HomeMy WebLinkAbout5051 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDINANCE NO. ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PLANNING; ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF R.C.W.
CHAPTERS 36.70A AND 35A.63 OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON; DESIGNATING THESE AMENDMENTS AS GUIDELINES FOR
EXERCISING THE CITY'S AUTHORITY UNDER THE WASHINGTON STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA); DIRECTING THAT THIS ORDINANCE
AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS IT ADOPTS AND APPROVES BE
FILED WITH THE AUBURN CITY CLERK AND BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC
INSPECTION.
WHEREAS,
Comprehensive
establishing
the City of Auburn on August 18, 1986 adopted a
Plan by Resolution No. 1703 which includes Map
the location of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designations throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on April 17, 1995 adopted
Comprehensive Plan Amendments by Resolution No. 2635 to comply
with the Washington State Growth Management Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn on September 5, 1995
reaffirmed that action by Ordinance No. 4788; and
WHEREAS, Draft Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments
were prepared by the Planning Department as proposed revisions
to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan; and
Ordinance NO. 5051
November 19, 1997
Page I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
WHEREAS,
transmitted to
1997; and
WHEREAS,
Comprehensive
accordance
Act; and
WHEREAS,
official newspaper at
the Comprehensive Plan text amendments were
the Auburn City Planning Commission in August,
the environmental impacts of the Draft
Plan text amendments were considered in
with procedures of the State Environmental Policy
after proper notice published in the City's
least ten (10) days prior to the date of
hearing,
and October 7, 1997,
amendments; and
WHEREAS, at
Commission heard
the Auburn Planning Commission on September 22, 1997
conducted public hearings on the proposed
the hearing, the Auburn City Planning
public testimony and took evidence and
exhibits into consideration of said proposed amendments;
WHEREAS, thereafter
made revisions and then
and
the Auburn City Planning Commission
recommended approval of the Draft
Comprehensive Plan map and text amendments and transmitted a
copy of its recommendation to the Auburn City Council through
Ordinance NO. 5051
Nover~ber 19, 1997
Page 2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
the Mayor, who acknowledged receipt thereof and directed the
Clerk to certify thereon the date of receipt; and
W/qEREAS, the Planning and Community Development Committee
of the Auburn City Council reviewed the Plannin9 Commission's
recommendations and forwarded the amendments to the Auburn
City Council; and
WHEREAS, within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the
Auburn City Planning Commission recommendation for the
proposed amendments the Auburn City Council, at a public
meeting, held after proper notice published in the City's
date of
1997, considered
by the Auburn City
the Planning and
official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the
hearings on November 3, 1997 and November 17,
the proposed amendments as recommended
Planning Commission and forwarded
Community Development Committee; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 1997,
by
the Auburn City Council
further considered and voted on the proposed amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Ordinance No. 5051
Novenlber 19, 1997
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~ The 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments are
herewith adopted and approved and it is herewith directed that
they be filed along with this Ordinance with the Auburn City
Clerk and be available for public inspection.
~ The 1997 Comprehensive Plan amendments modify
the Comprehensive Plan adopted on August 18, 1986 by
Resolution 1703 and adopted by Ordinance No. 4788 on September
5, 1995.
~ The Comprehensive Plan and amendments is
herewith designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive
authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act
by the City's responsible environmental official in accordance
with R.C.W. 43.21C.060.
~u~ If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion of this Ordinance or any of the
Comprehensive Plan amendments adopted herein, is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
Ordinance No. 5051
November 19, 1997
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
~ The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry
out the directions of this legislation to include
incorporating into one document the adopted Comprehensive Plan
map and text amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
preparing and publishing the amended Comprehensive Plan.
~ This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five days from and after its passage, approval, and
publication as provided by law except for Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendment No. 3 which will only take effect and be in
force upon the signing of a pre-annexation agreement with the
property owner or upon annexation of the property to the City
of Auburn.
Ordinance No. 5051
November 19, 1997
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ATTEST:
Dahielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Michael J. Reynolds,
City Attorney
Ordinance No. 5051
November 19, 1997
Page 6
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
December 15, 1997
December 15, 1997
December 15, 1997
CHARLES A. BOOTH
MAYOR
Adopted
1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
City of Auburn
Department of Planning and Community Development
November 17, 1997
Attachment "A"
Ordinance No. 5051
Summary of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
The adopted 1997 Comprehensive Plan amendments are as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #1 Amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation
for the site located at 307 Oravetz Place SE from heavy commercial to light industrial.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #2 Amend the Comprehensive Plan map designations
in the area bounded by "B" Street NW, 30th Street NW, the Auburn Airport and 16th Street NW.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #3 Amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation
for the property known as Terrace View located within the City's Pierce County potential
annexation area.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #4 Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map designations
for an approximately 31 acre City-owned area located east of "1" Street NE under the BPA power
lines from single family residential to public and quasi-public.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #5 Amend the comprehensive plan designations within
the Lea Hill potential annexation area to reflect the work of the Lea Hill Task Force.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #6 Amend the comprehensive plan map where
appropriate to ensure consistency between plan designation and zoning.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #7 Amend the comprehensive plan map designation
for the Stewart property to Light Industrial.
Policy/Text Amendment #1 Amend the "Timing of Amendments" section in Chapter 15:
Implementation to reflect Amends in State law.
Policy/Text Amendment #2 Amend the section entitled Land Use Inventory and Analysis of
Chapter 3: Land Use to reflect the land use survey Amend of June 1996 and the revised land
capacity analysis.
Policy/Text Amendment #3 Amend policy CE-3 of Chapter 13: Development in the
Unincorporated Areas and Annexation
Policy/Text Amendment #4 Amend policy AN1.7 of the Auburn North Business Area Plan to
permit drive in facilities, but only in limited circumstances and only as a secondary form of
access.
Policy/Text Amendment #6 Amend the Capital Facilities Plan to include the capital facilities
plan for the Derringer School District to enable the collection of impact fees within the school
district boundaries.
Policy/Text Amendment #7 Adopt the report of the Lea Hill Task Force as special area plan.
This report addresses the issues concerning annexation raised by the task force of Lea Hill
residents and other interested parties. The report includes proposed map revisions and policy
amendments affecting the Lea Hill potential annexation area.
Policy/Text Amendment #8 Adopt the new 1997 City of Auburn Parks and Recreation Plan.
Policy/Text Amendment ~ Adopt the new 1997 City of Auburn Transportation Plan.
Policy/Text Amendment #10 Amend the 1995 Water Plan to include additional information
regarding fire flows.
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment # 1
Description:
Request to change the comprehensive plan map designation for the site
located at 307 Oravetz Place SE from heavy commercial to light
industrial.
Map of ProPosed Change
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #2
Description:
Request to change the comprehensive plan map designations in the area
bounded by "B' Street NW, 30th Street NW, the Auburn Airport and
16th Street NW. The changes are proposed to reflect the Army Corps of
Engineers wetland determination on the site and City acquisition of
portions of the property to be used for expansion of airport facilities.
The site is currently designated light industrial with a small portion
designated as open space. The proposed changes will remove the open
space designation and will change the designation for the city-owned
portions to public and quasi-public.
Map of the proposed change follows.
,<
Z
uJ
Z
Z
-~ M Z
? < ~ ,,.
"~ Z
0
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment//3
Description:
Request to change the comprehensive plan map designation for the
· property known as Terrace View located within the City's Pierce
County potential annexation area (PAA). The site is located in the
northwesternmost corner of the City's PAA. The current designation for
the site is single family residential. The proposed change will replace
this designation heavy commercial. This change will make the City's
designation consistent with the Pierce County designation of MUD
(mixed use distric0 which reflects the owner's intent to develop the site
for commercial and multi-family uses.
A map of the proposed change
Z
LU
Z
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #4
Description:
Request to change the comprehensive plan map designation for 20.8
acres located east of I Street and north of approximately 31st Street NE
from high density residential and single family residential to moderate
density residential.
A second portion of this amendment covers the parcels to the north of
the 20.8 acres. The City is proposing to change the comprehensive plan
designation on that city-owned site to accommodate a future storm
detention facility.
A map of the proposed changes
Z
Z
·
0
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #5
Description:
Amend comprehensive plan designations within the Lea Hill potential
annexation area to reflect the work of the Lea Hill Task Force.
Two maps showing the proposed changes follow.
Z
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #6
Description:
Amend the comprehensive plan map where appropriate to ensure
consistency between plan designation and zoning.
A "key" map showing the location of the proposed changes, a
description of each change and a detailed map of each change follows.
Key Map for Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment 06
<
Z
Z
Z
0
Z
Z
I
~ .: :...-.. ..:.. .... ,::. 5/ . "'-~ .................. ,
__ ,, ...... :,.., ~ ;... .....,... ~ .......,
1,4.J ;..;,..~...:.: ;:. .,,. ,..~.... . ~ .... --k
.d # z
Z
0
z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
z
Z
Z
I.IJ
Z
Z
Z
~ Nunmnv
,qdJO
'7'
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #7
Description:
Change the comprehensive plan designation of the Stewart parcel to light industrial.
Policy/Text Amendment # 1
Description:
Update the "Timing of Amendments" section in C/mpter 15:
Implementation on page 15-13 to reflect changes in state law
concerning docketing of amendments and opportunities for
comprehensive plan amendments outside of the once per year
amendment cycle.
Timing of
Ameldments
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan should:AR occur no more frequently than
once every calendar year, except as allowed by State Law (RCW 36.70A. 130) or
in cases of emergencies described below. All amendment proposals shall be
considered concurrently so that the cumulative effect of the various proposals can
be ascertained. All amendments should, where feasible, be reviewed as part of a
coordinated SEPA process so that the environmental impacts may also be assessed
cumulatively.
While Comprehensive Plan amendments should only occur ortce per year as
described above, requests for comprehensive plan amendments may be filed at
anytime during the year. Those requests ~vill be "docketed'" until the next
appropriate annual amendment cycle.
Comprehensive plan amendments may be adopted whenever an emergency exists.
An emergency for purposes of plan amendments is defined in two ways. One, by
Chapter 2.75 of the City Code', and two, when the Planning Director determines
that an amendment is necessary to ensure compliance with RCW 35.70A (the
Growth Management Act.) In such instances, the planning Director will prepare a
written statement which clearly describes the reasons why the amendment is
necessary, why it must be considered immediately and how the amendment will
allow compliance with RCW 36.70A. This statement wilt be co~idered by both
the planning Commission .and the City Council in adopting the amendment.
Emergency amendments are not considered as the one amendment per calendar
year.
This Comprehensive Plan will be amended in several ways:
Adoption of a Plan Element
The formal adoption of a plan element is an amplification of the policy of the
Comprehensive Plan. As such it may involve some change to these, policies. When
a plan element is being processed the policies of the element should be compare.d
to the policies of the Plan itself and other planning elements. Appropriate
adjustments should be made to either resolve conflicts or to clarify. These
adjustments can be processed along with the consideration of the element. Adding
unrelated policy changes to the consideration of a planning element should be
avoided.
Special Amendment Due to Regulatory Process
Requests will be made for Plan amendments to accommodate development
projects which would be inconsistent with the Plan. Usually these amendments
also involve a rezone. These amendments shall be processed in accord with the
law governing plan amendments. Special scrutiny will be made during the SEPA
process to assess potential impacts of the Plan change. In addition to the
information needed to assess any rezone, staff analysis of the proposed rezone
should include a detailed assessment of the implications of the proposed change to
the Plan and its goals. Special care should be siren to include policy statements in
this analysis as well as the policy of the Comprehensive Plan Map. All needed
changes should be identified and considered in the same process. While any
affected rezone can be processed at the same time as a Plan ~mendment, the
amendment process will usually involve more time than a regular rezone,
particularly if the amendment request must be docketed nnti! the start of the anon,I
amendment process.
Policy/Text Amendment #2
Description:
Update the section entitled Land Use Inventory and Analysis of Ct~apter
3: Land Use to reflect the land use survey update of June 1996 and the
revised land use capacity analysis based upon the recommendations of
the King County Land Capacity Task Force.
Land Use Inventory
and Analysis
i The City of Auburn conducted a land use inventory in the Spring of 1994 to gain a
clearer picture of the land uses and paRe{ns that exist in Auburn today. The
inventory was uodated in June 1996 by suvvlementing the 1994 survey with all
· oermit acfivit~ in the Ci~ ~ince 1994, Analysis of this information makes it
possible to calculate Auburn's furore ,development potential or capacity. By
making some assumptions concerning the lands found to be vacant 6r
underutilized, it is possible to calculate Auburn's building capacity in terms of
future dwelling units and square footage of industrial and commercial space, This
capacity can then be compared to growth forecasts to ensure that Auburn has
sufficient capacity to meet them.
Auburn Today
Figure 3,1 provides an overview of the zoned acreage within the city. Land uses
were divided into eight major categoriea~ based uoon the types of zoning district.~
The labels for most of tho categories describe the zoned land use with ~the
exceotion of"uncla_~s~fi_ed" ......~ ~.e .....,:.._.
' ' v~-r .........r ..... "Unc!:.:::~e.l" land uses which
are regulated as if they were zoned For singJe Family residential deve{opment~
~' r' ~'~ ):' ......... , ...... :, *;/*"*:.'".*;*'*.,T.
Figure 3.1 provides inform~ion concerning the total acreage zoned for each tree
.o___f land use eat, ego~and the percentage of the total zoned=land within the city th-at
It represents. It distinguishes the acreage developed and the percentage of that
particular ~ that the developed land represents. Out of the city's
total 13.1_~112~.2,~t acres, developed land uses represent approximately 7d70% of
Auburn's total acreage, It is imoortant to note that develooed industrially zonol
I d d~.s be.m used for indu~
~tr}al uses [nom ,n e th devel men ma er sid rial.
Figure 3.1
Acreage of Land Zoned & Developed
· ~....,.· ,.a for Different Uses
Land Use Total % Devel % Total
Incresl Total facresl ocr Zone
Commercial 905 7% 735 g I%
In~itutional 97 1% 95 98%
Landing Field 19 0% 19 100%
Public 993 8% 986 99%
Residential 5,342 41% 3,137 59%
Unclassified 1,016 8% 587 58%
Not Sn~cified L676 ~3~ l,q;40 98~/~
totals 13,001 100% 9,070 70%
Land zoned for residential uses clearly predominate, comprising approximately
63735,2 ",2 acres or 49__.~% of the city.~_ Industrially zoned land
is the second most common, representing -25~-% of the city's total.- T.
Development
Calacit~
approximation of the city's development potential or capacity can be made through
an analysis of all of the vacant and underutilized land within the cit,!. Vacant land
is defined as any parcel with no structures. Underutilizedd~v~floped land is defined
as a parcel with potential for iht:il! or redevelopment. Underutilized
parcels met one of the following conditions: a single family residence
commercially or industrially zoned property; and/or a single family residence on a
parcel of land that is at least three times the minimum lot size tbr that zoning
district?..=d ::::fl f:r mu?2 f---!!y d=-..:!:r~.m:=t. In these situations, the land is
typically more valuable than the structure and redevelopment of these parcels is
likely over the long term. The mount of developable land can be estimated I>Ry
deducting from the total amount of vacant and underutilized land the area ::rang,;:
!=x. that will need to be dedicated for streets, roads, parks and critical areas, such
as steep slopes or wetland~dewdopabt~la~. Deductions for critical
areas will be monitored and revised as new data becomes available. Deductions
for wet lands are particularly prone to change due to envkonmental and
technological developments.
Figure 3.3 indicates the mount of developable land per zoning: district that is
either vacant or undemtilized~e-.-:!cpz~ after deductions have been made for fight-
of-ways and critical lands. Applying the allowable densities {allowable densities
measured as dwelling units(d.u.)} according to the zoning ordinance for that
specific residential district results in the available capacity in dwelling units. For
commercial and industrial districts, the densities (allowable density measured as
floor area ratios (FAR)} applied are based upon surveys of actual development in
Auburn over the last several years. Applying these floor area ratio figures to the
developable land results in the available capacity of commercial and industrial land
in square feet of floor space. Figure 3.3 indicates that Auburn has the capacity to
accommodate an~roximatelv 8,00~ additional dwelling units and
3,278,000c-.'cr 7,2!2,255 square feet of commercial and industrial space.
Figure 3.3
Available Land Capacity
Land Use Vacant U/Dev Densities Homing Space
55 8 5.45 337 N/A
0 1 .28 N/A 121000
1.615 488 N/A 8~016 .3..~78,000
Projected
Demand
It is important to note some of the limitations of this analysis. C. ommercial and
industrial development densities are based upon past trends. It is reasonable to
assume that as land becomes more scarce, and hence, more 'valuable, these
densities wilt increase, resulting in more efficient utilization of these parcels and
higher overall development potential. It also does not take into accounl mixed use
development as both residential and commercial development are permitted in
some of the districts. (For a more detailed analysis of Auburn's land capacity, see:
Cap it} lysi '
Land ac ' Aha s, ......
]~ ............. ese, Febmar~ 27,
Industrial/Commercial Demand
The total Projected jobs for Auburn (within the current city limits) for the years
1992-2012, based upon Puget Sound Regional Council (FSRC) forecasts and the
SuperMall of the Great Northwest EIS, is 11,465 new jobs~q~
ye~s. This falls within the employment target range for Auburn provided for in
the King County Countywide Planning Policies.
Outside the city limits, but within Auburn's potential annexation areal there is little
land zoned for commercial or industrial uses and therefore employm,mt projections
have not been made for these areas.
It is estimated that at comulefion of all vhases of the SuperMall that appr0xlmotely
4.200 lobs will be located at the SuoerMall_ Site.
:-.~: ......... ~ ~r a ,~ ~ ~ :~. .... ~ ~ ~t~ .... e ..... x#.n ~:.~ Since the SuperMal[,-
................ ~ .......... _ u. , ~_~ ....... j, was not counted as
either vacant or underutilized ...... v,,-- land; and these 4,200 iobs will all be
located at the SuperMall, only the remalnin~ jobs (7.265~ must be accommodated
-.bY the '~ n ........ ~ +~.~ e ..... ~, ~.~ : ..... :~..,~ e~,~c..~en~,2 -
underutilized land within Auburn m~:: ....... ~-*~ ^.-k ..... g ........ ~
The demand for industrial/commercial land is shown in Figure 3.4. The PSRC
forecast is broken down into five different job categories. Multiplying these jobs
by the space required per job results in a demand for 2,488,_0-1-00 square feet of
building space necessary to accommodate 7,248 new jobs.
Figure 3.4
Projected Space Requirements
for Additional Auburn Jobs
Manu facto~Wh/Trsns/TJ'. Retail Tr sale Scrviccs Ovmt To~al
Additional Jobs w/o
Supermall 14 909 1,795 4,026 504 7,248
Spa~ Requir~n~nt
p~r Employ~ x 500 sf xS00 sf x400 sf x300 sf x200 sf
Proj~:t~l Spa.c~
Requirement~ 7,000 454,500 718,000 1,207,800 100,gO0 2,488,100
I
Residential Demand
PSRC projections for household growth within the current Auburn city limits
indicate that approximately 6,149 new households will locate withha Auburn
between lOO~ a~a '~n~ ...... ~ ................ However, PSRC's 1992
projections did not take into account/=c!'a~e the impacts of the SuperMall of the
Great Northwest. The degree to which the SuperMall will impact housing demand
is debatable.
Some argue that the SuperMall will have little o~rto no impact. They contend the
SuperMall will provide lower paying retail jobs that will be filled predominantly by
secondary income earners. These secondary income earners will come either from
the rank~ of the structurally unemployed, underemployed or first-th~ne entrants into
the work force. Therefore, from a regional perspective, the SuperMall will likely
have only a marginal impact on regional job growth. Consequently, these jobs
would not, by themselves,
..... j cause a worker to relocate from their current
residence.
On the other hand, some argue that the secondary incomes provided by the
SuperMall will enable tenants to purchase their own homes. One (:an assume that
Demand-Capacit~
Comparison
a higher percentage of these employees will be attracted to the lower housing costs
of Auburn. This assumption results in a higher estimate of new households
represented in Figure 3.5.
Since the choice of where to live is dependent upon several factors, these numbers
are difficult to predict. For the purposes of this analysis we will assume that the
actual number will be somewhere between the two estimates or approximately
7,030 households. This estimate is based predominantly on cummt trends since
1990. It falls within the range for housing growth in Auburn provided for in the
King County Countywide Planning Policies.
Figure 3.5
Projected Household Growth
1992 to 2012
Total
Additional Additional
H.U. H.U.
Estimate w/out
SuperMall 6,149 6,149
Impact of SuperMall
-- Current Trends: 881 7,030
-- Higher Estimate 3,428 9,577
Preliminary forecasts for the potential annexation areas, based upon current land
use plans and regulations and a' household size'of 2.5 people per household are
approximately 2,900 households in the Lea Hill Section, 1,000 in the West Hills
section and 3,600 in the Pierce County section. The numbers for tha King County
areas will be revised in cooperation with adjacent jufisdiction.'~ when official
growth targets are adopted by the county for the unincorporated areas. Pierce
County projections are based upon the Proposed Lakeland Hills Son,th Mining and
Reclamation Plan and Planned Community Development: Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
Figure 3.6 ctmpares the projected demand for residential, industrial and
commercial land to the capacity aa calculated in figure 3.3. For all. three of these
uses, there appears to be sufficient capacity to meet future needs ~tth a su~cient
oversupply of capacity to avoid the scarcity of land from significantly increasing
market prices. The market factor will help to ensure that the market retaina
sufficient flexibility and that land values do not get overly constricted.
Figure 3.6
Projected Demand vs,vs Capacity
by Year 2012
+Vacant Land
+ Underdeveloped Land
Residential Comm/Industiral
{dwelling zml~} {sq. feet}
7,138 6,395,349
2,412 1,417,007
- A,~;i~Li, C,~vaclb
- Less Projeci~:l Ca'owth
+ Excess Capacity (s.f.)
= Excess Capacity (d.u.)
% Excess Capacity
;,$70
-7,030 -2,488,100
5,324,2~6
2,540
27% 68%
8000 3,278,000
(7030) (2,488,000)
970 790,000
h is imoortant to note that this comparison is between 1992 ~rowth targets and 1996
land caoaciw. A oortion of the,7030 dwelling units and 2,488,000 square feet
already been accommodated. The actual excess capacity is therefore more than
indicated in figure 3.6.
