Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5549 Exhibit A Downtown Plan Appendices
1 7 C n 1 7 Appendices WWI Appendix I Transportation Appendix (: Transportation Introduction This appendix contains the transportation analyses completed to prepare the Auburn Downtown Plan and the Environmental Analyses. Multiple scenarios were run to aid in the development of the proposed Downtown Plan, and which are documented chronologically in this appendix. Maps of model runs are available for review at the Community Development Department, City of Auburn City Hall. The existing Auburn 1996 Transportation Model (TMODEL) was used as a starting point for transportation analysis which was then updated with revised downtown land use. Land use outside the downtown area remained constant. Traffic counts within the downtown core were updated and included in the re -calibration process. Transportation analyses completed as part of the downtown plan include: • Re -calibration of the existing City-wide model in and around the downtown core area. • Iterations of the re -calibrated model with and without the transit/rail station and associated parking structure. • Iterations of the re -calibrated downtown model with and without the extension of A Street to 15th Street NW. • Iterations of different configurations of the A Street extension to 15th Street NW. • Projections of traffic for the preferred Downtown Plan for 6 -year and 20 -year timeframes. Because of a need to relate the downtown plan to the areas outside the downtown core, modifications were made to the existing City- wide model (1996 calibration) and analyzed for determination of impacts for areas outside the downtown core. Appendix (:Transportation r)PrpmhPr 7 7000 1 Transportation Model Technical Memorandum (Task 3.6) To: Julia Walton; Arai/Jackson FROM: Steve Lewis; Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation CC: DATE: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 SUBJECT: Recalibrated model. Base year and 20 -year projection with and without transit ' center, with and without A Street Extension AuTHoRs: Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation Contents Preface.......................................................................................................................................2 Re -calibrated 1996 Base without Transit Center........................................................................5 1996 With Transit Center............................................................................................................6 1996 without the Transit Center but including the W Street Extension.....................................6 1996 with Transit Center and W Street Extension....................................................................7 Re -calibrated 2020 without Transit Center (No-Build)................................................................8 2020 with Transit Center..........................................................................................................10 2020 without the Transit Center but including the "A" Street Extension...................................10 2020 with Transit Center and W Street Extension..................................................................11 Tablesand Figures...................................................................................................................13 Transportation Model d 13O i+ CL 40 L C' z Q N C SW 0)all W C fD : C U W W cU N a� U W � . C) .� F=cc o c3'f�m Z O N ca W y ¢- Qma� f'Q U (D x J -Q 2 (i) L r r U fa 3 O U 3 w o (n0 w m —(COU: Q C to - O a7 U (OD3 d O C O C 7 a fa fa a2-0ca m a --C m m O- 0 lD '— co is pip �mc OW _NU_o00 Q Q U N C U E U d O C CD O Ca 5� c U O -I-w: ca U � o Z .� U) M I --Z tN N + a r 'p V ^ W O UP 0 m 0 0 0 M co A colu- W � in C—O�oE� �n CO 1. O N Q Q U 41 Q W Q _O"S O r U h t5 , t moo C 1.0 oZ o CcC) Coo _ M QSLQL CO ���0Q009(o0S0 c m S 'W:6O 7E£ 7 O U r O U 4* w C Orf)r O CQ�C�c C r m e m SO W C) E� C) • • • • • w o (n0 w m —(COU: Q C to - O a7 U (OD3 d O C O C 7 a fa fa a2-0ca m a --C m m O- 0 lD '— co is pip �mc OW _NU_o00 Q Q U N C U E U d O C CD O Ca 5� c U O -I-w: ca U � o rn .