 800.0 SabkRal 75.0 ~75.0 665.0 525.0 125.0 _~,__'~0.0 4.,.~65.0 Total R=v~aues 180.0 1,960.0 t,1~0.0 9~0.0 ~_g.~_.0 2,730.0 7r610.0 BALANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0