Policy/Text Amendment #3
Description:
Amend Policy CE-3 of Chapter 13: Development in the
Unincorporated Areas and Annexation. Policy currently states that
unless specified, newly annexed land will be zoned R-1 regardless of its
use or plan designation. The proposed change will result in newly
annexed land receiving a zoning designation consistent with its
comprehensive plan designation.
CE-3
The City of Auburn shall require anhexation as a condition of extending sewer and/or
water utility service to properties within the Potential Annexation Area and adjacent to the
City limits or are adjacent to properties that have signed preannexation agreements and are
adjacent to the city limits. If these properties are near other properties wkich have already
signed preannexation agreements, they will be combined, where possible, into a single
annexation. Extensions elsewhere within the Potential annexation area shall require the
signing cfa legally binding agreement to support annexation to the City at such time as the
City deems annexation appropriate. In these cases where immediate annexation is either
not required or not possible, the following conditions shall apply:
The property owner/developer shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that
adequate urban governmental services (including but not limited to storm and
sanitary sewer systems, streets and arterials, domestic water systems, parks and
open spaces, fire and police protection services, emergency medical services,
public schools and public transit services) will be provided to the development; and
· C.
The City should pre-zone the subject propen'y and the property owner/developer
shall agree to comply with appropriate City policies, subdivision and zoning
requirements where such requirements are not superseded by applicable County
requirements (in the event of siEnificant conflict between City and County
requirements, the City may choose to not extend utility service). The prezoning
will typically be to the City's designation which is most similar to the existing
County designation Concurrent with annexation, When:v:: ...... :-~ ~ ......
eccur, land shall be zoned consistent with comprehensive plan policy CE. lO R 1
The property owner/developer shall agree to comply with appropriate City
development standards and public facility specifications where such requffement~
are not superseded by applicable County requirements (in the event of siEnificant
conflict between City and County requirements, the City may choose to not extend
utility service). Any facilities to be dedicated to the City of Auburn upon
completion (e.g. sewer and water lines and appurtenances) shal]L be built strictly
according to City standards and specifications; and
The property owner/developer shall allow City plan review prior to construction,
and inspection during construction of all public improvements as they are built,
regardless of the ownership of such improvements, and shall reimburse the City for
any reasonable costs incurred in such plan review and inspection.
Policy/Text Amendment #4
Description:
Amends policy AN1.7 of the Auburn North Business Area Plan to
pemfit drive in facilities, but only in limited circumstances and only as a
secondary fom~ of access.
Service stations and automobile sales and/or leasing will not be permitted within
the planning Area. Automobile drive-in facilities (the person remains in the vehicle
to conduct their business at a drive-in facility), ' ' , omobite-sales
~-~. ~: ..... :. -~. ~. .... :..~ :~ .~ m~--:-~ ~ shall only be permitted
when clearly incidental and ~ubordinate to pedestrian access to the building. The
drive -in facility shall be attached to the building which must be a minimum of
5000 scluare feet in s/ze and not interfere, w/th pedestrian access. Drive-in facilities
for food and beverage service shall not be permitted.
Policy/Text Amendment #6
Description:
Amend the Capital Facilities Plan to include new project lists for
transportation and parks to enable the City to charge impact fees for
these facilities. Incorporate the capital facilities plan for the Derringer
SchOol District to enable the collection of impact fees from development
within the school district boundaries once the city annexes property
within Pierce County.
A copy of the Derringer School District Capital Facilities Plan follows.
DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT
CAPITAl. FACII ITI~S PLAN
1997 - 2003
BOARD APPROVED APRIl. 7, 1997
MarCh 1997'
DIF, RINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT
1320 178th Avenue East
Sumner, Washington 98390-9403
(206) 862-2537
Board of Directors
Elaine Swigart, Chair
Dr. Earl Floyd, Vice Chair
Larry Thompson
Will Julum
Preston Thompson
Dr. Gary C. Newbill, Sup&rirltendent
Prepared by
left Greene, AIA
Jeffrey L. Greene Associates
Architecture & Planning
March 1997
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
INDEX
I~ONTPIECE
INDEX
INTRODUCTION
SCHOOL DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS
FACrr .TTIES
TABLE 1:
0X-PS-l)
INVENTORY OF FACILITIES
MAP OF DISTRICT
FAC]L1TY BASIC INFORMATION
STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS
TABLE 2: ENKOLLMENT PROJECTION WITH NO
NEW CONSTKUCTION
TABLE 3: ENROLLMENT PKOJECTION WITH
CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWN
DEVELOPMENTS
TABLE 4: SIX YEAK ENROLLMENT PKOJECTION
(DSD FORMLrLA)
LEVEL OF SEKVICE
TABLE 5: LEVEL OF SERVICE
DEFINITION
PRACTICAL CAPACITY MODEL
THE SPACE ALLOCATION MODEL
ELEMENTAKY SCHOOLS - CAPACITY
MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL - CAPACITY
THE DISTRICT'S CONSTRUCTION PLAN
CONSTRUCTION FOR EHR. OLT .~
GROWTI-I
TABLE 6: CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR
ADDED CAPACITY
BUSES FOK ]~lXI1;[OT .T ,M]~X¥I' ~-'P~O'~/'rI..I
TABLE 7: CONSTRUCTION PRO/ECTS FOR.
SUPPORT FACIliTIES
Page i - ii
Page 1
Page 2
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6 - 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
Page 22
Diefinger School District 19~)7 Capital Facilities Plan
TABLE 8:
CONSTRUCTION POl~ ASSET
PRESERVATION
CONSTRUCTION FOR PROGRAM CHANGES
MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL - ADDITIONAL
CAPACITY
THE DISTRICT'S FINANCE PLAN
FUNDING SOURCES
TABLE 9: CONSTRUCTION FINANCE PLAN
Page 22
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
Page 23
Page 28
APPENDIX Page 29
TABLE IX-PS-I - INVENTORY OF FACILITIES Page 30
TABLE IX-PS-2 - CAPITAL PROJECTS LOS ANALYSIS Page 31
TABLE IX-PS-2A- SCHOOL DISTRICT SERVICE
STANDARD ' Page 32
TABLE IX-PS-2-1 - INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY PKOJECTS Page 33
TABLE IX-PS-3 - CFP PROJECTS AND FINANCING PLAN Page 34
TABLE IX-PS-5 - CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS
TO 2003 Page 35
TABLE IX-PS-SA - SCHOOL DISTRICT COST PEK
STUDENT Page 36
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Page 37
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Page 38
ii
Died'inter School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Capital Facih'ties Plan is for Dicfinger School District to respond to the
information needs of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan. It is submitted in support of the
1997 amendments to update the Capital Facilities Element.
The plan addresses the anticipated capital facility needs through thc 2002/2003 school year.
The plan addresses thc following elements:
· Review the inventory of District facilities and undeveloped property.
· Analyze the current and projected growth in student enrollment within the District's boundaries
and review the student demograpMcs of the disffic~
Analyze the ability of current facilities to meet the current curriculum and program offerings for
students and members of the public; including accessibility to all District services, programs
and activities. Establish a level of service to accomplish the District's programs.
Recommend additions and/or modernization of existing facilities and consmaction of new
facilities to meet the needs of thc students and the educational programs being offered by thc
Distric~
Analyze the financial ability of the District to provide capital funds, assess different funding
strategies, and develop an implementation plan for. achieving the capital improvements as
outlined in the Capital Facilities Plan.
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
17. SCHOOL DISTRICT DESCRIPTION
TH]g COM3IUN1TY
Dieringer School District No. 343 is located in unincorporated Pierce County, bounded on the
east by the White River, on the west by the Stuck River, on the north by the City of Auburn, and
on the south by the cities of Bonney Lake and Sumner. The District surrounds the northern two-
thirds of Lake Tapps and covers approximately 5.5 square miles.
Established in 1890, Dieringer School District consolidated with Lake Tapps School District in
1936. Th~ Districts 2 schools - Lake Tapps Elementary and North Tapps Middle - are hubs for
community activities, as well as kindergarten through 8th grade education.
MISSION STATEMENT
Together, we the. school, home and
community are committed to
encouraging all individuals toward
effective participation in our dynamic
global society.
OUR BELIEFS
Positive parent involvement is an essential part of each child's education.
Personal wellness and self-esteem stem flom individual student achievement and recognition
at home, in school, and in the community.
Celebrating the unique abilities and gifts of each student is basic to a successful education
program.
A global perspective and support for diversity in the classroom, community and world are
· wital characteristics of a public school student's education.
The skill and ability to creatively find and solve problems are important expressions of
critical thinking.
An openness to learning and growing is the ultimate goal of schooling for each student.
Excellence in all endeavors must be a common goal for staffand students.
A community involved in its schools will encourage students to partidpate in their
community and world and to become good stewards of the earth and its resources.
2
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
All students must develop social skills ~nd civic responsibility, in order to work
cooperatively and become self-sufficient, independent and interdependent.
10. A fundamental understanding of the applications of technology are necessary.
11. An understanding of the arts and humanities are required aspects of an educated citizenry.
PROGRAMS
Dieringer School District provides the full range of educational programming for students in
kindergarten through 8th grade, including basic subjects, technology', special se~rices, and co-
curricular activities. High school students residing in the District attend Auburn Riverside,
· Sumner, or other schools of their choice.
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
FACILITIES
Facilities include North Tapps Middle School, Lake Tapps Elementary School, Administration
Building, and Bus/Shop Building, as well as approximately 23 acres of undeveloped land.
TABLE 1:
TABLE IX-PS-l:
INVENTORY OF FAC" .trIES
CURRENT FACILiri~S INVENTORY
DIEKINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
The inventory of current Public School capital facilities includes the following:
NAME CAPACrI'Y . LOCATION
Elementary School
Lake Tapps 500
North Tapps 410
Middle School
High School
Provided at Neighboring
Dis~icts
TOTAL 910
1320 178th Avenue East, Sumner
20029 12th Street East, Sumner
(1) All portables are excluded from permanent capacity.
m.-,--i
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
DIe. RINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Name: I.aklOg TAPI~S ELEMlgNTARY SCHOOL
Date: March 1997
FACILITY - BASIC INFORMATION
1. Name
2. Address
TaxlD #
3. Academic Grade Levels
4.' Area of Site -- Total
5. Year Site Purchased
6. Building Area to Date
7. Number of Buildings
8. Year Built
9. Modernizations and Additions:
(Date and/or S.F.)
Lake Tapps Elementarv School
1320 178thAvenue Ea~
Sunmer, WA 98390
05-20-05-4031,4033,4044,4018,4067
25.90 Acres
44,175
8
1970
Arc~tect: Le~ Pearson&Richards
Addition completed 1978
Added I00 Wing and Administration/Library
Building.
Consultant: Lea, Pearson & Richards
Addition completed 1980
Added 300 Wing, Gymnasium
Consultant: Lea, Pearson & Richards
6
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT
Facility Name: North Tapps Middle School
Date: March 1997
FACILITY - BASIC INFORMATION
1. Name:
2. Address
TaxID #
3. Academic Grade Levels
4. Area of. Site - Total
5. Year Site Purchased
6. Building Area to Date
7. Number of Buildings
8. Year Built
Modernizations and Additions:
(Date and/or S.F.)
North Tapps Middle School
20029 12th Street East
Sumner, WA 98390
6-8
44 Acres
1991
54,818 S.F.
1
1992
Consultant: BI~R + B
Type V IH~ per 1988 UBC
Fully Spfinklered
Parking: 236 cars
11 buses
NORTH TAPP$ MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE
Diefin~er School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
lII. STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS
The District has reviewed historical enrollment trends and historical and projected rates of
construction of residential construction. Although there are numerous factors that influence the
number of students that will be attending school in Dieringer School District facilities, the single
most important factor is the number of residential units constructed within the District Extensive
observation, monitoring of residential land use actions and discussions with developers has led the
District to the conclusion that the rate of residential construction has recently accelerated and that
the rate will remain rapid for a number of years. The District firmly believes that, as a result, the
number of students attending Dieringer schools willincrease rapidly for a number of years.
The District has examined several analytical techniques to quantify thc expected increase in
enrollment.
The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction utilizes a Five Year Average Cohort Survival
Projection. The technique calculates the average change in enrollment from one grade to the next
higher grade the following year. The five year average of the percentage of second graders
becoming third graders becomes the second grade survival factor which is ufili?ed in projecting
future second graders becoming third graders. The technique is simple and adequate when the
future growth rate is consistent with the growth rate of the last five years. The technique cannot be
adjusted for changes in the rote of construction of residential units.
The state projects no growth in enrollment in Dieringer School District Projected enrollment in
2003 is 639 students in grades K-5 and 373 students in grades 6, 7 and 8. This offieisl SPI
projection is the basis of State matching funds and therefore, becomes the single most important
projection. Table 2, attached, approximates the SPI cohort projection.
Through research and experience of other neighboring districts, Diefinger School District believes
that each new residential unit generates about 0.78 K through 12 students. The District monitors
most residential subdivisions throughout the District. There are currently 4274 residential units
proposed within Dieringer School District. These proposed residential developments represent a
potential increase in enroliment of nearly 3000 K-8 students. If build o.ut occurs within five years
enrollment could grow to 4000 students by the year 2003..
The final projection technique (TABLE 3) u*ili:,,-,s cohort analysis but integrates various
demographic trends. New single family and multi-family residential units generate students at
different rates. Existing residences older than six years generate students at lower rates. Family
sizes in the future are smaller by about 10% in 20 years. The number of children per home varies
in a thirty year cycle reflecting the "baby boom" cycle we have seen since World War II. Cohort
factors are generally close to one with the exception of kindergarten, first and second grades where
there is significant deviation reflecting multi-tracks for introducing children to school.
With the rapid build out expected of platted developments and with the rapid build out schedule of
Lakeland proposed by the developer, enrollraent is projected to exceed 1746 K-~ students and 831
6-8 students by the year 2002. The district expects nearly 800 9-12 high school students res~rllng
in the district attending high schoolin neighboring districts.
12
D~ER~NOER BCHOOL D~STR~CT
RES~DENT~.~ DEvELOPH.ENT
December 4~ 1996
o~czt Ric~e
T~,~ view (Est. z~t ~.~)
30
61
200
389
10
28
12
10
62
22
2O0
1,024
3,000
250
3,250
14
Dicrin~¢r School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
IV. LEVEL OF SERVICE
Dieringcr School District has adopted an orga~iT~tion that houses kindergarten through fifth grade
in elementary school, sixth, seventh and eighth grade in middle school and ninth through twelfth
grade in high school that is provided in adjacent school districts, primarily Auburn.
Dieringer School District has adopted a traditiona~ calendar beginning in early September and
completing in mid Sune.
Dieringer School District has adopted a t~<litional daily schedule with academic classes beginning
between 7:30 am and 9:30 am and completing mid afternoon.
Although Dicfinger School District continues to smd)' alternate organizations, calendars and
schedules, the Dieringer School District believes the adopted orga~iT~tion :is educationally sound
and reflects community values.
By contract Dieringer School District has agreed to limit average class size to 25 students for
g~ades K through 2 and 28 students for grades 3 through $ and 30 students for grade 6 through 8.
The educational program taught by Dieringer School District includes individual and small group
work as well as full class activities. Portable classrooms do not allow the full range of educational
activities envisioned by Dieringer School District and are, therefore, considered unacceptable as
permanent classroom space and are excluded from our level of service calculation. Portables are
considered adequate for supplemental programs.
The capacity for each facility is established by multiplying the permanent classrooms awil~hle b)
the educational goal limitations on average students per class. This seat capacity is factored by a
maximum s.eheduli~..g efficiency that accounts for v. ariations in enrollment daring the year and for
deviations m enromnent by grade. Core faciliUes and special use facilities are ~ompared to
classroom capacity to confirm that facility capacity is not limited by limitations in core facilities. If
type of facilities are not balanced with program requirements, capacity is optimized by assuming
the capacity constraint is mitigated through constructing new facilities to balance facility with the
program prior to establishing a level of service for new students. '
TABLE 5:
Facili _ty
North Tapps
Middle School 54,818
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Adjusted Ad_iusted Level of
Area CapaciLy Area Caoacity Service
410
134
Lake Tapps
School
44,175 500 88.4
16
Dierin~er School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
The Dieringer School District adopts a level of service based on maximi~ng enrollment in current
facilities with modifications to minimize the SF/Student. The LOS adopted by Diednger School
District is as follows:
Facility LOS
Middle School
Elementary School
134 SF/Student
88.4 SF/Student
The level of service is presented as an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by each
type capital facility. It is presented in a square foot per student format for convenience. The level
of service is dictated by the amount of space required to accommodate thc District's adopted
educational program. The LOS will change as the District changes its educational program and it
must be reviewed and modified periodically.
DEFINITION
With respect to public schools, the "level of service" is a measure of thc school buildings provided
for the purpose of supporting the insmaction of students. Most often, the measure of service is
reported as the number of students a school is designed to accommochtte (i.e. the Practical
Capacity). However, the number of square feet each student is afforded (i.e. Space Allocation) is
also used as a measure of service.
The level of service (LOS) is dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate
the District's adopted educational program. The educational program standards which typically
drive facility space needs include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational
program offerings, classrooms utiliTation and scheduling requirements, and-the use of portable
classroom facilities.
Goverm-nent mandates and community expectations may affect how classroom space is used.
Traditional educational programs offered by school districts are often supplemented by non
traditional, or special programs such as special education, bilingual education, remediation, alcohol
and drag education, AIDS education, preschool programs, computer lab, :music programs, etc.
These special or non traditional programs can have a signifieafit impact on the student capacity of
school facilities.
District educational program standards and government mandates will undoubtedly change in the
future as a result of changes in the school year, special programs, claa~s sizes, grade span
configurations, use of new technology, and other physical aspects of the school facilities. The
LOS '~I1 be reviewed periodically and adjusted for any changes to the educational program
standards. These changes will also be reflected in future updates of this Capital Facih'ties Plan
(C~).
PRACTICAL CAPACITY MODEL
The Practical Capacity Model calculates student capacity based on limitations that existing facili&s
place on enrollment due to existing educational program, opemtlng policy and conuactual
restrictions.
17
Diefinger School Distdct 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
The calculation is made by reviewing the room use of each room in each facility. For every room
housing students, a calculation is made assigning a maximum number of studenfs per room (the
attached calculaton limits standard classrooms to 25 students for graded K-2 and 28 students for
grades 3-5 and 30 students for grades 6-8).
Oran co~e factories, such as size of cafeteria or size of gym, number of restrooms or size and
number of specialty areas such as shops, limit enrollment to levels below that expected by room
occupancy levels.
Occupancy at secondary schools is further limited by scheduling limitations and student course
selection. If rooms are ufili~A by staff for their planning period in a seven period day, capacity is
limited to 86% (6/7) of the theoretical capacity. Since secondary schools offer a number of elective
courses, many courses will not at. act a full classroom of students.
SPACE ALLOWANCE MODEl ,
The Space Allowance Model calculates student capacity based on an allowanoe of a certain number
of building square footage for each student.
The space allowance model has a great deal of credibility because the State of Washington assists
local school districts in funding school construction in accordance with a space allowance model
that allows 80 SF per elemeatm-y school student, 110 SF per junior high student and 120 SF per
senior high student. The state allows 140 SF per special needs student at any grade level. The
state does not consider portable space as part of a school district's building inventory.
18
;ALCULATION OF ROOMS REQUIRED TO HANDLE EDUCATIONAL ~IISSION
MIDDLE SCHOOL 6-8.
~e~e_._ o o o ~ o.* o.~ ~ o~
lab 1 I I 410 ~ 0.~ ~3.s 7
~ATH '?:enc I I ~ 4~0 ~ 019 is ?___~ 2~,
:INE.~S ~io 9~s 0.25 0.2~ to2.s ~ 0.~ 3.~6 0.~
ELECT~_ ~OT~L o o o
gF~c o o o o: ~ o9 oo ~ o.~
shop o o o o ~ o.o oo
f
STUDE~.- ~ 33 33 1~ ~EPIr~r~ ~.T~
~ 139.4 13S.3 135.3 TOTAl ~ ~ ~TAOl;
~M q~)cl~ ~ ~ 2
I )YM ~ ,
MUS~ ,.__~ --
20
Dierin[[er School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
V. THE'DISTRICT'S CONSTRUCTION PLAN
The District's construction plan is partially funded. Funding depends on securing local funding
through mitigation fees, bond issues and other sources. Thc citizens' of tile district approved a
$9,900,000 bond issue on March 11, 1997. The District will attempt to secure state matching
funds to the max&mum extent possible.
The District's construction plan has three elements: (1) construction for enrollment growth, (2)
construction for asset preservation and, (3) construction for program changes.
CONSTRUCTION FOR ENROLLMENT GROWTH
Thc District anticipates cnrollmcnt to grow to 1746 ¢lemcntary studcnts and 831 middlc school
students by the year 2003.
To accommodate growth the District anticipates constructing two new elementary schools, a new
middle school, and adding to the existing middle school.
TABLE 6: CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR ADDED CAPACITY
ESTIMATED ADDED
PRO~C~ COST ~ACTrY
Elementary School 452 (1999)
Elementary School $$3 (2002)
Middle School Addition (1999,2002)
Middle School $$2 (2003)
High School Capacity (Purchased at other dlsuicO
Portables at Schools
Site Acquisition (2 elementary sites, 1 middle
school site. 49 acres @ $55,000)
TOTAL
$ 8,660,000 550
10,425,000 600
3,300,000 220
11,700,000 400
3,500,000 350
240,000 0
2.695.000
$40,520,000 2120
*Es~nated cost is in dollars as of date of bid.
To accommodate growth,at the elementary school the District has passed a $9,900,000 bond issue
in 1997 and may s~k additional funding within the next six years.
To accommodate growth at thc middle school thc DisUict has passed funding a four (4) classroom
addition with the 1997 bond issue and may seek additional funding within the next six years.
High school capacity is prodded by paying a proportional share of facilities in a neighboring
school district Capacity was just recently purchased at $10,000 per student.
Temporary provision to house students may require three double portables at :an estimated ~ed
cost of $80,000 each. ($240,000)
Sites must be acquired for additional facilities. Estimated cost is $2,695,000.
21
Dierin~er School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
BUSES FOR ENROLLMENT GROWTH
In addition, additional buses are required. Estimated cost is $1000 per elementary school child.