� U) . 'a C o p (n O ca W m D C C fn ca 3 C) Q j W o� >Q m ta Nca C nc� W Q _O"S O r U h t5 , t moo Oca _ M 0 C 0—, � c O U c m Z Oa0)CO ON O CL U >, CD :3= 0 TE N Q a�m O�o r m e m SO W C) E� C) 0. C) 7 C) a 0 ¢ wo o(A (o a al co CL U fa � U � O U r_ (Ca Ca 5 co .0 a U) S U • • • • • V W v W U U '� C m S m Z< ca «. ca ca C ul C C U = W7@ C ca ,, _ CO m ta Nca C nc� W Q _O"S O r U h t5 , t moo t N _ M UO > Q L : N aZ a Z Oa0)CO ON CL Oa O� c —I-O oCD ,ate a�m O�o 0 pW ao� m W :5 2 a mQ mo al i Ooms 0 O<O(AQ(n W O O O r t v Z o >, >, E r n WO 'a-vma C C) m N CD D CD C C N C O N O O O (a U >,OOO O�Nco m .0 (A UU o� m« �G O m •rri y. D W = U QO oNON �v)�v)Xo 4 �- X E X O ca (D X Z w O C O " m O C) >, C) O O N> fQ ca N C O O p Q c W c Q c 3 c 3 m Or-c CDCD � a �mE(D�m(n�`°a LLv- p CL O>> 0 0 caCMCELn= omr- g m m 2. <, <, nC O U �ao0) �5 r L Transportation Model Re -calibrated 1996 Base without Transit Center ' Land Use and Zone Changes The existing City of Auburn transportation model was used as the starting point for this ' analysis, with only minor revisions. One of these revisions was to the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) structure, or the division of the land into identifiable pieces. The calibrated City model contained seven zones for the downtown area. To allow for a more detailed analysis, ' these seven zones were subdivided into sixteen zones. These subdivided zones (shown in Table 2 and Figure 1) are located along the Main Street corridor and include two zones for the proposed transit center (one zone located on each side of the existing Burlington Northern & ' Santa Fe Railway railroad tracks). Existing land use within the TAZ assignments were also subdivided into the new zones, with an emphasis on providing updated land use information for these zones. Therefore, the land use control totals for this model may differ from the ' calibrated 1996 model (see Land Use Subdivision Tables 3 and 4). Transportation Infrastructure Changes In addition to minor changes in the uses of land in the subdivided zones, one infrastructure modification was included to allow for more detailed analysis of the study area. This change was the inclusion of the proposed "C" Street/SR-18 interchange, including the proposed number of lanes, ramps, and design speed as outlined in the 3rd Street SW Grade Separation Design Report produced by Earthtech. Projected Traffic ' In comparing the calibrated City model with the re -calibrated downtown area model, the major differences are located along Main Street and the major north/south corridors (See Figures 2 and 3). Because of the additional zones and links in the re -calibrated downtown model, a direct ' comparison cannot be completed. Instead, each model run (the calibrated City model and the re -calibrated downtown model) is presented for user comparison. As a base of comparison, Figure 4 shows. the traffic counts used in the calibration of both the City model and the re- calibrated downtown model and Figures 5 and 6 show the difference between the respective model and the traffic count data. Table.5 shows the differences in tabular form. Conclusions Overall, the re -calibrated model more closely resembles existing traffic counts within the downtown core. NOTE: this analysis did not consider the model generated traffic on segments of roadway outside the downtown area. I s Transportation Model Transportation Model • Inclusion of the "A" Street loop connecting South Division and the "C" Street/SR-18 interchange loop ramp with "A" Street (2 lanes each direction and a design speed of 25 mph). • Removal of intersection of "A" Street and 3`d Street SW. This movement will be simulated using the new "C" Street interchange and the "A" Street loop. • Inclusion of 1 st