Total cost estimated to handle enrollment growth is $1,146,000.
CONSTRUCTION FOR SUPPORT FACILITIES
Support facilities construction required to support the estimated growth in enrollment is as follows:
TABLE 7: CONSTRUCTION FOR SUPPORT FACILITIES
Technology
Transportation/Maintenance/Admin.
$ 600,000
$ 2,O00,O00
Dieringer School Disu'ict must continue to monitor support facilities needs with the projected rapid
growth in enrollment. We anticipate a need for 15 - 20 additional busses which may requir
additional bus support facilities.
TABLE 8: CONSTRUCTION FOR ASSET PRESERVATION
The District has identified the following projects for asset p.res.ervation.
PROJECT ESTIMATED
COST
1) Elementary School Roof Replacement
2)" Elementary Scho?l Mechanical System Renovation
$ 140,000
6o.ooo
$ 200,000
CONSTRUCTION FOR PROGRAM CHANGES
The District has not identified any construction to reflect progt-am changes.
Dierin~er School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
VI. THE DISTRICT'S FINANCE PLAN'
INTRODUCTION
Thc Dieringer School District clearly recognizes thc long range of capital facilities planning. The
development of the District's Construction Program spoken to earlier in flae mpon addresses the
District's need for permanent housing to accommodate the additional students projected to enroll
over the next six years. Additional items may be added to make needed code improvements,
energy enhancements and educational upgrades to a number of the District's existing facilities.
In conjunction with a Construction Plan, the Dis~ct obviously needs ~ means of financing to
implement the District's Conslractiun Plan.
FUNDING SOURCES
The Washington State Constitution mandates educational opportunity for gal children in Ardcle IX
Section I:
"It is the paramount duty of the State to make ample provision for the education of
all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account
of race, color, caste or sex."
Court cases have subsequently determined that the legislature is responsible for "full funding of
basic education" and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instructi~a has been assigned the
overall responsibility for assuring the operations of public education for grades K through 12. The
state provides the funds for the basic education through a formula based on student enrollment and
special student needs. The disUict, through use of a local levy may "enrich" the educational
program from local property tax sources. Capital needs are addressed separately.
School districts utilize budgets consisting of a number of discrete funds. However,. for the most
part the capital needs for any school system are addressed y~ith the Capital Projects Funds and the
Debt Service Fund.
The Capital Projects Fund is used for purposes such as; (a) to fin,'mce the purchase and
development of school sites; (b) the construction of new facilities and the modemiTation of existing
facilities; and (c) the purchase of initial equipment, library books and text books for new facilities.
Revenues accruing to the Capiufl Project Fund come primarily from bond :issue proceeds; the sale
of property, transfem from the General Fund and conlributions can also be accrued to the Capital
Projects Fund. Under the authority of the Growth Management Act (GMA), impact fees will be
accrued to the Capital Fund. Voluntary mitigation funds that accrue under: the authority or SEPA
of the State Subdivision Act will be deposited in the Districfs Capital Projects Fund.
The Debt Service Fund is used as a mechanism to pay for bonds. When a bond issue passes, a
school district sells bonds which have a face value and an interest rote. Local property taxes are
adjusted to provide the funds necessary to racet the approved periodic payments. Funds arc
deposited in the Debt Service Fund and drawn out for payments at the appropriate times.
Dierin~er School District 1997 Capitol Facilities Plan
As noted earlier, school districts receive funds for capital program purposes from a variety
sources. Those sources arc dcsc~ibext as fo]low~:
BONDS
Bonds are financial instruments having a face value and an interest rate which is determined a~ the
time and by the conditions of their sale. Bonds are backed up by the "full faith and credit" of the
issuing school district and may be paid from proceeds derived from a specifin increase in property
taxes for that purpose. The increase in the taxes results in the "excess levy" of taxes beyond the
constitutional limit, so the bonds must be approved by a vote of the people in the jurisdiction
issuing them. They require both an extraordinary plurality of votes and' a specifin minimum
number of voters for validation. The positive votes must equal or exceed 60 percent ef the total
votes cast on the issue and the total number of voters must equal or exceed 40 percent of the total
number of voters in the school district who cast ballots in their last general election.
Bonds are multi-year financial instruments, generally issued from 10 to 20 years. The total of
outstanding bonds issued by the jurisdiction may not exceed five (5) percent of the assessed
valuation of the property within that jurisdiction at the time of issuance.
The clistriet currently has an assessed valuation of $ 497,749,446. The bond limit is therefore
$24,887,475. ..T.h.e.district currently has about $10,965,000 debt leavim~ canacitv le~u
$14,000,000. Wire me recently passed bond issue, remaining additional capihity
$4,000,000.
t J~-VIES
School Boards can submit levy requests to the voters of a district These too are measures Which
will raise the property tax rate beyond the constitutional limits. Levy apprc,val differs from the
approval requirements for bonds. The minimum necessary plurality is still calculated to equal or
exceed 60 percent of the total ballots cast. However, the minimum number of voters needing to
cast ballots is expanded beyond the flat 40 percent of the total number of voters in the last general
elections. Validation can also be achieved if the total of those voting in favor of the issue equals or
exceeds 60 percent of the number who voted in the last election, regardless of the total number of
~ in the levy election. In other words, the levy election is ratified i/! the total number of
"yes" votes equals or exceeds 24 percent of those who voted in the last general election.
The Sec~tary of State issues a schedule of approved election dates each year. The first time
arotmd, the School Board must place its proposed measures on one of those d~'ttes. If the measure
fails at the first election, the Board can re-submit it to the voters after a minimmn period of 45 days
and on any date they choose. If the measure fails for a second time during the calendar year (a
double levy loss), it cannot be re-submitted again during the year.
~ differ from bonds in that they do not result in the issuance of a financial instrument
and, therefore, do not affect the" ' "
bonded mdebteduess of a school district This method of
financing is a straight increase in property tax rates to produce a voter approved dollar amount.
The amount generated from the capitallevy is then available to a district in the approved year. The
~ levy rate itself is dem, .fi~.ed by dividing the number of dollar~ al~Droved bv the
valuation of the total school district at the time the taxes are set by the (~ot~n'ty Council. assessed
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
While a typical period for capital levies is one (1) or two (2) years, they can be approved for up to
a six (6) year period at one election. The amounts to be collected are identified for each year
separately and the ~x rate set for each individual year. Like bond issues, capi~ levies must be
used for the specific capital purpose(s) for which they were passed. They ca,not be converted to a
non-capital or operating ptupose.
ODerafin~ Levies are used to supplement a district's educational prograra offerings. They support
athletics, art, music, physical education and a multitude of other insm~cfional and non-instructional
programs not fully addressed by state apportionment for basic education. 'I~ey can also support
special categorical funded programs for handicapped, bilingual, early childhood, gifted education,
and others. Funds can be ~ansferred ~rom operating levy sources to help pay for capital needs,
although it is rarely done.
Operating levies are limited in size by the total of approved state apportionment and categorical
funds (a calculation involving not only state funds but some federal pass-through funds as well).
They are not to exceed twenty percent of the approved state total. In come cases, this limit will be
modified to allow for a gradual reduction of levy support to the twenty percent total when
enrollment loss or other unusual circumstances lower the approved state support in an unexpected
way. Operating levies can be approved for either one or two years at a single election.
STATE MATCHING FUNDS
The State of Washington has a Common School Construction Fund. The State Board of Education
is responsible for adminls~ation of the funds and the establishment of matching ratios on an annual
basis. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), on behalf of the State Board
of Education, has determined that Dietinger School Dislrict 1996-19g? 'mateMng ratio is
44.34 percent, for the expenses that are defined as matchable.
The base to which the percent is applied is the cost of construction, as de~fiae by the Boeckh
Index. The Boeckh Index is an index of construction costs that is used by the state to help define
or limit thek level of support. This particular consmacfion cost index rarely matches the actual cost
of school construction in districts across Washington State. Nevertheless, the Boeckh Index for
school construction costs as of February 1997 is $94.07 per-square foot (less 7% state sales tax).
The formula for determining the amount of state matching support can be expressed as A x B x C =
D where:
A = eligible area (determined by OSPI's student square foot allowances)
· B = the Boeckh Index (in dollars per square foot)
C = a school district's applicable matching ra~e
D = thc amount of state fiscal assistance to which a district will be entitled.
Q, alificafion for state matching funds involves an application process. Districts may submit
information for consideration by the State Board of Education which meets once every two months
during the year. Once approved, a district q,~llt%s for matching funds in a sequence which
recognizes the existing approvals of previous submiitals. Failure of a school district to proceed
with a project in a timely manner can result in loss of a district's "place in Line"'.
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
Funds for the state match come from the Common School Construction Fund using revenues
accruing predominantly from the sales of renewable resources, primarily timber, from thc state
school lands set aside by the Enabling Act of 1889. If these sources am insufficient to meet current
need, the legislature can appropriate ~daltional funds or the State Board of Education can establish
a moratorium on certain projects (Chapter 180, Section 25-33 of the Washington Administrative
Code.
Market demand for timber and wood products has been declining over the past decade, resulting in
a substantial decrease in state matching revenues. Efforts in the State Legislature to supplement
fimber-generated revenues with general fund monies have been only partially successful. As noted
in the WAC 180-27-057, in the event that state matching monies are not available to fund a specific
school project, then school ctistdcts may proceed at their own financial risk. At such time state
monies do become available, reimbursement will be made to the district for the state's share of said
school project.
MITIGATION/IMPACr FEES
According to RCW 82.02.050, the definition of a impact fee is "... a payment of money imposed
upon a development as a con&'tion of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to
se/'ve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that
creates arbtitional demand and need for public facilities that reasonably benefit the new
development. 7mpact fee' does not include a reasonable permit of application fee."
Mitigation of Impact Fees can be calculated on the basis of "unhoused student need" or "the
maintenance of a district's level of service" as related to new residential development .4
determination of insufficient existing permanent and/or portable school space allows a district to
seek imposition of mitigation ofimpsct fees. The mounts to be charged are then calculated based
on the costs for providing the space and the projected number of students in each residential Unit.
A districfs School Board must first approve the application of the mitigation of impact fees and, in
turn, approval must then be granted by the other general government jurisdictions having
responsibility within the district's boundaries (e.g. counties, cities, and towns). In the Die. finger
School District those general governmental jadsdictions include the County of Pierce.
Furthermore, developers may contribute properties which will have value to a district. In such
cases, the developer is entitled to credit for the actual cost of the provided property. This credit can
reduce or eliminate the mitigation of impact fee that would be chargeable under the
mitigationfanpact calculation.
FUNDING FROM VOLUNTARY MITIGATION
The District does not anticipate collecting voluntary mitigation fees.
IMPACT FEES
Proposed impact fees for the Dieringer School Dis~ct are shown in thc Appcndix. Impact fee
calculation is based on The Pierce County Formula and results in a fee of $4,608 per single family
and $2,294 per multi family unit.
26
Dierin~er School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
Other minor sources of funding include grants, bequests, proceeds from the sales of property and
the like. They are usually a small part of the total financing package.
SURPLUS FUNDS FROM EXISTIlqG BONDS
The District currently has no surplus funds in its Capital Accounts Funds.
STATE MATCHING FUNDS
The District has not qual~ed for state matching funds for capital facilities.
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
Table 9: CONSTRUCTION FINANCE PLAN
I'i'~:M EXPENSE INCOME
Const~action for Enrollment $ 40,025,000 $
Growth
Buses $ 1,146,000
Property Acquisition $ 2,695,000
Asset Preservation $ 200,000
Program Changes 0
Support Facilities $ 2,600,000
Funds Balance $ 0
Voluntary Mitigation/Impact $ 4,373,075 Estimated
Fees
Bond Issue $ 9,900,000
State Matching Funds $ 0
(no tund~ lmve >'et ~n s~cur~)
Unfunded Balance $ 32,392,925
TOTAL $ 46,666,000 $ 46,666,000
The current District unused bonding capacity is estimated to be $14,000,000. All dollars are
expressed in dollars as of estimated date of construction.
28
Diefinger School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
29
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
TablelX-PS-I. Current Facilities lnventory -Dieringer SchoolDistrict
Public Schools
The inventory of current Public School capital facilities includes the following:
Name Capacity Location
(Number of
Students)
Dieringer
Elemcnta~
Lake Tapps 500 1320 178th Ave. E., Sumner
Middle
North Tapps 410 20029 12th St. E., Sumner
TOTAL 910
3O
Diefinger School District 1997 Capkal Facilities Plan
Table IX-PS-2. Capital Projects LOS Capacity Analysis - Dieringer School District
Public School Facilities
(No~e: Individual projects are listed on Table
DISTRICT SERVICE STANDARDS PEK TABLE IX-PS-2A
Time Period
t996 Actual
1996 to 2003: Growth
Total as 2003
Capacity Projects
Number of
Students
963
1614
Square Capacity
Footage
910
Net Reserve
or
Deficienq
-53
2577 910 -1667
Dieringer
NET
1770
TOTAL
103
* Capacity Projects do not include high school capacity for 350, that must be provided at
neighboring school districts.
31
Diefinger School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
Table IX-PS-2A. School District Service Standards - Dieringer School District
Public School Facilities
(Square Feet per Student)
District Name
DI]~RINGEK
Elementary
Schools
88.40
Middle
Schools
133.70
Junior High
Schools
Senior High
Schools
(1)
(1) Dieringer School District is required by statute to fund, in pan, high school facilities in other
districts serving their high school student.
32
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
ATTACI-IMg-NT IX-PS-2-1. Dieringer SchoolDistrict
Public Schools Facilities
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY PROJECTS
Diefinger
El&mentary
Elementary #2
Elementary #3
Middle
Middle #1 Addition
Middle #1 Addition
Middle #2
Senior High
Purchased Share
Capacity
550
600
N~mc
100
120
410
350
33
Diefinger School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
TableIX-PS-3. CFPProjects and Financing Plan - Dieringer SchoolDistrict
Sources and Uses of Funds
(x $1,ooo)
Public School Facilities
Sources/Uses
Sources of Funds
Existing Revenues:
Bond proceeds, Reserve
New t~evcnue:
Bonds, Levies, Fees, State Matching
Funds, Dedications, Mitigation Payments
Total Sources
Use of Funds
Capacity Projects:
Dieringer - 6 Projects
Non-Capacity Projects:
Dieringer
Total Costs
Balance
Surplus or (Deficit)
1997- 2000 2000- 2003 Total
9,900
3,030 33,736 46,666
~ 27,590 40,520
6,146
12,930 [ 33,736 46,666
0 ~ 0 0
34
Diefinger School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
Table IX-PS-5. Capital Facility Requirements, to 2003 = Dieringer School District
Public School Facilities
(See Table IX-PS-Sa for individual rates at each level)
Student
Capacity
Time Period
Student i Student
Population i Demand
1996Aemal
Dieringer (1)
1997 - 2003 Growth
Dieringer
Non-Capacity Costs
Total Cost as of 2003
963
2577
963
2577
910
Net Dollar
Reserve or Cost
Deficiencl [ ($1000)
- 53
- 1667 40,520
6,146
46,666
(1) K - 8 only; high school students attend high schools in other districts.
35
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
Table IX-PS-SA. School District Construction Cost Per Student
Dieringer School District
Public School Facilities
(Dollars as of' date of bid)
Dieringer
District Name
Elementary
Schools
16,596
Middle
Schools Schools
24,194
JuniorHigh j SeniorI-Iigh
! Schools
* Cost of purchasing capacity from other districts is estimated at $10,000 per s~adent.
36
Dieringer School District 1997 Capital Facilities Plan
School Impact Fee Calculation Pierce County Formula
From Six Year Capital Facility Plan
DESCP~TION' ELEMENTAllY MIDDLE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL
Student Generation 0.466 0.165 0.136
Factor
Site Cost per Student 1,100 3,438 0
Construction Cost per 16,596 24,195 10,000
Student
Portable Cost per 800 800 0
Student
OSPI Area per Student 80 110 120
Boeckh Index 94.07
OSPI Matching Ratio 0.4434
Bond Interest Rate 5. I% 1.6444746 1.051
Bond Term 20
Ay. Ass'd Value for 189,000 90,000 Est.
DU Type
Bond Rate .0020408
SINGLE FAMILY MULTI FAMII.y
CALCULATION' A (Land) $1079.87 $ 539.94
· B (Build) $13,085.91 $ 6542.96
C (Port) $ 504.80 $ 242.40
D (SPI C) $ 2992.74 $1496.37
TC (Tax C) $ 2963.95 $1481.97
TOTAL (A+B+C-Do $ 8713.89 $ 4356.95
FEE (50%) $ 4356.95 $ 2178.47
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
PIERCE COUNTY FORMULA
DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT
FROM THE SiX YEAR CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN:
STUDENT G~NERATION FACTOR
SINGLE FAMILY
MULTI FAMILY (1/2)
SITE COST PER STUDENT
ELEM
MIDDLE HIGH
0.466 0.165 0.136
0.233 0,0825 0.068
1100 3438 0
CONSTRUCTION COST PER STUDENT
16596 24195 10000
PORTABLE COST PER STUDENT
800 800 0
OSPI AREA PER STUDENT
8O 110 120
BOECKH INDEX
OSPI MATCHING RATIO
94.07
0.4434
BONDINTERESTRATE
BONDTERM
AV. ASS'DVALUEFOR DUTYPE
BOND RATE
0.051 1+1 TO 10TH 1.E~.~?,746
10
189000 90000
010020408
A (LAND)
B (BUILD)
C (PORT)
D (SP~ C)
TC (TAX C)
SINGLE FAM MULTI FAM
$1,079.87 $539,94
$13,085.91 $6,542,96
$504.80 $252.40
$;~,992.74 $1,496,37
$2,963.95 $1,481.97
TOTAL (A+B+C-D-TC) $8,713.89 $4,356.95
$4.366.9~ ~
1.051
38
Policy/Text Amendment #7
Description:
Adopt the report of the Lea Hill Task Force as special area plan. This
report addresses the issues concerning annexation raised by the task
force of Lea Hill residents and other interested parties. The report
includes proposed map revisions and policy amendments affecting the
Lea Hill potential annexation area.
A copy of the Revised Lea Hill Task Force Report follows.
LEA HILL TASK FORCE
PRINCIPLES FOR ANNEXATION
REPORT TO THE CITY OF AUBURN
CITY COUNCIL
October 7, 1997
Roger Gillette
Walt Jacobson
Bill Joy
Bob Keever
Jim Schwend
Grog Smith, Fire District 44
Karen Smith, Auburn Planning Commission
Pauta Thrush
Sue Singer, Auburn City Council
Lynn Gross, Fire District 44
Chuck Cook, Auburn School District
Bob Sokol, Senior Planner
Keith Niven, Associate Planner
Tu Nguyen, Graphics Specialist
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Land Use.
3. Transportation.
4. Parks
5. Public Utilities.
6. Emergency Services
7. Critical Areas .
8. Conclusions
APPENDIX A -- Soos Creek Policies
APPENDIX B -- Auburn Corr'espondene
page
4
6
12
18
21
26
28
34
3
INTRODUCTION
In December 1995, King County organized and hosted a public forum on Lea Hill to
discuss Potential Annexation Area boundaries with Lea Hill resid.ents and property
owners. The meeting was attended by numerous residents as well as representatives
from King County and the cities of Kent and Auburn. It was the intent of this meeting to
provide information to area residents and property owners.
Lea Hill Task For
At the request of residents from Lea Hill, in October 1996, Auburn Mayor Chades Booth
appointed an ad-hoc citizen committee to study the issues and opportunities
surrounding the potential annexation of the Lea Hill area. This committee consisted of
residents from various parts of Lea Hill; representatives from the Fire District, School
District and Green River Community College; and, members of the Planning
Commission and the City Council. Meetings were held at City Hall, generally twice per
month in the evenings. The Task Force discussed issues, hosted a public forum in May
1997 at Hazelwood Elementary School and compiled recommendations to the City
Council in cooperation with the Auburn Department of Planning and Community
Development.
Mission Statement and Charge
The Task Force's mission was to:
· facilitate issues surrounding the ultimate annexation of the Lea Hill community.
Consider plans, programs and strategies to strengthen the Lea Hill community upon
annexation into the City;
· advise and inform the City of Auburn about the attributes and issues of the Lea Hill
community. Provide input to the Planning Commission and City Council committees
as appropriate;
· utilize existing, adopted plans (i.e. Soos Creek Plan as embodied in the current King
County Comprehensive Plan, King County Zoning Ordinance, etc.) as a basis for the
committee's work;
· capitalize on a short-term scope of work (extending approximately nine (9) months)
to facilitate issues; and,
· improve community awareness and make recommendations to the City of Auburn.
The committee's charge w~s to:
1. Provide ad-hoc advisory assistance to the City of Auburn Planning and
Community Development Department on community and neighborhood
issues.
Review existing King County-designated land uses and zoning for the Lea
Hill Potential Annexation Area. Determine the appropriateness for continuing
the current designations when the area annexes to the City of Auburn.
Determine how best to fit these goals within the context of Auburn's
development standards.
3. Recommend changes in land use and zoning where appropriate and
desirable.
4. Identify environmentally-sensitive areas to be preserved from development.
5. identify community issues and concerns.
6. Review potential impacts on neighborhoods caused by the increase and
changes in traffic volumes and population density.
identify recreational needs and opportunities.
8. Identify issues pertaining to the provision of emergency services.
9. Make recommendations to the City on principles for annexation and
community involvement.
Report Format
This report has been divided into three parts: 1) the introduction; 2) the issues and the
City's response; and, 3) the conclusions drawn by the committee and the Auburn
Plaqning Department. The issues identified in the second part of this report were
generated during the bi-monthly meetings held by the Task Force, and during meetings
with the general community. A response has been provided for each issue and, where
possible, policies from the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (ACP) have been provided as
support.
All three parts of this document have been guided by the policies and vision established
in King County's 1991 Soos Creek Community Plan Update. Where applicable to Lea
Hill, the policies from this plan have been included in Appendix A.
PurDose
The purpose of this report is to establish policy guidance for the City of Auburn with
regard to the Lea Hill area. It is the intent of the Task Force that this report be adopted
by the Auburn City Council and implemented as policy. By so doing, the Lea Hill
community values and image might be preserved and potentially strengthened after
annexation to the City of,Auburn.