Street SW as a major collector, with 1 lane each direction and a design speed of 25 mph. Projected Traffic The addition of the "A" Street extension to the street network will act as a reliever to "C" Street, and to a lessor degree, Auburn Way and Auburn Avenue. "A" Street will be constructed to provide an alternative north/south access link to 15th Street NW and the SR -167 interchange. Without the Transit Station, the need for the "A" Street extension diminishes. The re -calibrated downtown model predicts sufficient capacity along the "C" Street corridor to accommodate 1996 traffic. With the traffic delays resulting from intersection closures due to increased rail traffic, additional traffic is predicted to shift to Auburn Avenue and Auburn Way. Figure 8 shows the model generated traffic and Table 7 compares roadway links for the affected area with the re -calibrated 1996 downtown model. Conclusions With this analysis, large increases in traffic are projected along Main Street between "C" Street and Auburn Way. The traffic movement utilizing "A" Street and Division Street to access Main Street, then travels along Main Street to Auburn Avenue and Auburn Way, and continues north/south. The projected traffic along "A" Street extension is minimal at the present time. 1996 with Transit Center and "A" Street Extension Land Use and Transportation Infrastructure Changes No land use changes other than those presented above were made for this iteration. Transportation infrastructure changes included in this scenario consisted of: • Inclusion of the "C" Street interchange. • Inclusion of "A" Street extension to 15th Street NE with 1 lane each direction -and a design speed of 35 mph. • Inclusion of the "A" Street loop connecting South Division and the "C" Street/SR-18 interchange loop ramp with "A" Street (2 lanes each direction and a design speed of 25 mph). • Removal of intersection of "A" Street and 3'd Street SW. This movement will be simulated using the new "C" Street interchange and the "A" Street loop., • Inclusion of 1 st Street SW as a major collector, with 1 lane each direction and a -design speed of 25 mph. • Inclusion of parking stall configuration for the transit center (431 east/182 west of tracks). Transportation Model 7 0 PI 1 J iTransportation Model ' Projected Traffic Along with the 1996 re -calibration, the downtown model produced a 2020 year forecast of traffic (See Figure 10). When the projected 2020 City model (See Figure 11. Note in the 2020 City calibrated model, the parking spaces were included in analysis as presented here) is compared to the re -calibrated downtown model the differences in the projected traffic on certain links due to the additional detail in the downtown area can be seen. The major discrepancies between the calibrated City model and the re -calibrated downtown model are shown in Table 11 and include all major north/south corridors ("C" Street (decreases in relation ' to the calibrated City projected traffic volumes), Division Street (overall decrease southbound and overall increase northbound in relation to the calibrated City projected traffic volumes), Auburn Way (overall increase northbound and southbound in relation to the calibrated City ' projected traffic volumes), and Auburn Avenue (overall increase northbound and overall decrease southbound in relation to the calibrated City projected traffic volumes)), as well as 1 St Street NW (overall decrease northbound and southbound in relation to the calibrated City ' projected traffic volumes) and a Street NE (overall increase northbound and southbound in relation to the calibrated City projected traffic volumes). �7 2020 Capacity of Roadways The usual measure of capacity (v/c = volume to capacity ratio) provides an easy way to determine the level of service of roadway segments. The acceptable LOS for the City of Auburn is LOS "C" or a v/c ratio of less than 0.80. Looking at the projection of the calibrated City model and the re -calibrated downtown model, 4 locations are projected to exceed that level. For each location, the re -calibrated downtown model has a lower v/c ratio but still exceeds the acceptable level. Mitigation measures will have to be instituted to relieve congestion at these locations and/or the acceptable LOS within the downtown area must be adjusted. These locations include: Main Street east and west of "C" Street • SR -18 both directions through the downtown area • Auburn Avenue between 5t' Street NE and Main Street • AuburnWay south of 15"' Street SW Conclusions With the projection of the re -calibrated model, and the slight adjustments to both the land use and the transportation infrastructure to the year 2020, the model generated traffic volumes increase at a similar rate making any discrepancy within the 1996 analysis larger in the 2020 analysis. With this in mind, and the supposition that the re -calibrated 1996 downtown model was a more realistic look at the traffic within the downtown core, it can be postulated that the 2020 projected re -calibrated model as presented above will more accurately project the traffic conditions seen in 2020. Transportation Model 9 CITY OF AUBURN DOWNTOWN PLA N Transportation..- • Inclusion of "A" Street extension to 15th Street NE with 1 lane each direction and a design speed of 35 mph. • Inclusion of the "A" Street loop connecting South Division and the "C" Street/SR-18 interchange loop ramp with "A" Street (2 lanes each direction and a design speed of 25 mph). • Removal of intersection of "A" Street and 3`" Street SW. This movement will be simulated using the new "C" Street interchange and the "A" Street loop. • Inclusion of 1 st Street SW as a major collector, with 1 lane each direction and a design speed of 25 mph. Projected Traffic With or without the transit center, the "A" Street corridor becomes a major north/south access in the year 2020. Figure 13 shows the model generated traffic and Table 13 compares roadway links for the affected area with the re -calibrated 2020 downtown model. It is projected that in the year 2020, "A" Street will carry more automobiles than "C" Street, approximately the same amount as Auburn Way, and 142the traffic of Auburn Avenue within the downtown area. Conclusions With the additional land use expected in 2020, the "A" Street extension becomes a major north/south corridor with projected model generated traffic volumes exceeding those on "C" Street. This condition' is largely the result of the inclusion of the "A" Street loop and the delays associated with the railroad crossings and alternative intersections along "C" Street. Additionally, approximately 100 vehicles southbound from both Auburn Avenue and Auburn Way are re-routed along "A" Street. 2020 with Transit Center and "A" Street Extension Land Use and Transportation Infrastructure Changes No land use or.transportation infrastructure changes other than those outlined below were included. • Inclusion of the "C" Street interchange. • "A" Street SW south of Main Street was coded as 2 lanes each direction, 30 mph, and 1,800 peak hour vehicle capacity. • "A" Street SW north of Main Street was coded as 2 lanes each direction, 35 mph, and 1,800 peak hour vehicle capacity. • Inclusion of "A" Street extension to 15th Street NE with 1 lane each direction and a design speed of 35 mph. • Inclusion of the "A" Street loop connecting South Division and the "C" Street/SR-18 interchange loop ramp with "A" Street (2 lanes each direction and a design speed of 25- mph). Transportation Model 11 0 1 fl 0 1 I� J [I Transportation Model Tables and Figures Table 2 List of Original and Subdivided Zones Land Use by Subdivided Zones for 19961nc1dI Original Zone Number Subdivided Zone Number(s) 35 35,203 37 37,204 39 39,205 40 40,206 48 48,207 49 49,208 50 50,209 Transit Center 210,211 Table 3 Existing Land Use by Subdivided Zones for 19961nc1dI Dwelling Units the Transit Center Dwelling Units Space SFDU