LAND USEISSUES:
As part of the long range planning programs of the City of Auburn and King County, the
Lea Hill Area has been designated as being located within Auburn's potential annexation
area (PAA). Should a majority of the property owners support a'movement for
annexation, it is intended that this area will become a part of the City of Auburn. Since
this area lies within the King County urban growth boundary, it wilt continue to
experience growth and new development whether it annexes into the City of Auburn, or
remains in unincorporated King County.
General Area Descrietion
The Lea Hill PAA is generally bounded by the Green River to the west and south, SR18
to the east and on the north by an irregular line running from approximately SE 288th
Street in the east to SE 280th Street in the west. The area is approximately 3~700 acres.
(See the map below).
The PAA is comprised of two distinct topographic features. Most of the area is a large
roiling upland plateau. The plateau is relatively flat with elevation changes of no more
than 100 feet. The second defining natural feature is the western edge of the plateau
which drops steeply approximately 300 feet to the Green River Valley. Much of the area
is wooded, and several wetlands exist between developments.
Ex'sti Condi ions
The Lea Hill Area is experiencing rapid development. Current land use on arna. jority of
the area is primarily Iow-density residential. However, there are significant differences in
the predominant use pattern
sr depending on the location on the
Hill (see the map). Lea Hill can be
divided into five sub-areas based
on development and land use
patterns:
,.,'- 'COURSE
South
East
South
This sub-area is generally located
south of SE 312t~ Street. This
portion of the Hill is the most
developed, consisting primarily of
single-family homes and Green
River Community College. Thera
are also a number of multifamily
housing developments. A number
of large parcels of undeveloped or
underdeveloped land remain,
though it is expected that over the
next several years these will be
divided and developed into
building parcels. The area around
SE 312t~ Street and 124t~ Avenue
SE is the future commercial center of the Lea Hill plateau. County zoning in this area
allows higher density housing, a shopping center and it is the iocation of the County fire
station. This portion of the Hill is relatively fiat and includes two small County parks -
Auburndale and Lea Hifl.
Central
This area is roughly bordered by 112th Avenue SE, SE 288th Street, 124th Avenue SE
and SE 304TM Street. It is dominated by the large rolling parcel owned by the City of
Kent which is intended for use as a water reservoir. The western portion of the sub-area
is primarily large-lot, single-family homes.
East
This area is generally located north of SE 304th Street and east of 132nd Street SE.
Though it is largely rural in nature, urban development is rapidly approaching. The area
is primarily grass lands with some large-lot, single-family homes interspersed. There
are some tree farms in the area as well as horse stables and other similar type facilities.
This sub-area is comprised of a series of open and rolling hills.
North
The northern sub-area is bordered by SE 288th Street to the south, 132nd Avenue SE to
the east and 112th Avenue SE to the west. It is largely developed with large-lot, single-
family homes. Some large vacant parcels remain and it is expected that this area will
develop in a similar manner to the fairly dense subdivisions just to the north in what is
th ·
now the City of Kent. Construction of South 277 Street west to the Green R~ver Valley
will improve access to the area and likely accelerate its growth. The sub-area is
relatively flat.
West
This area is generally bordered by 112th Avenue SE on the east and the Green River on
the west. The steep slopes and ravines dropping to the Green River are the major
feature of this portion of the hill and a primary factor affecting development patterns. At
the top of the slopes, however, Iow-density single-family homes predominate. The
steep slopes and ravines form a significant open green belt which helps to define both
the valley below as well as the plateau above. It is unlikely that this sub-area will
experience significant additional growth due to the topographical and environmental
constraints.
Land Use Issues
The following land use issues have been identified as a concern of Lea Hitl residents.
The City's approach to addressing that concern is included with each issue. Where
appropriate, the City's Comprehensive Plan Policies which support the City's response
have been listed.
Issue #1
Residents are concerned that the City will increase allowed density, i.e. allow additional
apartments or higher density single family development.
'7
City Respon. se: /.
The City ie-ee4=~mit~.e~ to retain{~,,~ the zoning and Comprehensive Plan
designations that are found in the King County Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning ordinance. This means that the Lea Hill area will retain its dominant
single-family character. Multi-family development will continue to be allowed
in those areas which are currently designated or zone~ for higher density
residential uses.
In zoning the area upon annexation, Auburn will attempt to apply the City
zoning designation which most closely approximates the existing County
designation. In areas where there is not a good match, a new zoning
designation or a new set of development standards (i.e. minimum lot width
setbacks, etc.) will be added to the City cede to ensure that new
development will blend with existing development constructed under County
standards.
The City is, however, proposing some zoning changes on Lea Hill. Most of
them will not change the types of uses or the density of the uses allowed.
Those changes include:
1. Green River Community College and Auburn School District Properties
will be zoned with the City's Institutional (I) designation.
2. All Parks will be changed to the City's Public (P~I) designation.
3. All mobile home parks will be changed to the City's Residential Mobil
Home Park (RMHP) designation.
The northern portion of the Lea Hill Area is currently zoned for one acre
lots. Portions of this area will be converted to the City's R-1 designation
(approximately 8,000 square-foot lots ) unless there are environmental
constraints, such as Olson Canyon, steep slopes or significant wetlands.
Supporting Policies:
At annexation, the City shall consider applying the existing County
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations (as determined by the Soos Creek
Community Plan, the King County Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance,..
· or other adopted plans) to those lands newly annexed to the City. Citizen
involvement will be solicited to a substantial degree. Emphasis will be placed on
maintaining designations which protect sensitive lands and other natural
resources (Policy CE-10, Auburn Comprehensive Plan (ACP))
Residential densities in areas designated for single family residential use should
be no greater than six (6) units per acre. In areas with good transit availability
(one-quarter (%) mile or Jess to a route with at least half-hour service), accessory
dwelling units should be permitted to allow increased densities· Provisions for
accessory dwelling units in the ordinance will limit the density increase permitted
depending upon the zoning district. The bulk of the single family residential
community should be developed at a density of between 4 and 6 dwelling units
per acre. (Policy LU-14, ACP)
Residential densities in areas designated for multiple family development should
not exceed 20 units per acre. Multiple family densities should generally decrease
with proximity to single family areas. Multiple family densities may exceed 20
units per acre provided they are within walking distance (one-quarter (%) mile) of
regional transit facilities or are targeted to populations not requiting outdoor
recreation areas and having Iow private automobile usage (e.g. elderly housing).
These targeted developments should be located in close proximity to shopping,
medical and public transportation services. (Policy LU-15, ACP)
Issue #2
The City will allow additional commercial development
City Response:~...'m'4'~r~ct'-~
The City i~--J:~ to retaini~ the zoning and Comprehensive Plan
designations that are found in the King County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
ordinance. This means that the Lea Hill area will retain its largely residential
character. Commercial development will continue to be allowed in those areas
where it is currently permitted (the area surrounding the intersection of SE 312th
and 124th Avenue SE). Further, there may be some rezones and/or
comprehensive plan changes in the vicinity of this area. The intent of these
changes will not be to upzone the area or allow for the expansion of the
commercial core, but to create a more logical pattern of residential and
commercial development. These changes would only be made after thorough
public involvement and notification.
Supporting Policy:
At annexation, the City shall consider applying the existing County
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations (as determined by the Sees Creek
Community Plan, the King County Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance,..
· or other adopted plans) to those lands newly annexed to the City. Citizen
involvement will be solicited to a substantial degree. Emphasis will be placed on
maintaining designations which protect sensitive lands and other natural
resources (Policy CE-10, ACP)
Issue #3
There has been a significant loss of open space over the last several years.
City Response:
The Lea Hill platead is defined in large part by the steep slopes which define its
western boundary. City policy generally limits development on slopes with a
severe landslide hazard as defined by their steepness and soil type. These
steep slopes will remain as open space. Olson Canyon has also been identified
as a key open space feature on the Hill worthy of protection. The City will
maintain an equivalent to the King County one-acre zoning in this area.
The City is also concerned about the general lack of publicly-owned open space
on the Hill. As development occurs, these open spaces are rapidly disappearing.
The City is working with the County to secure a large parcel in the
central/eastern portion of the area before it is developed (see Appendix B).
Supporting Policies:
At annexation, the City shall consider applying the existing County
Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations (as determined by the Soos Creek
Community Plan, the King County Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance,..
· or other adopted plans) to those lands newly annexed to the City. Citizen
involvement will be solicited to a substantial degree. Emphasis, will be placed on
maintaining designations which protect sensitive lands and other natural
resources (Policy CE-10, ACP)
The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas having a unique
combination of open space values, including: separation or buffering beb, veen
incompatible land uses; visual delineation of the City or a distinct area or
neighborhood of the City; unusually productive wildlife habitat; wetlands;
floodwater or stormwater storage; stormwater purification; recreational value;
historic or cultural value; aesthetic value; and educational value. (Policy PR-7,
ACP)
The City shall seek to retain as open space areas where the soils have been
identified as having severe or very severe erosion potential, landslide hazard or
seismic hazard. (Policy PR-8, ACP)
The City shall seek to acquire open space lands which provide significant
environmental or social value. Such open space shall be managed to conserve
and improve the natural, visual, historic and cultural resources associated with
the land. (Policy PR-10, ACP)
Deve. lopment within areas designated for open space uses shall, in general, be
non-intensive in character· Development shall be designed and sited in a manner
that minimizes or mitigates disruption of the most important open space values of
the site. Appropriate uses within designated open space areas may, include (but
not necessarily be limited to): parks and other recreational facilities; agriculture;
stormwater storage; and watershed· It is recognized that designating private
property for open space uses does not establish or promote any public access
rights to such property. (Policy PR-12, ACP)
Issue #4
There is a lack of park space.
City Response:
The City has a much more comprehensive park system than King County. in
general, the City attempts to provide approximately 7.25 acres of park per 1,000
people. King County provides parks at a much lower level. Upon annexation,
the City will stdve to raise the level of park land in the Lea Hill area to equal that
of the remainder of the City. Until annexation occurs, the City will continue to
work with the County to secure additional park lands. (For a more detailed
response see the "Parks Issues" section of this report.)
Supporting Policies:
New developments shall contribute to the development of new parks at a level
commensurate with their share of new facility needs as established by the Park
and Recreation Plan. If the City determines that the development does not
contain an acceptable park site, the City shall require the payment of cash in lieu
10
of land. The funds shall be used to acquire land and/or develop recreational
facilities at a location deemed appropriate by the City. Criteria for site
acceptability and appropriateness shall be environmental limitations, accessibility,
maintenance costs, consistency with the Parks and Recreation Plan and the
ability to meet more of the Community's recreational needs by the coordinated
development of parks located elsewhere. (Policy PR-2, ACP) .
The City shall evaluate the impacts of new development on parks and
recreational resources through the SEPA environmental review process, and
shall take appropriate steps to mitigate significant adverse impacts. (Policy PR-4,
ACP)
The City recognizes the important recreational and transportation roles played by
local and regional trail systems. The City shall continue to develop a system of
separated trail facilities to move residents through our community and to adjoining
communities. The local system should be designed to link up with regional trails
and designated bicycle routes on roads. Safe routes along existing and proposed
roadways should be improved and marked for cyclists. The City should continue
to work with King County and other jurisdictions to maintain existing facilities and
improve non-motorized transportation links. (Policy PR-5, ACP)
Issue #5:
The City will prohibit residents from keeping farm animals
City Response:
Current City policy places strict limits on the number of farm animals permitted in
residential areas within the City, outside of the Rural Residential district. The
rural district is currently used in extremely limited areas within the City. The City
recognizes, however, that the Lea Hill area is unique and is distinct from the
remainder of the City in many ways due to the rural character which still remains
in the area. Due to this unique character, Auburn will apply more liberal
standards on farm animals for the Lea Hill area. The City will explore new
regulations likely tying the number of animals permitted with the lot size. In other
words, larger parcels will be able to house more animals than smaller ones. It is
also likely that the City will set a minimum lot size below which animals will not
be allowed.
For lots with animals that do not meet the minimum City requirements, the
animals will be considered "grandfathered" non-conforming uses if they were
permitted in the County. This means that the animals will be allowed to remain,
however, no additional animals will be permitted where the minimum lot size
does not support.
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES:
Roads
The Lea Hill area is served by a network of north-south and east-west arterial and
collector roads. Many of these roadways are not currently built t~ their ultimate
configuration.
These community-serving roads are typically spaced to intersect on approximately %-
mile intervals. In some areas, topography or recently-approved developments prevent
the connection of through streets. This has resulted in constricting traffic movements in
the Lea Hill area, especially in the east-west direction. In the northern portion of the Lea
Hill area, this intermittent street pattern is further impacted as some streets have not yet
been constructed adjacent to rural or undeveloped properties.
Due to its location and topography, the Lea Hill area is relatively isolated from its
surroundings. Steep slopes and the Green River limit access from the south and the
west resulting in only three existing points of access: Kent-Kangley Road to the far
north, SR18 to the east and the 8th Street Bridge to the southwest. All of these routes
are currently highly congested at peak travel times. Access to the east is limited to the
two entrances/exits to SR18: SE 312th Street and 144th Avenue SE. Two improvement
projects are currently underway which will alleviate some of these problems -- the S
277th Street corridor (the City of Kent) and the SE 304th entrance/exit to SR18
(Washington Department of Transportation) improvement projects.
Transit
Transit service to the area is provided by Metro and generally follows two street
corridors -- 124th Avenue SE and SE 312th Street. The primary destination of this
service is Green River Community College (GRCC). It is anticipated that the frequency
of this service will improve in late 1997.
Pedestrians, Bicyclists and Equestrians
Bicyclists, pedestrians and equestrians typically travel on the shoulders of the major
arterials and in the roadway or on private property on residential streets due to the
absence of sidewalks or other non-motorized facilities. The school district and many
area parents have expressed concern about this issue as children traveling to and from
school are generally forced to walk, or ride bicycles, on the shoulders of relatively busy
streets. While new developments are required to provide sidewalks, many of the
currently-developed areas 'on the hill lack them.
Lea Hill has a history of equestrian use. As development continues to change the
character of the Lea Hill area, the equestrian community are finding it increasingly
difficult to find safe places to ride in the area.
Transportation Issue,~
The following transportation issues have been identified as a concern of Lea Hill
residents. The City's approach to addressing that concern is included with each issue.
Where appropriate, the City's Comprehensive Plan Policies which support the City's
response have been listed.
Issue #'1
There have been rapid increases in traffic volume.
City Response:
Due to the changing nature of the Lea Hill area, traffic volumes will continue to
rise as rural and underdeveloped land is subdivided and developed. Should the
Lea Hill area annex into the City of Auburn, staff would review development
impacts as part of the environmental (SEPA) review for each proposal.
Developers would be required to meet the City's traffic standards which are
currently more stringent than those of King County. Also, street improvement
projects will be programmed as part of the City's 6-year Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP). Given the existing constraints and the pace of
development, it is possible that the Lea Hill area will function at a lower level-of-
service than the balance of the City; or, a Local Improvement District (LID) might
be required to provide for the improvements needed to raise the existing
standards sufficiently.
Supporting Policy:
Evaluation criteria [for the TIP] shall maximize utilization of city financing to match
transportation grants, promote safety, integrate planning of other projects
requiring disturbance of pavements, promote mobility, and optimize the utilization
of existing infrastructure and foster economic development. (Policy TR-20, ACP)
Issue #2
There is a lack of through streets and too many cut-de-sacs
City Response:
The City of Auburn believes that it is important to connect residential areas in
order to promote the formation of neighborhoods and facilitate neighborhood
interaction. Should the Lea Hill area choose to be annexed into the City of
Auburn, City staff will promote the connection of neighborhood streets through
the development review process where possible and appropriate. However,
given the existing east-west constrictions due to topographic features and the
existing street configuration, it may be difficult to provide the same level of
connectivity in the Lea Hill area as is provided in other Auburn neighborhoods.
Supporting Policies:
The City shall continue to require developers of new developments to construct
transportation systems that serve their developments... (Policy TR-21, ACP)
Development of new through routes should occur as early as possible, before neighborhoods are
developed to urban residential densities to avoid the intrusion of through traffic in neighborhoods.
(Policy LU-51, ACP)
Arterial routes should be planned to serve undeveloped areas prior to development and should be
built as the area is developed. (Policy LU-55, ACP)
Improved linkages in the city's residential collector system, such as the completed connection of
lengthy dead-end streets, should be sought at every opportunity. (Policy LU-56, ACP)
]3
The City should adopt a comprehensive street ?lassification system and map which designates
neighborhood collectors. (Policy LU-57, ACP)
While the City will strive to avoid the intrusion of "through" traffic in neighborhoods, it will also seek
to ensure that neighborhoods are interconnected with one another. These interconnections are
needed to ensure the proper functioning of arterial streets, acceptable emergency vehicle
response times and also a sense of belonging to the Greater Auburn Community. (Policy LU-58,
ACP)
Issue #3
There is a lack of safe walking routes
City Response:
Should Lea Hill annex into the City of Auburn, all new residential developments
will be built to City standards which typically include curb, gutter, sidewalk and
street lights. For existing sub-standard situations, the City will act as facilitator
for those neighborhoods seeking additional street improvements by assisting
with the organization of Local Improvement Districts (LIDs). In addition, the City
will work with the school district to identify deficient areas of high pedestrian use
and construct improvements.
Supporting Policies:
City street standards shall generally provide for sidewalks on both sides of the
street. (Policy TR-44, ACP)
The City shall encourage subdividers of new plats to include pedestrian trails in
new plats which link the development to nearby activity centers, such as schools,
parks or neighborhood-shopping. (Policy TR-45, ACP)
Development of sidewalks between areas of the City where sidewalk system
continuity is now inadequate should be considered when selecting streets for
development under the City's Six year street plan. (Policy TR-47, ACP)
The City shall encourage the formation of LIDs to develop sidewalks throughout
the City. The City shall also explore formation of a partnership with the Auburn
School District, aimed at aggressively promoting the formation of LIDs to develop
sidewalks along routes used by children walking to and from school. (Policy TR-
48, ACP)
Whenever the City contemplates reconstruction or major maintenance (including
resurfacin§) work on a City street that is without sidewalks, it should fully explore
the possibility of adding sidewalks at the time of the street improvement. (Policy
TR-50, ACP)
Issue #4
There is inconvenient and insufficient transit service.
City Response:
The City of Auburn is working with Metro to improve service throughout our
jurisdiction. It is the City's understanding that, after September, there will be
14
some transit revisions affecting Lea Hill. The 181 (serving Federal Way, Auburn
and Green River CC) will operate every 30 minutes instead of every 60 minutes.
Though the 164 will no longer travel to Green River Community College, those
riders currently using the 164 to reach GRCC will be accommodated through an
extension of the 181 route to Lake Meridian.
At this time the revisions listed above are the only changes planned for Lea Hill.
Should this area annex into the City of Auburn, staff would work with Metro to
provide additional service to the hill, should expanded service be desired by area
residents. However, given the existing Iow-density pattern of development
especially in the central and northern portions of the community, it is not likely
that service in the Lea Hill area will be significantly expanded until infill
development increases the general population density of the area.
Supporting Policies:
The City shall work with Metro to explore opportunities for improved bus service
within the City of Auburn. (Policy TR-28, ACP)
The City shall encourage the inclusion of transit facilities into new development
when appropriate. (Policy TR-34, ACP)
Issue #$
There are problems in accessing the area in general
City Response:
Due to the river and the steep topography of the hill, providing additional travel
routes to alleviate existing traffic constraints would likely require a significant
expenditure for a new bridge, or the movement of large quantities of earth to
provide an additional connection. The installation of a traffic signal at 104TM
Avenue SE and SE 320th Street may alIeviate the increased traffic burden
generated by the new apartment complex located at the northwest corner of this
intersection. Further, the improvements to SR18 may divert some trips from the
8th Street bridge. Should Lea Hill annex into Auburn, City staffwould work with
area residents to develop alternatives to improve the existing access constraints.
City staff are working with the City of Kent to investigate the possibility of an
additional access point from the 277th Street project (see #9 below).
Issue #6
There is a lot of neighborhood cut-through traffic and speeding in neighborhoods
City Response:
The City's formal, neighborhood traffic-management program, "the Speedwatch
Program", empowers residents to monitor traffic speeds on their streets. The City
believes that traffic problems can be best managed through the provision of
adequate transportation facilities and neighborhood connections.
Supporting Policies:
Through traffic shall be discouraged in local residential areas. (Policy TR-10, ACP
Development of new through routes should occur as early as possible, before neighborhoods are
developed to urban residential densities to avoid the intrusion of through traffic in neighborhoods.
(Policy LU-51, ACP)
The City should continue to fund or establish programs such as the Neighborhood Speedwatch
Program or a Neighborhood Traffic Control Program which seek to mitigate the impacts of pass
through traffic on neighborhoods. (Policy LU-52, ACP)
Routes which bypass developed, urban neighborhoods shall be preferred over routes that would
pass through them. Routes passing through such neighborhoods shall be supported by the City
only when present and future traffic benefits are substantial and alternative ways to meet the need
are not feasible. In these cases, a neighborhood traffic mitigation plan should be adopted and
implemented by the City. (Policy LU-53, ACP)
Where the only feasible traffic solution results in a significant adverse impact on a residential area,
care shall be taken to identify any feasible opportunity to mitigate potential impacts. (Policy LU-54,
ACP)
The City should adopt a comprehensive street classification system and map which designates
neighborhood collectors. (Policy LU-57, ACP)
While the City will strive to avoid the intrusion of "through" traffic in neighborhoods, it will also seek
to ensure that neighborhoods are interconnected with one another. These interconnections are
needed to ensure the proper functioning of arterial streets, acceptable emergency vehicle
response times and also a sense of belonging to the Greater Auburn Community. (Policy LU~58,
ACP)
Issue #7
There are significant differences in street standards between King Co. and Auburn. Will
sidewalks and street lights be required everywhere?
City Response:
The City and the county currently use different development standards.
Generally, the City's standards are stricter than those supported by the county.
In locations where streets have been built to county standards, it is likely they will
remain in a county configuration. Should these areas annex into the City,
transportation staff will evaluate existing conditions and recommend
improvements where needed. However, locating funding sources to retrofit
existing deficiencies will be challenging.
Supporting Policy: '
Improvements that upgrade existing streets are considered to benefit the abutting
property, and such improvements should be funded by the abutting property
owners. Some City participation may be appropriate to encourage the formation
of LIDs in particular problem areas. (Policy TR-24, ACP)
Issue #8
There is a need for multi-use recreational trails: walking, horses and mountain bikes.
City Response:
The City has included the Lea Hill area in the development of its Non-Motorized
Plan which establishes designated corridors for pedestrians, bicyclists and
equestrians. By annexing into the City of Auburn, residents of Lea Hill would
empower City staff to work directly with the development community through the
application/permitting process to ensure that these traii§ are established.
Supporting Policies:
The City shall explore opportunities to promote alternatives to single occupancy
vehicle travel, including carpooling and vanpooling, walking, biking, and other
non-motorized modes. (Policy TR-32, ACP)
The City recognizes the important recreational and transportation roles played by local and
regional trail systems. The City shall continue to develop a system of separated trail facilities to
move residents through our community and to adjoining communities. The local system should
be designed to link up with regional trails and designated bicycle routes on roads. Safe routes
along existing and proposed roadways should be improved and marked for cyclists. The City
should continue to work with King County and other jurisdictions to maintain existing facilities and
improve non-motorized transportation links. (Policy PR-5, ACP)
Issue #9
Residents are concerned about the 277th Street extension and the potential
traffic impacts of a direct connection to Lea Hill.
City Response:
Once the construction has been completed for the 277th Street improvements, it
is likely this roadway will carry a lot of vehicles between Kent-Kangley Road and
SR167. The current plans for the 277th Street improvement project do not
provide for traffic movements to occur directly into the Lea Hill area. The City is
investigating possible E-W connections with the City of Kent which could tie into
108th, 124th or 132nd Avenues SE in an attempt to alleviate traffic problems on
the hill. The City will work with residents to ensure that the associated roadways
are safe, can handle the additional traffic and to minimize cut through traffic in
residential neighborhoods.
]7
PARKS ISSUES:
Parks
There are two developed parks on Lea Hill, Lea Hill Park and Auburndale Park, totaling
approximately 20 acres. In addition, the County owns property ~hich has been
ST
,~ 288TH
/~OLF
.,;--COURSE
designated as a future park
(Auburndale Park II), but has not
been improved. Given the rapid
expansion of population in the
Lea Hill area over the past few
years, the County has opened
discussions with a property
owner for the creation of a future
park on the site of an existing
tree farm.
Recreation
Organized recreational activities
might include taking a class or
participating in league sporting
events. Many Lea Hill area
residents currently participate in
Possible futureCity of Auburn leagues and
recreational classes. Annexation
into the City would enable Lea
UndcveIopcdparkHill residents to qualify for
site
reduced, Auburn-resident
Existing park sit¢ registration fees, when
applicable. Aisc, there are
l/4-mile service classes offered through Green
River Community College (GRCC) which provide some recreational opportunities.
Library
The Lea Hill area, as part of unincorporated King County, is part of the King County
Library system.
The following parks and recreation issues have been identified as a concern of Lea Hill
residents. The City's approach to addressing that concern is included with each issue.
Where appropriate, the City's Comprehensive Plan Policies which support the City's
response have been listed.
Issue #1 There is not enough park space.
City Response:
The Lea Hill area currently does not meet the City's minimum park requirements.
Generally, the City looks to provide 7.25 acres of park for each 1,000 residents; and, a
18
neighborhood park within a quarter mile of each residence. Auburn's current policy to
provide neighborhood parks has led to the creation of over a dozen within the City limits.
The current level of service for parks on Lea Hill is approximately 20 acres for 9,000
residents; or, 2.2 acres per 1,000 residents.
Should the Lea Hill area be annexed into the City, the Pa~ks Department will develop a
plan to ensure that the residents of Lea Hill are served by local parks to an equivalent
level as the residents of Auburn. This will benefit the residents of the Lea Hill area as
well City residents as it will relieve some of the strain on existing City parks which are
currently used by residents of Lea Hill. Areas under consideration include: the City of
Kent watershed property, remnant WSDOT parcels and the wooded property located
east of Lea Hill elementary school. Methods for financing new parks must be
determined.
The City is a strong supporter of King County's acquisition of a large, regional park at
the tree farm. This acquisition would help to alleviate the lack of park facilities available
to area residents. Should King County purchase the property, the City is willing to work
towards developing and maintaining the park once it is within the City limits.
Supporting Policies:
New developments shall contribute to the development of new parks at a level commensurate
with their share of new facility needs as established by the Park and Recreation Plan. If the City
determines that the development does not contain an acceptable park site, the City shall require
the payment of cash in lieu of land. The funds shall be used to acquire land and/or develop
recreational facilities at a location deemed appropriate by the City. Criteria for site acceptability
and appropriateness shall be environmental limitations, accessibility, maintenance costs,
consistency with the Parks and Recreation Plan and the ability to meet more of the Community's
recreational needs by the coordinated development of parks located elsewhere. (Policy PR-2,
ACP)
The City shall explore all means of funding the purchase of park land including, but not limited to,
bond issuance, the collection of cash in lieu of land and federal, state or county grants. (Policy
PR-3, ACP)
The City shall evaluate the impacts of new development on parks and recreational resources
through the SEPA envirenmental review process, and shall take ~,ppropriate steps to mitigate
significant adverse impacts. (Policy PR-4, ACP)
Lands designated for urban growth by this Plan shall have an urban level of essential public
facilities (sewer, water, storm drainage, and parks) prior to or concurrent with development.
(Policy CF-l, ACP)
Issue #2 The area needs more baseball and soccer fields.
City Response:
The City's park concept includes providing different sized parks including:
neighborhood, community and regional parks for the enjoyment of the citizens.
Soccer and ball fields will generally be located in community parks, or larger.
Aside from Auburndale, it is envisioned that ball fields will be installed at the Tree
Farm, should it be acquired for future park.
Issue #3 Park spaces are not maintained.
City Response:
Should the Lea Hill area annex into Auburn, the City's Parks Department will be
responsible for maintaining all park facilities. Whether the park is improved for
active use or kept as a native/natural area, City maintenance levels are typically
higher than that of King County. City parkland receive frequent and regular
maintenance and many have irrigation systems for landscaping. City parks,
trails and open spaces are professionally planned and maintained for family
enjoyment. Parks staff will likely pursue the establishment of a satellite
maintenance facility at one of the park locations to improve response times and
facilitate maintenance operations.
Issue ~4 There are inadequate recreational opportunities.
City Response:
The City believes that providing recreational opportunities is important in
developing a well-balanced community. Should Lea Hill be annexed into Auburn,
staff will work with neighbors on the development of adequate Lea Hill trail
systems through the City's Non-Motorized Plan; the establishment of safe
walking routes along arterial and collector streets through the City's
Transportation Plan; continued league play and recreational classes through the
Parks Department; and, support for opportunities offered through GRCC. The
City currently offers a wide variety of recreational activities. There are
neighborhood summer playground programs, musical and theatrical
performances, sports leagues, fitness activities and community events, plus a
variety of classes and other activities offered throughout the year.
Supporting Policies:
The City recognizes the important recreational and transportation roles played by ~ocal and
regional trail systems. The City shall continue to develop a system of separated trail facilities to
move residents through our community and to adjoining communities. The local system should
be designed to link up with regional trails and designated bicycle routes on roads. Safe routes
along existing and proposed roadways should be improved and marked for cyclists. The City
should continue to work with King County and other jurisdictions to maintain existing facilities and
improve non-motorized transportation links. (Policy PR-5, ACP)
The City shall continue to provide a broad variety of organized recreational and cultural
opportunities for all residents. Consideration of the diverse interests and abilities of our residents
shall be integral to the development of athletic, cultural, specialized recreation and leisure and
educational programs and facilities offered or maintained by the City. (Policy PR-6, ACP)
Where the Non-motorized Plan requires the integration of vehicular and bicycle traffic, a design
standard to ensure safety will be addressed in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. (Policy
TR-36, ^CP)
The City shall seek to accommodate bicycles in its management and design of the City street
neb,york. (Policy TR-41, ACP)
City street standards shall generally provide for sidewalks on both sides of the street. (Policy TR-
44, ACP)
2O
Issue #$
The City is not part of King County library system.
City Response:
Through a recent (February 1997) City vote, the resident~ of Auburn approved
joining the King County Library System. As a result, the City has committed
funds for the construction of a new library facility. Following annexation, Lea Hill
residents will continue to pay their assessment towards the King County Library
System. Whether the Lea Hill area annexes into the City of Auburn or not,
residents could continue to use their existing library facilities and could elect to
use the City's new library as soon as it is constructed.
PUBLIC UTILITIES -- WATER, SEWER and STORM WATER ISSUES:
Water
Water on Lea Hill is provided by two water providers - the City of Auburn and Water
District 111 (see figure); by private wells; and, by small satellite or community systems.
The City of Auburn supplies a majority of the properties on Lea Hill with water service,
encompassing the souther n, central and northwestern portions of the community. Water
District 111 serves the nodheast corner of the
community. An agreement between the City
and District 111 is being developed which will
provide that, should an annexation occur, the
City would extend its water service boundaries
to include areas currently served by District
111.
In some of the lower density areas, private
wells or neighborhood water systems are being
utilized to provide water to residences.
Sewer
Sewer service on Lea Hill is provided by two
sewer providers - the City of Auburn and the
Soos Creek Sewer District (see figure). The
City's sewer service area currently includes
most of Lea Hill. As with District 111, the City is
completing an agreement with Soos Creek
which provides that, should annexation occur,
the City will extend its boundaries to areas
currently served by Soos Creek Sewer.
~/,GOLF !
- .....J
SE 304TH ST!
Auburn
$E 3f2TH ST
320TH ST
SE 288TH
-- Water
__ District 111
~$oos Creek
Sewer lines do not exist across a large portion of Lea Hill including all of the north and
east sections. Residences in these areas utilize septic systems and must be developed
at relatively Iow densities.
21
Storm Water
Rapid development of the Lea Hill area has resulted in significan, t increases in the
amount of impervious surfaces (i.e. roads, roofs, driveways, patios, etc.) in the
community. With this change in surfacing has come an increase in storm water runoff.
This runoff has affected local streams and waterways and signs of erosive damage are
visible from last winter's storms.
King County requires each development to detain its storm water runoff in on-site ponds
or underground vaults prior to releasing it off site. Typically, these facilities are owned
and maintained by the property ownedHomeowner's Association. A lack of adequate
maintenance often leads to the failure or decrease in capacity/efficiency of these
facilities.
The following utility issues have been identified as a concern of Lea Hill residents. The
City's approach to addressing each concern is included with each issue. Where
appropriate, the City's Comprehensive Plan Policies which support the City's response
have been listed.
Issue #1
The City will require me to convert from my private water system to the public system.
City Response:
In many locations residences receive water from private weJls or community
water systems. Should the Lea Hill area annex into the City of Auburn, these
facilities could remain in operation as long as they provide adequate and potable
water to the users. Should area residents wish to connect to the public system,
the City will provide information on requirements and assist with organizing the
improvements should a line extension be required to reach the property. These
improvements wou~d typically be funded through the creation of a local
improvement district (LID) which requires financial participation from affected
property owners.
Issue #2
The City will require me to c. onvert from my septic system to the public sewer system.
City Response:
The City sanitary sewer system serves approximately 9,000 households and
businesses. It is primarily a collection system, with treatment provided by Metro.
Many residents on Lea Hill are currently served by septic systems. Should Lea
Hill annex into Auburn, those residences on septic systems could remain as long
as the systems are functioning properly. Should the system require a permit for
repairs, the permit wilJ not be granted if there is a sewer located within 300 feet
of the property. This is true if the area is in King County or the City of Auburn.
Supporting Policies:
Within the City's Potential Annexation Area, (Map 3.1) sewerage service should be provided by
public sewers. The City should develop mechanisms to accommodate conversion to public
sewers of all septic systems within the City's service area, particularly when on site systems fail or
when public health and water quality is threatened. (Policy CF-28, ACP)
The City shall discourage the use of septic tanks except in those areas which are designated for
rural uses and have suitable soils. (Policy EN-7, ACP)
Issue #3 There are significant flooding and erosion problems.
City Response:
Drainage and erosion control for Lea Hill are currently managed by King County.
Should the Lea Hill area annex into the City of Auburn, the City will be
responsible for managing these impacts. Generally, drainage and erosion
control requirements are similar in the City to those of the County. However, the
City is an advocate for regional storm water collection and treatment in lieu of
on-site facilities for each project. Should this area annex into Auburn, the City
will begin to look for appropriate sites for City maintained, regional storm water
basins.
Supporting Policies:
The City shall recognize the overall system impacts of new development upon the City's drainage
system, through the collection of system development charges or similar fees to assist in the
financing of new and oversized (e.g. regional drainage improvements.). (Policy CF-40, ACP)
The City should continue to fund and provide storm drainage services through the existing storm
drainage utility. The City's storm drainage utility should be responsible for implementafion,
maintenance and operation of the City's comprehensive drainage system and to seek out sources
of storm water pollution and correct them. (Policy CF-41, ACP)
The City shall encourage the use of regional-scale water quality and quantity control facilities as a
means of controlling drainage and flood waters. (Policy CF-43, ACP)
VVhere possible, streams and river banks should be kept in a natural condition, and degraded
streambanks should be enhanced or restored. (Policy EN-4, ACP)
The City's design standards shall ensure that the post development peak stormwater runoff rates
do not exceed the predevelopment rates. (Policy EN-8, ACP)
Issue #4 How much are the sewer connection fees?
City Response:
Should a resident wish to connect to the public sewer, the following list is a
rough estimate of the charges which will be collected:
-to extend a sewer line in the street -- $80 - $100 per lineal foot
-to extend a sewer line from the street to the residence -- $12 - $15 per lineal
foot
-City system development charge -- $840
-Metro system development charge -- $1000
-$25 monthly fee
23
Supporting Policy
New connections to the City s san'tary sewer, water and/or storm drainage systems, shall
contribute their fair share toward the construction and/or financing of future or on-going projects to
increase the capacity of those systems. (Policy CF-6, ACP)
Issue #5
Utility construction will negatively impact Olson Canyon.
City Response:
As the City is the primary sewer provider for Lea Hill, the City will be responsible
for extending sewer from Lea Hill to the valley floor. The current sewer plans
indicate this connection to be in the vicinity of OIson Canyon. This connection
will eventualty occur to serve the residents of Lea Hill whether this area annexes
into Auburn or not. Auburn's sewer utility is sensitive to the aesthetic and
environmenta~ significance of Olson Canyon and will examine all possibilities to
minimize the impacts created from this extension project.
Supporting Policy:
The City shall seek to minimize surface water quality and aquatic habitat degradation of creeks,
streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of
such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic
quality of such waters by requiring the use of current Best Management Practices for control of
stormwater and nonpoint runoff. (Policy EN-2, ACP)
Issue #6
What will become of the City of Kent property {see figure)
I
Sr
,;=.GOLF .
,,
SE 288 TH /
City Response: This property
was purchased by the City of
Kent for an open-water
reservoir. It was envisioned that
the Tacoma Pipeline would
provide water to the site which
could then be pumped to Kent to
supplement their existing water
suppty. Although the ultimate
future of Pipeline 5 currently is in
question, the City of Kent
continues to value this property
as a future water resource. In
the near future, there does not
seem to be any changes to this
designated use.
24
Issue #7
Above-ground storm drainage facilities can be aesthetically detra, cting from the
community
City Response:
The City of Auburn encourages developers to provide above-ground drainage
facilities which may be incorporated into landscaped areas, or may be used as
recreational spaces when dry. Generally, the City attempts to ensure that side
slopes do not exceed 3:1 which makes them safer and precludes the need for
security fencing if the facilities do not exceed 3 feet in depth.
Supporting Policies:
Storm drainage structures and facilities located within the shoreline environment, parklands, or
public open space shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the naturaLappearance,
protect significant cultural resoumes and appropriate use of the site and surrounding area. Any
such facilities located within the shoreline environment shall be consistent with the State Shoreline
Management Act and the City's Shoreline Management Program. If accessible to the general
public, such facilities should, whenever possible, be designed to preclude the need for security
fencing, and should use native vegetation and be properly maintained. (Policy EN-6, ACP)
Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the appearance of
a site, preclude the need for security fencing, and serve as an amenity. The design of above
ground storage and conveyance facilities should address or incorporate landscaping utilizing
native vegetation, minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function. The facilities
should be located within rear or side yard areas and the design should preclude the need for
security fencing whenever feasible. (Policy UD-6, ACP)
Issue #8
The City has mandatory garbage collection and no curbside recycling.
City Response:
Should Lea Hill annex into Auburn, existing garbage and recycling service will
continue for a 5-year period. Following, the City will require service for all
residents at a fee. The City currently offers recycling for yard waste only.
Curbside recycling could be made available for an additional charge.
25
EMERGENCY SERVICES:
Exi tin Co i'on
Po#ce
The Lea Hill area currently is located within King County Police P. recinct 3, Patrol District
,, F8 (see figure). As
AUBURN
illustrated in the map,
a large portion of
district F8 lies east of
SR18 extending to
Kent-Black Diamond
Road, in the rural
portion of the county.
County patrol vehicles
for this District are
typically dispatched
from the Maple Valley
station.
N
King County
Patrol District F8
Fire
The Lea Hill area is
currently served
primarily by fire station
91, located within the
Lea Hill area. tt is one
of four stations within
King County Fire District 44. Full-time career firefighters, reserve fire fighters and
volunteers make-up the current crew. Fire District 44 covers approximately 27.5 square
miles, and includes approximately 20,000 residents. Residents are currently charged
$1.38 per $1,000 of assessed value for fire service and $.25 per $1,000 for emergency
medical service (EMS).
Emeroency Services Issu~
The following emergency service issues have been identified as a concern of Lea Hill
residents. The City's approach to addressing that concern is included with each issue.
Where appropriate, the ~ty s Comprehensive p an Policies which support the City's
C'
response have been listed.
Issue #1
What are the Auburn Police Department's average response times?
City Response:
The City divides crimes into four categories based on their severity, or need for
immediate response. These categories and average City response times are as
follows:
1. life threatening -- 4 minutes
2. possible hazardous -- 13 minutes
3. non-hazardous -- 18 minutes
4. information -- 38 minutes
Issue #2
Restricted access to Lea Hill from the Auburn Police Station may slow responses
City Response:
Should the Lea Hill area annex into the City of Auburn, it is anticipated that the
City will hire new officers to provide service to the area. The City shall provide
police service on Lea Hill according to its Community Oriented Policing and
Problem Solving philosophy (COPPS) as it does throughout the entire City. This
means that specific police officers will be assigned to duty in the Lea Hill area.
This enables those officers to become familiar with the neighborhoods and their
residents. Although it is not anticipated that a new sub-station or remote location
will be constructed on the hill in the near future, this is currently being studied by
the Department. By striving to keep at least one patrol car on Lea Hill at all
times, response times to emergencies on the Hill will not be affected by the
restricted access across the 8th Street Bridge.
Issue #3
I haven't had any problems with King County Police, why should be concerned?
City Response:
As the area develops and becomes more populated, it is increasingly likely that
crime will rise whether the area is annexed into Auburn or not. However, the City
is accustomed to providing police service in an urban area. Through the
adoption of community-oriented policing programs such as Block Watch and
Volunteer po[icing, the Auburn Police Department is attempting to build
relationships with the community which has shown to be an effective approach
against crime.
Issue ~
Will the City of Auburn take over the responsibility for providing fire protection and
associated services from Fire District #44 after annexation?
City Response:
The City of Auburn has historically been the fire protection service provider within
the City limits. Should the Lea Hill community annex into Auburn, the City is
committed to providing the residents of Lea Hill with a similar or better level of
service than that provided by Fire District ~44. In keeping with this commitment,
one option the City may consider is the phasing in of fire protection services by
contracting for the service from Fire District #44 until the City is ready to fully
staff a station on Lea Hill.
Should the City annex Lea Hill and take over the responsibility for providing fire
service from the District, the Fire District has expressed concerns over how this
transition will take place. Some of these concerns include the loss of operating
revenue to the distdct and its affect on maintaining service to the rest of the
District; the difficulties of providing service to the Hill if the area is annexed in
small pieces as opposed to all at once; and, the loss of jobs to the career
fireflghters currently stationed on Lea Hill. The overall process of annexing
property served by a Fire District into a city with a municipal fire department is
2?
governed by state law. The City will work closely with the District to reach
agreements in accordance with those laws.
Issue #5
How will the City be able to provide service to Lea Hill at a level s m lar to that of Fire
District #44 if they do not have a station on the Hill?
City Response:
Should Lea Hill annex into Auburn, State law governing the annexation of
portions of fire protection districts would require Fire District #44 to transfer to the
City a percentage of its total assets equal the percentage of the assessed value
of the area which is annexed. For example, if the assessed value of all property
within Fire District #44 is $50,000,000 and the City annexes a portion of the
district with an assessed value of $10,000,000, the district is required by law to
transfer 20% of its assets to the City. The specific assets to be transferred are
subject to negotiation. The District has indicated that those assets may include
Station 91 and a fire pumper. The City will work closely with the District to reach
an agreement on asset transfer in accordance with the State law.
Issue #6
The City is ill equipped to handle fires in the portion of Lea Hill which does not have
public water service.
City Response:
The City will work closely with Fire District #44 to reach an agreement to transfer
fire protection assets that currently serve the Lea Hill area. 'Should the City
determine that additional; specialized fire apparatus such as tanker trucks are
needed for this area, it will seek to assure its availability. In addition, water
availability for fire fighting will improve as the City expands public water service
throughout the Lea Hill community.
CRITICAL AREAS:
Information on the Critical Areas of Lea Hill was compiled from the Sensitive Areas Map
Folio, King County, December 1990 and from the Enhanced Reconnaissance Report,
King County Surface Water Management, November 1994. The locations which have
been identified are subject to natural hazards and lands which support unique, fragile or
valuable natural resources. These areas are shown on the Critical Areas map.
Wetlands and Surface Water
According to King County's Sensitive Areas information, there exists approximately 12
areas on Lea Hill which meet the County's definition for wetlands. According to the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the County defines wetlands as those areas that are
inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency or duration sufficient
to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Where the vegetation has been
SENSITIVE AREAS
SE 282ND
8TH ST
$00S CREEK
SCALE
2000'
NOT~ ALL IDENTIFIED ARF. A~ ARE APPROXIMATIONS, NOT
INTENOED TO DEFINE EXACT BOUNDARIES. SOURCES: FJNG
C0UhTI' SENEITNE AREAS MAP FOLIO, ~e~ 1990, ~NG COUNt(
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ENHANCED RECONNAU$SANCE
OF THE EASTERN TRIBUTARIES OF THE LO~R GREEN RIVER
EROSION HAZARD
LANDSLIDE HAZARD
WETLANDS
RIVER/STREAMS
NORTH
29
removed or substantially altered, a wetland shall be determined by the presence or
evidence of hydric or organic soil, or by documentation (such as aerial photographs) of
the previous existence of wetland vegetation.
King County's Sensitive Areas maps also indicate that two Class 2 streams and six
Unclassified streams exist in the Lea Hill area. Class 2 streams are those small than
Class 1 that flow year-round during years of normal rainfall or those that are used by
salmonids. Unclassified streams are those for which a water course has been identified
but for which the defining characteristics of a Class 1, 2, or 3 stream have not been
determined.
Erosion Hazard
The Sensitive Areas Ordinance for King County defines erosion hazard areas as those
soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. For the Lea Hill area,
there exist primarily two soil types which meet this definition -- Alderwood gravelly sandy
loams, 15 to 30 percent slopes (AgD), and Alderwood-Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF).
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is characterized by medium runoff, severe erosion
hazard and a moderate potential for slippage.
Alderwood-Kitsap, very steep soils is characterized by rapid to very rapid runoff, varying
rates of permeability, severe to very severe erosion hazard and a severe potential for
slippage.
Landsfide Hazard
Areas subject to severe landslide risk by King County are:
1. Any area with a combination of:
-slopes greater than 15 percent; and
-impermeable soils; and,
-springs or groundwater seepage.
2. Area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch (during last 10,000
years) or is underlain by mass wastage debris from that epoch.
3. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank
erosion or undercutting by wave action.
4. Any area that shows evidence of, or shows risk from, snow avalanches.
5. Any area located on an alluvial fan, either presently or potentially subject to
inundation by debris flows or deposition of stream-transported sediments.
The Lea Hill area does not c~3ntain many areas identified as being at risk for landslides.
Those locations which have been identified lie either along the Green River, Olson
Canyon or at the southeastern portion of the Hill, adjacent to SR18.
Seismic Hazard
The King County Sensitive areas Ordinance defines seismic hazard areas as those
areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically-induced
settlement or soil liquefaction. These occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of
Iow density, usually in association with a shallow groundwater table.
30
Aside from two small areas adjacent to SR18, the Lea Hill area does not have any
documented areas of seismic hazard.
Critical Areas Issues
The list below is not meant to be an all-inclusive lisL It is intended to be a starting point
to give the community a feeling for how the City would handte th~ Lea Hill area should
an annexation occur. Where appropriate, the City's Comprehensive Plan Policies which
support the response have been listed.
Issue #1
Olson Canyon and Creek are significant environmental amenities which are important to
the community. The City does not have a Sensitive Areas Ordinance to protect this
community asset.
City Response:
Should Lea Hill annex into Auburn, potential adverse impacts from new
development on Olson Creek and Canyon will be reviewed and minimized
through the Environmental Review (SEPA) process.
Supporting Policies:
The City shall seek to minimize sur[ace water quality and aquatic habitat degradation of creeks,
streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of
such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic
quality of such waters by requiring the use of current Best Management Practices for control of
stormwater and nonpoint runoff. (Policy EN-2, ACP)
Where possible, streams and river banks should be kept in a natural condition, and degraded
streambanks should be enhanced or restored. (Policy EN-4, ACP)
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 resoumes 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.
(Policy EN-22, ACP)
The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development.
(Policy EN-30, ACP)
The City shall seek to ensure that land not be developed or otherwise modified in a manner which
will result in or significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide, subsidence or
substantial soil erosion. The City's development standards shall dictate the use of Best
Management Practices to minimize the potential for these problems. (Policy EN-64, ACP)
Where there is a high probability of erosion (see Map 9.5), grading should be kept to a minimum
and disturbed vegetation should be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development
standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices for clearing and grading activity.
(Policy EN-65, ACP)
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on Class I and Class III landslide hazard
areas (Map 9.6) as part of its environmental review process and require any apprepdate mitigating
measures. The impacts ofthe new development, both during and after construction, on adjacent
properties shall also be considered. (Policy EN-68, ACP)
31
The City will require that a geotechnical report prepared by a professional engineer licensed by
the State of Washington with expertise in geotechnical engineering be submitted for all significant
activities proposed within Class I and Class III landslide hazard areas (Map 9.6). The City shall
develop administrative guidelines which identify the procedures and information required for the
geotechnica] reports. (Policy EN-70, ACP)
Issue #2
Wetlands are significant environmental amenities which are important to the community.
The City does not have a Sensitive Areas Ordinance to protect this community asset.
City Response:
Should Lea Hill annex into Auburn, the City would review potential adverse
impacts on wetlands from new development through the environmental review
(SEP^) process. As there are numerous sizes and types of wetlands within the
current City limits, staff are well experienced reviewing development proposals in
areas containing wetlands.
Supporting Policies:
The City recognizes the important biological and hydrological roles that wetlands play in
providing plant and animal habitat, protecting water quality, reducing the need for man-
made flood and storm drainage systems, maintaining water quality, and in providing
recreational, open space, educational and cultural opportunities. (Policy EN-23, ACP)
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. (Policy EN-24, ACP)
The City sharl 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. (Policy EN-
25, ACP)
Wetlands which ara 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. (Policy EN-26, ACP)
Issue #3
Steep slopes are significant environmental amenities which are important to the
community. The City does not have a Sensitive Areas Ordinance to protect this
community asset.
32
City Response:
Should Lea Hill annex into Auburn, the City would review potential adverse
impacts on steep slopes from new development through the environmental
review (SEPA) process. Through an analysis of the on-site slopes and soils
types, the City would determine whether a geo-technical ~nalysis must
accompany the development proposal. The geo-technical study would identify
whether the slopes were stable for development; whether a minimum setback is
required from the top of slope; and, what types of mitigation or development
techniques are required to ensure safe development. There are currently steep-
sloped areas within the City's jurisdiction.
Supporting Policies:
The City shall seek to ensure that land not be developed or otherwise modified in a manner which
will result in or significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide, subsidence or
substantial soil erosion. The City's development standards shall dictate the use of Best
Management Practices to minimize the potential for these problems. (Policy EN-64, ACP)
VVhere there is a high probability of erosion (see Map 9.5), grading should be kept to a minimum
and disturbed vegetation should be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development
standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices for clearing and grading activity.
(Policy EN-65, ACP)
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on hazards associated with soils and
subsurface drainage as a part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate
mitigating measures. (Policy EN-66, ACP)
Issue #4
Streams and creeks are significant environmental amenities which are important to the
community. The City does not have a Sensitive Areas Ordinance to protect this
community asset.
City Response:
Should Lea Hill annex into Auburn, the City would review potential adverse
impacts on streams and creeks from new development through the
environmental review (SEPA) process. The City will, generally, work with
property owners adjacent to creeks and streams to establish a minimum buffer,
and would require storm water runoff to be diverted away from the water way or
be treated and controlled to ensure no adverse impacts would result.
Supporting Policies:
The City shall seek to minimize surface water quality and aquatic habitat degradation of creeks,
streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies; to preserve and enhance the suitability of
such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and to preserve and enhance the aesthetic
quality of such waters by requiring the use of current Best Mana,,gement Practices for control of
stormwater and nonpoint runoff. (Policy EN-2, ACP)
The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the City is of equivalent quality to the
water entering. This will be accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to surface and
ground waters through education programs and implementation and enforcement of Best
Management Practices. (Policy EN-9, ACP)
33
The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to enhance and protect water quality
as dictated by the City's Developer Design Manual or other designated standard until it is
completed. In all new development, biofiJtration or other approved treatment measures shall be
required prior to discharging storm waters into the City storm drainage system or into
environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, rivers, and grouhdwater). (Policy EN-12, ACP)
VVhere possible, streams and river banks should be kept in a natural condition, and degraded
streambanks should be enhanced or restored. (Policy EN-4, ACP)
Issue #5
Forested areas are significant environmental amenities which are important to the
community. The City does not have a Sensitive Areas Ordinance to protect this
community asset.
City Response:
Should Lea Hill annex into Auburn, the City would review potential adverse
impacts resulting from new development on forested lands through the
environmental review (SEPA) process. There are forested lands currently within
the City limits.
Supporting Policies:
The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and encourage landscaping in order to
provide filtering of suspended particulates. (Policy EN-18, ACP)
The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new development.
(Policy EN-30, ACP)
The City shall strengthen the tree protection ordinance targeted at protecting large stands of trees
and significant trees within the City. (Policy EN-33, ACP)
'1.0
1.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
CONCLUSIONS:
Annexation Process
Small, individual parcel annexations should be avoided. Annexation should
occur either in one step; or, be a logical progression of large areas beginning
outward from 8m Street NE. The City shall insure that any annexations that
occur will take place under the optimal financial circumstances for the City.
Land Use
The City will, generally, maintain County-envisioned land uses by applying the
closest City zoning concurrent, or prior to annexation. The City's zoning for the
area will be as depicted in Figure 1.
The City recognizes the unique character of the Lea Hill area and will allow many
property owners to keep their livestock. For single-family residential parcels in
34
excess of 21,780 square feet (% acre), livestock is permitted as described in
Section 18.08.020.B.4, regardless of zone.
2.3
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.0
4.1
4.2
8.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
$.0
6.1
Adopt the King County policies from the Soos Creek Plan as listed in Appendix
A.
Transportation
In existing residential areas, street widths and sidewalks (or the lack, thereof) wil~
be maintained, but will not be reconstructed to City standards unless a majority
of the neighborhood wishes to participate in a LID.
A plan will be developed to retrofit existing collector and arterial streets with
sidewalks and street lights, where needed. The school district will be consulted
on the development of this plan.
The City is investigating the possibilities for a direct vehicular connection from S.
277th Street to north Lea Hill.
The City's Non-Motorized plan for Lea Hill should include provisions for bikes,
pedestrians and equestrians.
Parks
The City will strive to provide park space on Lea Hill at a level similar to the
balance of Auburn.
The City will continue to discuss the future of the Kent reservoir parcel with the
City of Kent, exploring possibilities for conversion to a community park.
Utilities
The City will develop a plan for regional storm water facilities on Lea Hill.
Should a utility (water or sewer) need to be extended either across or through
Olson Canyon, the City will hold a public meeting with the area residents to
discuss possible alternatives for placement and treatment.
When a regional storm water system is developed for Lea Hill, the City will either
sell or allow property utilized for existing storm water detention facilities to be
converted to other permitted uses, where possible.
Emergency Services
The City shall guarantee that, following annexation, there will be no decrease
from current service levels. If possible, the City may consider contracting with
Fire District #44 to provide service to the Lea Hill area until the City is ready to
fully staff a station on the hill.
35
6.2
6.3
7.0
7.1
7,2
The City shall maintain police service on Lea Hill according to its Community
Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) philosophy as it does
throughout the entire City.
The City will consider the creation of a police sub-station or community office on
Lea Hill. -
Critical Areas
Development which impacts Olson Canyon and Creek shall be discouraged, or
mitigated to minimize any negative impacts.
Development in or near Sensitive (Critical) Areas will be required to provide
adequate buffers as determined through the SEPA process.
36
Proposed Lea Hill Area Zoning
~E 282ND ST
GOLF
COURSE
FIGURE 1
Legend
RS Single-Family Residential
Rol Single-Family Residential
R-2 Single-Family Residentisl
R-3 Duplex Residential
R-4 Multiple-Family Residential
R-MHP Residential Manufactured
Home Park
C,-1 Ught Commercial
P-1 Public Use
I Institutional
Potential Annexation Boundary
Not under ^ubum's jurisdiction
37
APPENDIX A -- Selected Soos Creek Community Plan Policies
The Soos Creek Community Plan was adopted by King County in December 1991. The
Plan covered a 73 square mile area located east of and adjacent to the Cities of Renton,
Kent and Auburn. The Lea Hill area is within the area covered b'y that Plan.
Subsequent to the adoption of the Soos Creek Community Plan, both the City of Auburn
and King County adopted new comprehensive Plans to comply with the Washington
State Growth Management Act. Many of the policies within the Soos Creek Plan have
been superseded by policies contained in those more recent planning documents. In
addition, many other policies in the Soos Creek Plan refer to specific targeted areas
outside of the City of Auburn Potentia~ Annexation Area. For these reasons, the
following are the only policies as originally stated in the Soos Creek Plan which will
remain in effect after annexation to Auburn:
NR-2
NR-14
A-9
R-4
R-25
R-34
Wetlands, streams, other sensitive areas and their buffers which are important
for the control of surface water runoff, erosion, flooding and protection of
fisheries within the Soos Creek Basin should remain undisturbed.
All development within 660 feet of the top of the Green River Valley walls,
particularly along the bluffs south and west of the Lea Hill Plateau, should be
conditioned to avoid adverse impacts on the environment and risks to life and
property.
King County will work with the cities of Auburn, Kent and Renton to evaluate
opportunities for providing neighborhood parks to meet the needs of new
development within the urban portions of the planning area.
Neighborhood circulation is a critical component of the Soos Creek Community
Plan. New development must provide pedestrian connections to off-site facilities
such as existing trails, walkways, community facilities and services, transit,
schools and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Pedestrian links should be
provided internally in all new residential development.
All new residential developments should provide public pedestrian access to and
through the development, and to parks, schools, and Activity Centers. The
access should be a direct and convenient link to existing or planned routes and
trails beyond each development. All developments should provide sidewalks or
walkways designed to decrease the distance between parking areas, building
entrances, bus stops, recreation facilities, external sidewalks and other
destination points.
All new residential development including multifamily should provide street trees
to augment the natural character of the Soos Creek community and help mitigate
impacts of vegetation removal in the Soos Creek Planning Area.
C-13
T-22
T-23
T-24
All commercial centers should be accessible by pedestrians, bicycle and transit
service in addition to the automobile.
Non-motorized improvements should be incorporated into all major widening
roadway projects with specific non-motorized projects funded in the following
order; first for pedestrian improvements, then bicycle imp?ovements, and finally
equestrian improvements.
Residential developments should provide pedestrian facilities such as pathways
connecting with adjacent developments, transit service and arterials. Metro
should be consulted regarding new service locations where appropriate.
Development should provide safe pedestrian pathways to and through all sizes
of commercial development (including mini-marts).
APPENDIX B -- City - County Correspondence
40
Policy/Text Amendment #8
Description:
Adopt the new 1997 City of Auburn Parks and Recreation Plan.
A copy of the Park Plan is provided in a separate binder..
Policy/Text Amendment #9
Description:
Adopt the new 1997 City of Aubum Transportation Plan.
The Council has previously been provided with a copies of the
Transportation Plan and a second document entitled, Revisions to the
Second Draft." In addition, adoption of the Transportation Plan will
require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7. The
changes proposed to Chapter 7 are soley to provide policy consistency
between the two documents.
CHAPTER 7
TRANSPORTATION
Introduction
Background
The transportation system is a basic component of Auburn's social,
economic, and physical structure. On the most basic level, it provides
opportunities for movement throughout the City and the region, but over
the long term it influences patterns of growth and the level of economic
activity through the accessibility it provides to land. Planning for the
development and maintenance of the transportation system is a critical
activity, both for promoting the efficiem movement of goods and people
and for maintaining the strong role that transportation can play in
attaining other community objectives. An efficiently functioning
transportation system is vital for regional growth and prosperity.
Breakdowns in this system will result in increased costs to conduct
business in the City and region, thereby lowering the area's
competitiveness with other markets. Further, the transportation system's
inability to provide a satisfactory level of service is one of the most
visible effects when growth overwhelms the existing infrastructure.
When this breakdown occurs, traffic congestion increases, mobility is
reduced, and air quality declines.
This transportation chapter provides a policy framework for addressing
Auburn's approach to transportation issues affecting the City. The City
of Auburn Capital Facilities and Transportation Plans should be
examined to gain a more complete view of Auburn's approach to
transportation issues. In addition to the policy framework, this chapter
provides an overview of some transportation issues and background
information on the transportation system.
The Auburn transportation system is comprised of all of the different
methods of transportation that move people and freight throughout the
City. While this system is multimodal (i.e. it is comprised of several
different modes or types of travel such as the automobile, bicycles,
walking or transiO, the primary mode of travel is the automobile. This
I Page 7-1 I
Chapter
is made possible by an extensive road network that has developed within
the City and the region. Transit, biking, and walking are used to a much
lesser degree because of the relative lack of supporting facilities (good
transit service, bicycle racks, bike paths), and land use characteristics
that would make these more attractive alternatives.
The high cost, together with the difficulty of continually expanding the
City road network to meet increased demand and the lowering of the
region's air quality, have placed an emphasis on encouraging modes of
travel other than the automobile (multimodalism), decreasing the demand
for travel (transportation demand management), and encouraging more
efficient use of the existing infrastructure (transportation system
management). The encouragement and support of multimodalism,
transportation demand management, and transportation system
management are key components in the City's approach to addressing its
transportation needs.
The concurrency provisions of the Growth Management Act require that
local governments permit development only if adequate public facilities
are, or can be guaranteed to be, available to support new development.
While the Growth Management Act is less stringent for other types of
public facilities, it requires strict application of concurrency
requirements for transportation facilities. The Act requires that the
facilities necessary to serve a development and to maintain an adopted
level of service standard (to be discussed below) be constructed
"concurrently" with development. Concurrently is defined within the
Act as being completed within six years of completion of the
development (this is done to coincide with the six year time frame of
most capital facilities plans). If the facility is not available at the time of
development, funding must be available to construct the facility within
the six year capital facilities plan. If this guarantee is not in place, the
development must be revised or the permit for that development must be
denied.
GOAL 16
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Auburn will plan, expand, and improve its transportation system in
cooperation and coordination with adjacent and regional jurisdictions to
ensure concurrency compliance with the Growth Management Act, and
to provide a safe and efficient multimodal system that meets the
community needs and facilitates the land use plan.
Transportation]
Roadway System
The roadway system provides the primary means for transportation
throughout the Auburn area. The City is served by an extensive street
network which includes freeways, arterials, rural, and local streets. (see
below and Map 7-1).
All roads within Auburn are classified according to their '!functional
classification." These classifications describe the character of service
that a road is intended to provide, as well as establish minimum design
standards to meet the expected performance standards ............... ~ .o
~: ..... · ..... c ~,n~, c,f **'~ c'"'~:~n~R ad 'th' the A b
............. a ...................... o ways wi in u urn
Urban Growth Area will be ................ designated consistent with the
1994 edition of "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets" Published by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO'). the guidelines of the Washington
State Department of Transportation as mandated by RCW 47.05.021,
and King County. Roadway classifications in Auburn are:
Freeways
Freeways within the City are operated and maintained by the State and
are intended to carry traffic through the City to and from other parts of
the region. Freeways also enable traffic originating in or destined for
Auburn to move efficiently into or out of the City. The City will
continue to work with the WSDOT and PSRC to maintain and improve
the regional transportation facilities and their interface with the City
arterial system.
There are two limited access freeways which pass through Auburn: SR
167 and SR 18. These freeways are intended to accommodate regional
traffic passing through the City, with a small portion originating from and
destined to Auburn. In Auburn, SR 18 is currently a four lane facility
that narrows to two lanes near the easterly city limits. SR 18 is
scheduled to be widened to four lanes by the Washington State
Department of Transportation, though the availability of funding for this
project has resulted in a delay. SR 18 does not currently have, and is
not proposed for, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes or special
transit lanes.
SR 167 is a four lane facility with a median separating the opposing
traffic flows. HOV lanes for the segments from 15th SW to 1-405 are in
the final planning stages. The Auburn portions of the HOV
improvements are proposed to be completed by 1997.
I Page 7-3 I
[,,, Chapter
Arterials
Arterials typically interconnect major traffic generators and other activity
generators. The City has t!:rcc, four types of arterials:
Principal arterials - PrincipS. l arterials are designed to
move traffic between locations within the local area and
to access the freeways. Design emphasis should be
placed on providing movement of through-traffic,
though direct access to land uses is permitted. Principal
arterials are typically constructed to accommodate 5
lanes of traffic. Streets in this classification include:
Auburn Way North and South, "A" Street SE and 15th
Street NW and SW.
Minor Arterials - Though primarily for through-traffic,
minor arterials place more emphasis on local
movements..Minor arterial streets convey traffic onto
principal arteria s from collector and local streets. They
place slightly more emphasis on land access and offer n
lower level of mobility than principal arterials. They are
typically constructed to accommodate four lanes of
traffic. Streets in this classification include: 8t5 Strec:
nm a::~ 1 .... SE"C" Street NW and "B" Street
NW.
~. . ~ .......... Residential
~ot ector Artemals - Residential collector arterml
streets convey traffic onto minor arterials, and non
residential collector arterials. They provide through
movements in residential ..... , ............ t~ ...... pat
...... alae~ghborhoods and se~e adjacent residential
parcels. Residential collector arterial streets ~e
t~ically constructed to accommodate two lanes of
~affic wi~ ...... ·
...... ~.~ther a center turn lane or bike lanes.
Stree~ in ~is cl~sification include: 5~,h ...... SE and
~37th Street SE and Dogwood Sweet
Non-R~idential Collector A~e~al - Non-Residential
collector arterial streets distribute Waffic to and from
principal or minor ~terials and local access streets.
They provide through movements primarily i,t
commercial and industrial ~eas, a~ a balance betwee,,
mobility and land access to adiacent land use. Non
Residential collector ~terials typically accommodate:
~'o lanes of waffic. Stree~ in this classification include:
4th Sweet NE and "F" S~eet
[-" TransportatiouJ
I Local Streets
Local streets are maintained by the City and almost exclusively serve
local traffic, carrying it to higher classification roadways. They are not
intended for through traffic. Local streets are typically constructed to
accommodate two travel lanes. Streets in. this classification include:
"D" Street SE and 18th Street NE.
Rural Streets
Rural streets generally serve travel of primarily intra-coun[¥ rather than
statewide importance, and constitute routes of shorter travel distances
than arterials. Streets in this classification include: 53th Street SE and
Stuck River Dr.
Objective 16.1
To provide an integrated street network of different classes of streets
designed to facilitate different types of traffic flows and access needs.
Policies:
TR~I
] TR-2
198-397 Transportation Plan .... , as may be
amended or updated, is-adopted and incorporated into this Plan.
The City street system is made up of twohree classes of streets:
Arterials - a system of City, state, and county
streets designed to move traffic from or to one
area within the local area to or from another area.
These streets should be adequate in number,
appropriately situated, and designed to
accommodate moderate to high traffic volumes
with a minimum of disruption in the flow.
Rural Streets - A system of the intra-countv roadn
linking residential neighborhoods to the urban
~treet system.
Local Streets - a system of City streets which
collect traffic from individual sites ~md carry the
traffic to the arterial system.
L Pace 7-5 I
Chapter 7 ]
Objective 16.2
TR-3
TR-3 has been deleted. ~,~ t,^,~a -o ,,
.............. ,,,
........ a~,~ t,.,7.2
o~v ........ ~ Map
TR-4
A comprehensive street classification system and Arterial Street
Plan ~"*'" ~',, -~-,~ ..... -
............... wd thatare presented in _hJap 7.2 which
includes all streets within the City, and classifies them according
to their function within the transportation system.
TR-5
Street standards shall be developed that reflect the street
classification system and function. The design and management
of the street network shall seek to improve the appearance of
existing street corridors. Streets are recognized as an important
component of the public spaces within the City and should
include, where appropriate, landscaping to enhance the
appearance of City street corridors. The standards should include
provisions for streetscaping.
To provide an efficient arterial street network.
Policies:
[ TR-6 The City has *"-~*c
....... our classes of arterials:
a. Principal arterials Principal arterial streets convey traffic
along commercial or industrial activities, and provide access.
to freeways. They emphasize mobility and de-emphasize.
access to adjacent land uses. Principal arterial :streets are
typically constructed to accommodate five lanes, of traffic.
b. Mincr ~taria!s. Minor arterial streets convey traffic onto
principal arterials from collector and local streets. They
place slightly more emphasis on land access and offer,
lower level of mobiliW than principal arterials. Mint',,
arterial streets are typically constructed to accommodate four
lanes of traffic.
c. Residential and Non-residential Collector arterials
constructed to accommodate three or four lanes of traffic,
but striped to accommodate three lanes of traffic. Additional
lanes would be provided if and when traffic :glows require
such striping for efficient traffic flow.
Tranzportation~
Objective 16.3
TR-7
The City shall encourage King Ccu::tyand Pierce_Counties to
develop and implement a similar system of arterial designations
within Auburn's potential annexation area.
TR-8
The City shall encourage and support the development of new
arterials that provide the opportunity to avoid the Community
Serving Areas, (Map 3.2) including a new connection between
the Auburn Way South/SR 164 and Highway 18, 8th Street
(known as Lake Tamps> connection in Pierce County and an
extension of 277th Street to serve the Lea Hill area.
TR-9
The City shall designate new arterials to serve developing areas
before such development. Such arterials shall be spaced in
compliance with good transportation network planning
principles.
To provide an effective street system of local collectors for local traffic.
Policies:
TR-10 Through traffic shall be discouraged in local residential areas.
TR-11 Collector streets shall be constructed with curbs, gutters, and
sidewalks on both sides.
TR-12
Except where now provided, private streets shall only be
considered within developments under a common management or
to serve four or fewer lots.
TR-13 An efficient collector system seeks to spread the opportunity for
movement over alternative routes rather than directing traffic to a
few collectors. Also, ample alternatives should exist for
emergency vehicles to access areas (in case of a blockage on a
street) and to facilitate movement of police patrols. All
developed areas shall be served by at least two accesses.
A. Access in new development:
Cul-de-sacs (or other streets, public or private, that
provide only one outlet to the collector system) shall
not be more than 600 feet long, unless the added
length is caused by environmental constraints or
parcelization issues. Examples of environmental
constraints or development patterns may include, but
not be limited to, a narrow peninsula of land or a site
I__ Page 7-7 {
Chapter
Objective 16.4
surrounded by existing development with no
alternative access. Non-motorized paths shall be
provided (when the City determines it to be
necessary), at the end of the cul-de-sac to shorten
walking distances to an .adjacent arterial or public
facilities including, but not limited to, schools or
parks.
o
Residential developments with fewer than 75 units and
under a common management (apartment complexes
and mobile home courts) may limit general access to
one route, provided that additional access routes are
made available for emergency vehicles.
B. Access to existing areas:
Existing dead end streets should be linked to other
streets whenever the opportunity arises, unless it can
be demonstrated that such connections would lead to a
substantial rerouting of through traffic onto the street.
Such dead-end streets shall not be allowed to serve
substantial new development unless linked to other
streets. Where such linkage would substantially
reroute through traffic onto the street, .the new
development may be denied.
To accommodate through-traffic in the City as efficiently as possible,
with a minimum of disruption to the local community.
Policies:
TR-14 The City shall continue to support the activities of the State
Department of Transportation to facilitate the movement of
through traffic through the City.
TR-15
The City shall encourage the State and County to develop
through routes which avoid the community serving: area of the
City.
TR-16 The City should actively solicit action by the State and King and
Pierce Counties to program and construct those improvements
to State and County arterial and freeway systems needed to
serve Auburn.
Roadway Level
of Service
{'"' Transportation}
Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of the operational pert'ormance of a
transportation facility. This measure considers perception by motorists
and passengers in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver,
traffic interruptions and delays, comfort, and convenience. Levels of
service are typically given letter designations from A through F, with
LOS A representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F
representing the worst. Level of Service can be quantified in different
terms, depending on the transportation facility. For example, on
highways the level of service can be defined by the general spacing of
cars traveling on the roadway and their level of interference with one
another. At intersections, the level of service can be defined by the
length of delay a vehicle experiences in passing through thai intersection.
Definitions for each level of service and the methodologies for
calculating the level of service for various facilities are contained in
Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Highway Capacity
Manual.
Level of Service in Auburn
Because of the complex nature of development and resulting traffic flows
and the ability of individuals to take alternative routes, jurisdictions
throughout the State are developing LOS measurements which differ
from the more traditional measurements defined above. The City of
I Auburn has fc~urthree, different criteria for measuring LOS as follows:
1. Arterial Corridor LOS
Fifteen arterial corridors which reflect the routes most frequently
traveled within the City have been desLonated. An automated_
interconnect system coordinates operation of the traffic si~,nals in these
corridors. This coordination provides improved traffic progression, ,ns
well as reduction of fuel consumption, pollution emission, and delay. In
these corridors, the average delay per vehicle at signali?ed intersections
is calculated by the use of Arterial Analysis Package (AAP) nroeram.
The designated arterial corridors and corresponding Levels of Service
are presented in Figure 7.1Tab!: 1.1. The corridors are as follows:
1. Auburn Way North: 15th Street NE to northern City limits_
2. Auburn Way North/South: 4th Street SE to 15th Street Nli
3. Auburn Way South: SRI8 to "M' Street SE
4. Auburn Way South: Howard Road to Dogwood
5. "M' Street/Harvey: Auburn Way North to East Main
6. "M' Street/Harvey: East Main Auburn Way North
7. South 277th Street: Auburn Way North to West Valley Highway
8.37th Street NE: West Valley Highway to Auburn Way North
[_._ Page 7-9 I
I1 - Auburn Way North/South: 4th Street SE to 15th Steert NE
LEVELOFSERVICEiSmC~ 21~econds :!.7:~ '
LEVEL OFSERVICE IS = C, 22seconds
LEVEL OFSERV[CE IS ~ C, 19 seconds
~.' - M StreeffHarvey: Auburn Way North to East Main
LEVEL OF SERVICE IS ~ D, ~30 seconds ,:' .~,
VI - M Street/Harvey: East Main lo Aubucn Way North
LEVEL OF SERVICE IS = C, 23 seconds - :
LEVEL OF SERVICE IS = B, 13 seconds ,
IX - 15ih Sn-eet N%V: West Valley Highway to Auburn Way Nor
LEVEL OF SERVICE IS=C, 17 seconds '
LEVELOFSERVICEIS=C, lSseconds -
LEVEL OF SERVICE 1S -- C. IS seconds
Xll - ISIh Street SW: West Valley Highway to "C" Street SW
LEVEL OF SERVICE IS = B,., 6 seconds .
Kill - C Street: Ellingson to lSth Street NW
LEVEL OFSERVICE IS.= B, 10 seconds
Transportation]
Figure 7.1
Signalized Intersection Level of Service
,N/S Street E/W Street LOS N/S Street E/W Str~t r LOS
A.,~.tr NE 15th Sit NE B C gu' W Main S;r / B
A S~t. xNE 2nd Sit SE B C Sir SW ' 3rd Sit SV! / C
A Sit l~ 3rd/Cross Str SE E C Sit SW SR 18 WB/ C
ASitN 6th Str SE B C Sir SW SRI8 , C
Auburn Ave ~ 4th Str NE B C gte SW 9ale 1-10 B
Auburn Ave 3rd Str NE B C Str SW llingson B
Auburn Way N Ea'sC,..Main Sit E D Str NV/ J S 277th Sit B
Auburn Way N S 27'~it C Divisiond,,~f W Main S~:r B
Auburn Way N 37th Sit ~ B Harve~WRd NE 8th Str NF, E
Auburn Way N 30th Str NE~ B H~ey Rd NE I Str NE B
Auburn Way N 22nd Sit NE ~ C I¢lStr NE 4th Str NE, A
Auburn Way N 15th Str NE ~ F/ M Sit E Main Str D
Auburn Way N 8th Sit NE ~ M Str SE 4th Sit SE B
Auburn Way N 4th Sit NE /' 0%. perimeter Rd SW 15th Str SW C
Auburn Way N 1 st Str NE / B xl.n. dusity Rd 15th Sit SW B
Auburn Way S Academy Drive B L r SW lSth Str SW C
Auburn Way S 2nd Sit SE_// B SR 1 67 1~ 15th Sit SW C
Auburn Way S 4th 8ity~E/Cro~s Str E SR 167 SB ~ 15th Sit SW B
Auburn Way S SR lfl/EB/6th Sit SE D SR 167 NB ~ 15th Sit SW B
Auburn Way S 5~,/18 WB Ramp C SR 167 SB '~1 5th Str SW C
Auburn way S /f2th Str SE B W Valley Hwy )Yxth Str N ¢/ C
AubumWayS / MSitSE D WValleyFlwy 15t'h,,StrNW C
' Auburn Way SJ Howard Rd B _W. Valley Hwy W Ma~Sit B
Auburn Wa..wS Dogwood Sit SE B W Valley Itwy SR 18 WB E
C Sit l'q~tJ 15th Str Iq'&' B W Valley Hwy SR 18 EB C
C Sit ~ 3rd Str NW B W Valley Hwy Peasl~y Canyon Rd C
Freew~ LOS
The City will continue to coordinate with the Waslhington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) to develop level of service standards for limited access
facilities to ensure consistency in the application of a standard to the
regional facility.
As there is no adopted LOS currently in use for the freeways, the City of
Auburn will not impose restrictions to development relative to these
L Page 7-11
.~an~oortat~2_r~GoaZ, & Policier
15th StSW ISR 167 NB Ramps
T. SthStS\V ~ IOStSW
'15th St SW IMarket St
lSth St SW ~ IPerimeter Rd
AStNE ,l,tb St NE
.-Auu?m Avenue . 14th St NE
A~ubum Avenue 13rd St NE
Auburn Avenue I I st St NE
-
.Suhum Avenue t East Main St
AStSE __ 12nd St SE
-~ St SE 13roi St SE
~. St SE 16th StSE
~StSE j4. lst St SE
~ubum Way N~ ~S 277th St
Auburn Way N ]37th St NE
Auburn Way N - ~30th SI NE
3ubum 'Var N ~22nd St NE
Auburn Way N
Auburn Way N
~Ubum Way N
A~ubum Way N
.3ubum Way N
3ubum Way S
Auburn Way S
A~bum Way S
Auburn Way S
~bum W: _, S
~ubum ~%v '
18Ih St NE
-- i4~h St NE
- list St NE
[East Main St
__ 12ndStSE
__ !a!h St SE
ISR 18 WB Ramp
16th St SE
Log
I,_%burn Wa.,, S Howard Rd B --
Auburn Way S Do~wood St
Auburn Way S Academy D~ -
C St NW I~th St NW C
C St NW 3rd StNW
~ S NW jWest Main St
Z St SW B
3rd St SW B
C S~ SW SR 18 WB R~ps
~ S~SW ~SR 18 EB R~ps
~StSW
13th St SW B
C St SW Boeing Gate A-lO A
C St SW Ellin~son Rd C
D St NW S 277th St A
D ST NE 15th StNE B
Division St { West Main S~
Hars¢? Rd NE ~Sth St NE E
Hat, e?. Rd NE
I St NE B
M S~ NE 4th ST NE B
~ Sc NE [E~t Main St C
M S~SE 14th St SE 8
SR 167 SB R~ps }13th StNW
C
SR 167 NB Ramps jlSth StNW B
W Valley H~w ~37th St NW C
W Valley Hxt~,. $I 5th St NW C
~ Valley H~W
West Main St B
W Va!Icy H,.D. SR 8 WB R~ps B
W Valle? H~W ISR 18 EB Ramps C
W Valley H~w jPe~ley Canyon D
?' Valley H~t}' J l Sth St SW B
._L~S_t $£ 121st St SE ~
L~SE i29th StSE ~
.AStSE l l2th St SE t B
A St SE tlYth St SE F
A Sc SE }2lst St SE F
A St SE }29th St SE F
A St SE ?7th St SE B
.A St SE IL~eland Hills Way ' A
.Auburn Way S IFir St SE A
FStSE j4th St SE } A
FS~SE 12l$t St SE [ A
[StNE I37thS NE ] ,A
~St NE 128th St NE I A
St NE 122nd St NE
KerseyWa.~ 'OravetzRoaci I AB l
1996 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Table 1,2. 1996 Intersection Level 2fServi¢{
H: Wickl Tranplanltranpol L doc
Page 1.10
Chapter
facilities until a regional standard can [~c deve!opcdis adopted into force
of law by the state.
Level of Service
Threshold or
Standard
It is necessary to define a LOS standard for transportation facilities to
enforce the concurrency requirements of this Comprehensive Plan. If
development results in a given facility's service falling below a defined
LOS standard, concurrency requires that the development causing the
deficiency be revised or that the permit for that development be denied.
Auburn defines below LOS as: an unacceptable increase.' in hazard or
safety on a roadway; an increase in congestion which constitutes an
unacceptable, adverse environmental impact under the State
Environmental Policy Act; a significant reduction in arty of the four
level of service criteria as defined within the policies below.
Objective 16.5.
To ensure that new development does not degrade transportation
facilities to below LOS standards.
TR-17
New development shall not be allowed if an LOS is below the
LOS standard before development or when the iimpacts of the
new development on the transportation system degrades the
LOS to below the LOS standard, unless the condition is
remedied concurrent with the development: as described in
Chapter Six of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan..
I Page 7-12
[ Transportation~
Figure 7.2
Arterial Link Level of Service
Years 1993 and 201;tlt)
$ of Sp~-~d 1 9 9 3 2 0 20
2 g575 I 0 34
2
125
130 1CCO [
135 1200I
43 [Auburn Wa,¢
4 135 q
2 {35 I
2 [30 [
5575
2230
12303 0.22
3~50 O 16
q 1400
I 14oo
i 1ooo
i 1200
j 1060
1060
1060
1C00
· Chapter
TR-18 The term "below the level of service standard" shall apply to
situations where traffic attributed to a development results in any
of the following:
a. An unacceptable increase, in hazard or safety on a
roadway.
b. An increase in congestion which constitutes an
unacceptable adverse environmental impact under the
State Environmental Policy Act.
c. A reduction of any of the fourthree levels of service
below the following level of service standards:
1. Arterial Corridor LOS: The Level of Service
.standard for each arterial corridor is "D".
2.a..Signalized Intersection LOS: The level of
service standard for signalized intersections
....... t .... or ,,. ~ r~e "C
.......... Ion.~
"" ' is LOS "D", excep[ for
those intersections currently below LOS
~here their existing LOS at the time of the
adoption of this plan is the adopted standard.
2.b..Unsignalized Intersection LOS: The level
of service standard for these intersections,
measured as if it were signalized, shall be level
of service "G_.D". A traffic signal warrant
analysis will be conducted, as necessary, to
determine if a signal should be installed.
Roadway Link (Capacity) LOS: The arterial
link (capacity) LOS standard for each arterial
link is LOS "D". except for collector residential
_arterials. The link LOS standnrds for collecto~
residential arterials is "C'.
Standard LOS: If a dc:'clopm:a:
an beer:ace of vciume which is at
roadway which is not currently ccn:x~ctcd
I Transp°rtatinnl
Existing
Deficiencies
At present, all links (Figure 7.2) except for ^
......... ~,.~. , ....... , .... M Street SE between East Main Street and
Auburn Way South (Link 47) are functioning at or above designated
LOS standards. Tk,::c :;;'c, pfc, jeer: arcis proiect is included in the City's
six year transportation improvement plan. (Figure 7.3) Since the
signalized intersection LOS is set at LOS "D" or the existing level of
service, whichever is lower, there are no signalized intersection
deficiencies.
Figure 7.3
Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan
I AubumWayN-4thN~to 18thNE OC ~/
4 6rheA' St SE Signal '~ 00 0( O0 ,/0.0 0. C 00
21 Oravetz Ret -MilI Pond to Kersey Way t//t/ N~0 00 62.4 249.~ 0.0 00
:s ~'S~rSS-S~tmi~toAWS / o< 0.0 \ 0.0 0.¢ 76.0 ~oao
Page 7-15 I
[ Chapter
Forecast Volumes
The traffic forecast is made by a microcomputer-based transportation
planning model, TMODEL2, which is based upon the land use plan and
assumptions, as outlined in the land use element, and on the
Comprehensive Plan Map. The model is calibrated to include existing
land uses, including large traffic generators including the SuperMall of
the Great Northwest, the Emerald Downs Thoroughbred Racetrack and
the Muckleshoot Indian Casino.
Areas outside of the current city limits that are expected to significantly
impact the City transportation system are included in the model. The
model enables the City to conduct detailed traffic forecasts for all arterial
streets based upon a number of if-then development and land use
scenarios.
Estimated traffic counts and the LOS for the arterial links within the City
in the year 2020 are shown in Figure 7.2. The 2020 forecasts coincides
with "build out" of the City's Comprehenisve Plan and meets the
GMA's requirement for at least a ten year traffic forecast. A number of
deficiencies are indicated. The City's Capital Facilities Plan indicates
that all of these deficiencies can be improved to acceptable levels by
construction programs, however revisions to this plan may be necessary
when the new Transportation Plan is completed. As future six year
transportation improvement plans are developed, these-projects will be
further refined and budgeted as necessary. A few more links may
become deficient beyond the planned improvements by the year 2020 if
regional programs to reduce travel demand are not effective.
Further analysis of these forecasts and trends are contained in Chapter II
of the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). As noted, most of the more
dramatic traffic increases are caused by development trends outside the
city, especially along the roadways serving the Enumclaw Plateau.
Other areas of major traffic increase include the "A" Street SE corridor,
M Street SE and along the West Valley Highway. Two areas that will
receive substantial increases in traffic caused by internal development are
the southwest area of the City where the SuperMall will add large traffic
volumes, and in the northwest area where continued development of the
industrial area will add large traffic increases.
Improving System
Inadequacies
A range of alternatives are available to improve LOS when these
corridors and links approach the adopted LOS standard. Emphasis,
however, will be placed on transportation system management (TSM)
techniques, which make more efficient use of the existing transportation
Page 7-16
Transp°rtati°nl
system, thereby reducing the need for costly system capacity expansion
projects. These alternatives include:
rechannelization - restriping, adding turn lanes, adding or
increasing number of through lanes
signal coordination and optimization
signalization
turn movement restrictions
In addition to TSM strategies, the City will strive to provide viable
alternatives for the traveler, to ensure freedom of choice among several
transportation modes (such as transit, biking and walking) as alternatives
to the automobile. The City will stress the development of pedestrian-
friendly environments such as bicycle routes and pedestrian paths as it
expands. Emphasis on local mobility will be maintained on all streets
except those designated as being of regional importance.
The City's Capital Facilities Plan contains specific roadway
improvements needed to accommodate future traffic growth. The SEPA
process will also determine if additional improvements are needed as
developments occur. As is the case now, development projects will be
denied or postponed if necessary transportation facilities are not available
or cannot be provided.
Transportation
Demand
Management
Strategies
In the past, strategies to reduce transportation system congestion
concentrated on expanding the transportation system (the supply). These
strategies have proven to be extremely expensive and are often short-
lived as traffic congestion quickly returned to its previous levels. New
approaches to reducing system congestion focus on reducing demands on
the transportation system. The importance of transportation demand
management (TDM) was emphasized by the State of Washington when it
adopted the Commute Trip Reduction law in 1991. The law requires all
major employers (those with over 100 employees arriving between the
hours of 6:00a.m. and 9:00a.m.) to develop programs and strategies to
reduce the number of commuter automobile trips. These TDM programs
and strategies include:
ride-sharing through vanpools and carpools,
parking management to discourage single occupant vehicle
(SOV) travel,
[ Page 7-17
{ Chapter
Finance
telecomrauting,
alternative work schedules to compress the work week or
shift the commute outside the typical commute hours
urban design encouraging non-motorized travel through
design features.
The City of Auburn will encourage drivers of SOVs to consider alternate
modes of travel such as carpools, vanpools, transit, non-motorized
travel, and alternative work schedules. The following elements will
contribute to reducing SOV travel:
The Auburn Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance (developed
in conjunction with the State law) requires that major
employers reduce both the number of employees commuting
by single occupancy vehicle and the number vehicle miles
traveled.
Continue to coordinate with METRO, RTA, Pierce Transit,
and other transit providers to improve transit service and
alternatives to automobile/SOV travel.
Land use - Site public facilities to take advantage of transit
opportunities. Focus multifamily and mixed use
developments downtown and along or near existing transit
corridors. Encourage infill and redevelopment.
4. Develop an Urban Design Element which focuses on transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle amenities.
o
Support of Regional Transportation Plans, including the
designation of downtown Auburn as the preferred site for a
Commuter Rail Station.
The 1982 Comprehensive Traffic Plan for the City of Auburn set forth
the basic financing system now used for transportation facilities.
Current transportation planning, both in the CFP and in this Plan, builds
on that same base.
The CFP presents a fundable construction program that will address the
major traffic needs identified both in this document and in the CFP.
This document will be revised as the Transportation Plan is updated.
According to the CFP, a transportation network capable of supporting
the City at buildout of this comprehensive plan (which current forecasts
indicate will occur in approximately 2020) can be built by the year 2018.
[ Page 7-18
I Transp°rtati°nl
The City's six year transportation improvement plan (TIP) is shown in
Figure 7.3. The City's TIP is updated on an annual basis. The TIP
includes a full range of transportation projects which address deficiencies
and includes signalization projects, safety improvements, pedestrian and
bicycle improvements, maintenance and road improvements.
Objective 16.6
A process should be established to ensure long-term consistency in
planning and programming projects that comprise the Six Year
Transportation Improvement Plan.
TR-19
Evaluation criteria will be reviewed annually during the
formation of the preliminary Six Year Transportation
Improvement Plan. This annual review will incorporate any
changes to ensure that City criteria consider changes in Federal
and State funding criteria.
TR-20
Evaluation criteria shall maximize utilization of city financing to
match transportation grants, promote safety, integrate planning of
other projects requiring disturbance of pavements, promote
mobility, and optimize the utilization of existing infrastructure
and foster economic development.
Objective 16.7
To finance the new streets and transportation systems necessary to serve
new development without adversely affecting the fiscal capacity of the
City to finance general transportation needs.
Policies:
TR-21
The City shall continue to require developers of new
developments to construct transportation systems that serve their
developments. The City shall also explore ways for new
developments to encourage vanpooling, carpooling, public transit
use, and other alternatives to SOV travel.
TR-22
The City should continue to actively pursue the formation of
Local Improvement Districts (LID) to upgrade existing streets
and construct new streets to the appropriate standard.
TR-23
Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed
as a part of the development process. All costs will be borne by
the development when the development is served by the proposed
new streets. In some instances, the City may choose to
participate in this construction where improvements serve more
Page 7-19 [
] Chapter 7 ]
than adjacent developments. The City will encourage the use of
LIDs, where appropriate and financially feasible, and to facilitate
their development. The City will consider developing a traffic
impact fee system.
TR-24 Improvements that upgrade existing streets are considered to
benefit the abutting property, and such improvements should be
funded by the abutting property owners. Some City participation
may be appropriate to encourage the formation of LIDs in
particular problem areas.
TR-25
Revenues for street improvements should primarily provide for
the orderly development of the general traffic flow in compliance
with the six-year street plan. The basic criterion for such funding
should be the degree to which that project improves the general
traffic flow and not the benefit that might accrue to properties.
Use of revenues to encourage formation of LIDs should be of
only secondary concern, and should be considered appropriate
only when used to address particularly significant traffic
problems. Where it is possible to establish a direct relationship
between a needed improvement and a development, the
development should be expected to contribute to its construction.
TR-26
The City shall emphasize TSM strategies such as restriping, turn
lane construction, signalization improvements, and turning
movement restrictions.
Transit Facilities
Metro provides transit service to the Auburn area. Auburn is currently
served by eight routes, as shown on Map 7.3. The primary focus of this
service is to link valley cities to Seattle. Intra-city service is limited to
the existing routes along major arterials, or by Dial-A-Ride Transit.
Mobility and accessibility within the City is fairly low. Regional
service, particularly east-west routes, is also low.
Some wqrk has been done to identify potential ridership needs. Metro
has identified supply-side measures for various land uses. Auburn's
goals for transit service are generally reflected in the Transit Service
diagram (see Figure 7.4).
The Regional Transit authority is preparing a Regional Transit System
Plan which will be presented for voter approval in February, 1995. This
regional system is expected to include commuter rail service on existing
tracks between Tacoma and Seattle (and potentially to Everet0, serving
the City of Auburn and other valley cities. The System Plan will also
[ P~e7~O I
Transportation]
Transit Route LOS
include a bus component that will result in a significant increase in bus
service throughout the region, particularly on routes feeding commuter
rail stations. An Auburn station will be a transit hub for the nearby
communities of Enumclaw, Pacific, and Algona. New transit service is
proposed for the Lea Hill area, SeaTac, and. Renton. Increased service
to and from the Green River Community College, the Auburn Boeing
plant, Kent, Federal Way, Enumclaw, and Southeast Auburn will be
provided. More frequent service is proposed within Auburn to improve
traffic circulation and to improve convenience for riders.
There are currently three park and ride facilities serving Auburn: at the
intersection of SR 18 and Auburn-Black Diamond Road, at "A" Street
NE and 15th Street NE, and at SR 18 and Peasley Canyon Road. (Map
7.3).
The SR 18 and Peasley Canyon lot has room for 54 cars and is used to
80% of its capacity. This lot is served by one transit route and has no
amenities. The SR 18 and Auburn-Black Diamond Road lot has 26
stalls, is not serviced by transit, has no amenities, and is only used to
12% of its capacity. The "A" Street and 15 Street NE lot has 367
parking stalls, is served by five transit routes and is 79% used. In
addition, the "A" Street lot has a telephone, weather shelter, bicycle
rack, and other amenities such as lighting and newspaper stands which
make it a more attractive and safer facility for commuters.
Transit route LOS standards are intended as goals to be used by the City
during discussions and negotiations with Metro (the Metropolitan
Services Department of King County), the Regional Transit Authority
(RTA), Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington State Department
of Transportation, Pierce Transit, and other transit providers or
transportation funding providers. Failure to meet transit route LOS
standards will not be used to deny development permits. Transit needs,
however, should be considered and incorporated into street designs, and
into public and private developments and must be iricorporated into the
impact .assessment of major projects. The transit level of-service concept
is depicted on the Transit Service Diagram. (Fig. 7.4)
I Page 7-21 ]
[ Chapter 7 I
Objective 16.8.
To encourage the continued development of public transit systems and
other alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel, to relieve traffic
congestion, and to reduce reliance on the automobile for personal
transportation needs.
Policies:
TR-27
The City shall continue to coordinate with Metro and the
Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to provide convenient transit
service between Auburn and other King County areas.
TR-28 The City shall work with Metro to explore opportunities for
improved bus service within the City of Auburn.
TR-29
The City should encourage Metro to explore linkages to the
south with Pierce Transit, and to coordinate such increased bus
service with the proposed commuter rail service.
TR-30
The City shall consider both the transit impacts and the
opportunities presented by major development proposals when
reviewing development under the State Environmental Policy
Act.
TR-31 The City supports Metro and RTA development of adequate
park and ride facilities in appropriate locations.
TR-32
TR-33
The City shall explore opportunities to promote alternatives to
single occupancy vehicle travel, including carpooling and
vanpooling, walking, biking, and other non-motorized mode~.
The City shall support the construction of a regional transit
system, particularly commuter rail service, between Seattle and
Tacoma with increased feeder bus service to an Auburn station.
'The siting of the Auburn Station shall be based upon the
conclusions and findings of the Auburn Commuter Rail Station
Siting Study (1994).
TR-34 The City shall encourage the inclusion of transit facilities into
new development when appropriate.
TransportationI
Non-motorized
Modes
Objective 16.9
The encouragement of modes of travel other than the automobile
(multimodalism), is one of the key transportation policies of the City of
Auburn and the region. The evolution of the transportation system has
favored the automobile as a mode of travel. A side-effect of this process
has been the erosion of conditions favorable to non-motorized travel.
This plan seeks to encourage the development of an environment that
will make the use of alternative transportation modes an attractive option
to the automobile.
In the interest of improving air quality, preserving existing street
capacity, and enhancing total system connectivity, future transportation
planning will incorporate and promote multi-modal and non-motorized
modes of transportation.
TR-35 New developments shall incorporate non-motorized facilities that
meet City standards, provide connectivity to adjacent
communities, public facilities, and major shopping centers, and
that are consistent with the Non-motorized Plan and the Land Use
Plan.
Objective 16.10
Bicycle Facilities
TR-36 Where the Non-motorized Plan requires the integration of
vehicular and bicycle traffic, a design standard to ensure safety
will be addressed in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
To recognize the linkages between land use and transportation and to
encourage urban design which eases the use of non-motorized travel
modes.
Policies:
TR-37 Encourage pedestrian-oriented design features in all
development.
TR-38 '
Development in downtown Auburn should encourage non-
motorized access and should include characteristics such as
limited setbacks, awnings, pedestrian-oriented streetscape, and
display windows.
The Interurban Trail is the City's only major facility suitable for non-
motorized commuting. When completed in 1994, this facility will run
17 miles north and south through Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Algona, and
Pacific. The Interurban Trail is a 12-foot wide asphalt-paved facility
I Page 7-23 I
[ Chapter
Objective 16. 11
Pedestrian System
Objective 16.12.
that is used by both commuters and recreational users, and which
accommodates bike riders, skaters, equestrians, and pedestrians.
To encourage non-motorized travel, not only as a means of recreation,
but also as a means of local transportation.
Policies:
TR-39
The City should develop a Non-motorized Transportation Plan
that provides linkages to existing recreational trails and provide
that access to public facilities, adjacent communities, and major
shopping areas.
TR-40
The City shall continue to support the expansion of the
Interurban Trail as an integral part of the county transportation
system.
TR-41 The City shall seek to accommodate bicycles in its management
and design of the City street network.
TR-42
The City shall encourage the inclusion of convenient and secure
bicycle storage facilities in all large public and private
developments.
To recognize pedestrian movement as a basic means of circulation, and
to ensure adequate accommodation of pedestrian needs in all
transportation policies and facilities.
Policies:
TR-43
Sidewalks, trails, and other walking facilities should be
extended throughout the City to allow for more convenient and
efficient pedestrian movement.
TR-44 City street standards shall generally provide for sidewalks on
both sides of the street.
TR-45 The City shall encourage subdividers of new plats to include
pedestrian trails in new plats which link the development to
nearby activity centers, such as schools, parks or neighborhood
shopping.
1' Page 7-24 I
Transportation]
TR-46
The City shall continue to enforce the half street ordinance as a
means of continuing to develop and enhance non-motorized
access throughout the City.
TR-47
Development of sidewalks between, areas of the City where
sidewalk system continuity is now inadequate should be
considered when selecting streets for development under the
City's Six year street plan.
TR-48
The City shall encourage the formation of LIDs to develop
sidewalks throughout the City. The City shall also explore
formation of a partnership with the Auburn School District,
aimed at aggressively promoting the formation of LIDs to
develop sidewalks along routes used by children walking to and
from school.
TR-49 The City should continue to use federal funds for neighborhood
rehabilitation to develop sidewalks in low income areas.
TR-50
Whenever the City contemplates reconstruction or major
maintenance (including resurfacing) work on a City street that
is without sidewalks, it should fully explore the possibility of
adding sidewalks at the time of the street improvement.
TR-51 Pedestrian access to the transit system should be ensured by
providing convenient and attractive walkways to transit stops.
Fences, walls, and development patterns that block pedestrian
access to transit stops are discouraged.
TR-52 The City shall encourage consideration of the needs of
pedestrians in all public and private development.
Air Transportation
Facilities
The Auburn Municipal Airport provides general aviation airport
faciliti6s. This airport is one of the busiest general aviation airports in
the state, with approximately 160,000 take-offs and landings per year.
This facility is currently heavily used by recreational, instructional and
student pilots, and commercial users. The number of users will increase
in the future as similar general aviation facilities axe closed or restricted.
Increased commercial aircraft use for general business and charter
activity is anticipated as SeaTac airport becomes more congested, and as
South King County and North Pierce County continue to grow.
] Page 7-25 I
I Chapter
Objective 16.13
Currently this airport has one 3,400 feet long and 75 feet wide runway.
It is suitable for small and single to medium multi-engine aircraft.
Pilots are limited to visual flight rules because there is no instrument
approach at this airport. Unicom advisory service is available to aid
pilots during operations.
The airport has hangar space for 105 aircraft. Hangar space Js always
fully leased and a waiting list has been developed. Tie-down space for
205 airplanes is available; tie-downs are normally about 75 % occupied.
Additional hangar space for 80-100 aircraft is proposed in the future to
meet existing and anticipated demand. An Airport Master Plan Update
is currently underway. This Plan update will detail future needs and
construction projects for the airport.
To provide an efficient municipal airport, serving light general aviation
aircraft, as an integral part of the City's transportation system.
Policies:
Freight
TR~53 The City shall continue to develop the Auburn Municipal Airport
in accord with the Airport Master Plan.
TR-54 The airport shall be managed as a general aviation facility and
use for jet aircraft shall be discouraged because of potential noise
and land use conflicts.
TR-55 Use of the airport by non-conventional aircraft such as ultra
lights shall be discouraged.
TR-56 The City zoning ordinance and other appropriate regulatory
measures shall enforce the airport clear zones in accordance with
the Airport Master Plan and FAA guidelines. The impact of
development on air safety shall be assessed through City SEPA
review and any recommended mitigating measures shall be
r,equired by the City.
TR-57
The City shall seek to minimize or eliminate the potentially
adverse effects of light and glare on the operation of Auburn
Municipal Airport.
The movement of freight throughout the City is an important function of
Auburn's transportation system. The major freight routes within Auburn
are displayed in Map 7.4.
Page 7-26 I
[' Transportation]
Objective 16.13a
As shown on the map, freight movement in Auburn is accomplished by
truck and by train. Both the Burlington Northern and the Union Pacific
Railroads have rail lines extending through Auburn to the north and south.
The Burlington Northern track to the east begins in Auburn and roughly
follows the route of SR -18. In addition, Burlington Northern has a major
railroad yard in Auburn (south of SR~18 between A and C Streets SE).
Railroad operations at the yard have been reduced significantly over the
years, however, Burlington Northern may have plans to convert this yard
sometime in the future into an inter-modal facility where freight is
transferred between trains and trucks. According to Burlington Northern,
plans at this time are tentative. The City has concerns about this possibility
as it would have significant impacts on the City in terms of transportation
and other issues. The City expects to play an active role in the development
review and approval of any plans to expand operations at the site.
There are several designated truck routes within the City. The Valley
Freeway (SR-167), West Valley Highway and A St. SE provide north-
south routes. Auburn Way South (SR-164), SR-18, 17th Street SE and
12th Street SE provide for east-west movements. In addition, Ellingson
Road, Kersey Way and a private haul road provide a truck route for gravel
mining operations in the southern portion of the City.
To facilitate the movements of freight and goods through Auburn with
minimal adverse traffic and other environmental impacts.
Policies:
TR-53a The movement of freight and goods is recognized as an
important function of Auburn's Transportation System.
TR-53b The City of Auburn should designate a network of freight routes
to serve local businesses. These routes should be concentrated in
the region servin~ area of the City and should avoid, whenever
possible, the community serving area.
TR-53c The movement of freight and goods which serve largely
national, state or regional needs should take 01ace in such a way
so that the impacts on the local transportation system is
minimized. These movements should take place on State,
Highways. Interstate. or on urade separated rail corridors in
order to minimized its local impacts.
TR-53d Projects which enhance freight and goods movements which
benefit largely State. Federal. or national needs should be
constructed to minimize the imoact on the City's local
transportation system. The primary beneficiaries of such
proiects, not tb~ City of Auburn. should fund these projects and
their ~
Page 7-27 I
Chapter 7 I
Parking
Objective 16.14
TR-53e The City shall continue to work with Freight Mobility
Roundtable. FastCast. and o,her regional groups to address
regional needs are met and local impacts are mitigated.
The amount of land dedicated to parking often consumes more space
than the development it serves. Parking, therefore, is a significant land
use that has major implications in both the urban design of a City and in
determining the mode of travel an individual will use. If we wish to
create environments more conducive to pedestrians, and increase transit
usage, the City could simply reduce all requirements for the provision of
parking. This simple approach, however, would cause high levels of
congestion (many will continue to drive anyway) and would have major
economic impact as businesses and consumers leave Auburn and go to
other jurisdictions. Clearly, there is a need for a balanced approach to
parking. This plan seeks to limit parking in appropriate areas while
providing sufficient parking in other areas to meet their needs, but to
reduce the oversupply that occurs in many new developments.
To ensure adequate coordination of parking needs with traffic and
development needs.
Policies:
TR-58
TR-59
TR-60
On-street parking should be allowed only when consistent with
the function of the existing street, and with traffic volumes. In
areas with high levels of pedestrian use, the City will consider
all feasible means to buffer pedestrian from the moving traffic.
New developments should provide adequate off-street parking to
meet their needs.
The City recognizes that there are two types of parking--short
term parking which is typically used by retail shoppers or service
users, and long term parking which is more typically used by
employees of businesses and commuters. The two types of
parking serve unique needs and purposes and City parking codes
and policy should reflect these distinctions. Long term parking
policy should reflect the region's goal of reducing single
occupancy vehicle use for commute trips.
Environmental
Impacts
The transportation system has significant impacts on the environment.
The most obvious impact is upon air quality. Other impacts can occur
during both the construction and the regular operation of roads and other
[ Page 7-28 I
Transportation]
Objective 16.15:
Objective 16. i7
transportation facilities. Construction impacts can include the loss of
wetlands, wildlife habitat, or other critical areas. Further, storm water
runoff from streets and roads is one of the major causes of water quality
degradation. For this reason, the inclusion of systems for the retention
and treatment of storm water runoff from roads should be included in all
road improvements and new construction.
Minimize the environmental impacts of all new road construction and
road improvements.
Policies:
TR-61
The City shall consider the impact of road construction on the
environment and natural resources (particularly on sensitive
areas, wildlife habitats, and water quality) as part of its
environmental review process.
TR-62 Storm water runoff from roads is a major cause of water quality
degradation. All new road construction will employ the best
management practices available to promote water quality
compliance consistent with the city storm water quality manual.
To support on going efforts for improvin~ air quality throughout the
Auburn area and develop a transportation system compatible with the
goals of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts.
Policies:
TR-63
TR-64
Support and enforce vehicle emissions testing and cleaner
burning fuels program in King County
Coordinate with Metro and other jurisdictions on Commute Trip
Reduction (CTR) programs for major employers in the Auburn
UGA.
TR-65 Require air quality studies of future maior development to assess
impacts created by site - generated traffic.
TR-66 Promote other Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Programs.
I Page 7-29
Chapter
Intergovernmental
Coordination
The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.700A..070) provides that
comprehensive plans should include a discussion of intergovernmental
coordination efforts, including "an assessment of the impacts of the
transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems
of adjacent jurisdictions." Adjacent jurisdictions include the cities of Kent,
Algona, Pacific and Federal Way and King and Pierce Counties. Auburn's
coordination with these bodies was primarily by providing these
jurisdictions (along with the City of Sumner, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,
METRO, Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington State Department of
Transportation and the Regional Transit Authority) with copies of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan amendments prior to adoption. Comments on
any aspect of the plan, including the transportation and land use
assumptions were requested. In most instances, their comments were
integrated into the adopted Plan. The City received written comments
from the following agencies or jurisdictions:
The City of Kent
The City of Sumner
Pierce County
Washington State Department of Transportation
METRO
The Regional Transit Authority
In general, Auburn's transportation plan and land use assumptions as
presented had little impact on these jurisdictions as the land use
assumptions contained in the Plan are largely unchanged since the 1986
plan. While new development has occurred, Auburn has always required
mitigation to level of service C, a more stringent standard than adjacent
jurisdictions.
The City will continue coordination efforts with the South County Area
Transportation Board, Puget Sound Regional Council, Growth
Management Planning Council, and various task forces and committees.
Interiocal agreements to resolve differences between or among jurisdictions
may be used, as necessary. Emphasis on accommodating through traffic
without adversely affecting residential neighborhoods will be continued
through efforts to move the traffic to the regional facilities as efficiently as
possible.
I Page 7-30 {
Policy/Text Amendment # 10
Description:
Amend the 1995 Water Plan section regarding Fire Flow.
A copy of the proposed amendment follows.
Fire Flows
1995 Comprehensive Water Plan
1997 Amendment
It is the policy of the City of Auburn to provide a minimum fire flow of 1.000 gpmin all
areas fi-dly served by the water utility. It is the goal of the water utili .ty to provide 1.500
gpm for all single family residential areas of the City and water service area and 2.50(!
gpm for all multi-family and other land use areas of the Ci.ty and the water service
(with residual pressure of 20 psi). These goals are generally met throughout the wate~
service area currently, with higher floxvs available in many area~.
Fire Flow Requirements For New Development
New development or redevelopment is required to meet the Ci.ty fire flow goals of 1
gpm for all single family residential development or 2.500 gpm for all multi-family and
other _types of development as a minimum (with residual pressure of 20 P~i), ~
fire flow requirement is established by the Fire Marshall for that development, the
developer is responsible for installing all necessary facilities needed to serve his property,
to comply with development standards, and to provide the required fire flow established
by the Fire Marshall. Such facilities shall be installed to the boundary of the property to
accommodate subsequent development at one or more locations, as deemed necessary by
the Utility. If necessary to meet these requirements, the developer shall make offsite
water system improvements.
Fire Flow Requirements For Existing Development
Minimum fire flo~v requirements for existing facilities shall be the fire flow requirements
at the time of construction as determined by the Fire Marsl:iall. Existing structures are not
required to upgrade the water system infrastructure to meet the current fire flow and
development standards. Similarly, the Utility is not obligated to upgrade existing fire
flows to meet current codes or minimum flows. When analyzing the need for water
system improvements, however, improved fire flo~vs should be included as a benefit
when weighing the projec.t's merits.
Redevelopment ~ of existing structures or areas triggers the requirements
for new development.
Fire Flmv Improvement Program
As resources become available, the Utility shall make. z-'stem: ..........
...... ., ....... systematically correct infrastructure
......... to provide the fire flow goal a mlnk.-num level of fire protection to all customers
within the service area. v ..... T,: ,- ........ ;a.~,.~ ~^ .
-' - v .............. Co~ected deficiencies ~lI include replacing undersized
water mains ~d pumping stations to provide the required fire flow (!,099 1,500 gpm for
~ residential and 2,500 for other areas) at 20 psi minimum pressure, ~d
co~ecting fire hydrant deficiencies of spacing and stand~dization where ~ey do not
meet cu~ent standards. System improvements should generally be prioritized ~d
scheduled according to the severity of deficiencies, although oppo~nities to make
improvements in conjunction with other construction should be considered for economic
efficiency.