MFDU Special Generators Educ Indust Zone # SFDU MFDU Retail Office Educ Indust Univ Mfg. Hotel/Motel P&R 35 4 90 255 182 0 24 0 13 0 0 37 37 8 56 222 9 177 0 382 0 0 39 9 15 32 273 0 32 0 0 0 0 40 4 .0 82 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 79 27 30 140 0 0 0 128 0 0 49 20 25 77 145 0 7 0 0 0 0 50 5 0 183 81 2 0 0 0 0 0 Table 4 Revised Land Use by Subdivided Zones `for 1996 -indf ijg the Transit Center" Dwelling Units Space Special Generators Zone # SFDU MFDU Retail Office Educ Indust Univ Mfg. Hotel/Motel P&R 35 196 182 24 35 203 5 90 59 0 37 18 41 222 175 360 204 34 10 15 0 9 2 22 39 7 15 67 294 32 205 9 15 79 40 0 22 144 206 4 15 60 24 207 20 31 70 42 .48 59 27 13 42 41 208 0 65 74 49 20 25 22 56 7 209 15 42 81 2 50 7 15 141 0 210 182 211 2 0 431 Transportation Model -1S - This roadway segment was not coded into the 19% calibrated model but was included In the 1996 transit center analysis n n 0 Fi C Transportation Model 15 1 CITY OF AUBURN DOWNTOWN' Transportation Model Table 6 Comparison of 1996 Base with inclusion of Transit Center 1996 1996 with Percent Difference Downtown Transit Model Center -Roadway Location nb/eb sb/wb nb/eb sb/wb nb/eb sb/wb Main St West of "C" St SW 361 289 370 303 2.49% 4.84% East of "C" St SW 387 247 399 267 3.10% 8.10% West of Auburn Ave 201 187 208 193 3.48% 3.21% East of Auburn Ave 246 119 253 119 2.85% 0.00% "C" St SW North of "C" St Interchange 111 575 111 640 0.00% 11.30% South of Main St 182 472 194 471 6.59% -0.21% North of Main St 61 419 76 410 24.59% -2.15% North of 3rd St NE 160 351 173 350 8.13% -0.28% "A" St SW North of 3rd St SW 140 87 158 171 12.86% 96.55% South of Main St 47 160 177 7 276.6% -95.63% South of 3rd St NW 197 135 222 135 12.69% 0.00% North of 3rd St NW -- -- 38 3 -- S. Division North of 3rd St SW 39 2 29 101 -25.64% 4950.00% South of Main St 29 100 101 29 248.3% -71.00% North of Main St 78 162 77 167 -1.28% 3.09% Auburn Ave South of 3rd St SW/Cross St 690 948 698 973 1.16% 2.64% North of 3rd St SW/Cross St 357 570 356 583 -0.28% 2.28% South of Main St 321 441 321 437 0.00% -0.91% North of Main St 324 525 323 526 -0.31% 0.19% North of 1 st St NW 299 524 299 526 0.00% 0.38% South of 5th St NW 5 541 5 544 0.00% 0.55% Auburn Way South of Cross St/ 4th St SE 710 1163 712 1197 0.28% 2.92% North of Cross St/ 4th St SE 579 938 575 931 -0.69% -0.75% South of Main St 559 789 556 782 -0.54% -0.89% North of Main St 474 758 472 753 -0.42% -0.660/6 South of 2nd St NE 557 747 585 742 5.03% -0.67% North of 2nd St NE 488 758 487 752 -0.20% -0.79% South of 5th St NE 837 690 580 688 -30.70% -0.29% North of 5th St NE 856 1234. 881 1231 2.92% -0.24% 3rd St SW East of "C" St SW 712 458 726 503 1.97% 9.83% West of Auburn Ave 571 511 625 526 9.46% 2.94% East of Auburn Ave 269 250 312 260 15.99% 4.00% 1st St NW East of "A" St SW 60 11 60 11 0.00% 0.00% West of Auburn Ave 60 38 60 38 0.00% 0.00% 3rd St NE East of "A" St SW 291 272 294 273 1.03% 0.37% West of Auburn Ave 372 187 385 186 3.49% -0.53% - This roadway segment was not coded into the 19% calibrated model but was included In the 1996 transit center analysis n n 0 Fi C Transportation Model 15 1 Transportation Model Table 8 Comparison of Projected Traffic for 1996 with Transit Station and without "A" Street Extension 1996 1996 with Percent Difference Downtown Transit Model Center and A Street Roadway Location nb/eb sb/wb nb/eb sb/wb nb/eb sb/wb Main St West of "C" St SW 361 289 521 313 44.32% 8.30% East of "C' St SW 387 247 535 265 38.24% 7.29% West of Auburn Ave 201 187 331 178 64.68% -4.81% East of Auburn Ave 246 119 308 151 25.20% 26.89% "C" St SW North of "C" St Interchange 111 575 122 608 9.91% 5.74% South of Main St 182 472 194 431 6.59% -8.69% North of Main St 61 419 41 340 -32.79% -18.85% North of 3rd St NE 160 351 163 294 1.88% -16.24% "A" St SW North of 3rd St SW 140 87 122 102 -12.86% 1724% South of Main St 47 160 113 111 140.4% -30.63% South of 3rd St NW 197 135 272 175 38.07% 29.63% North of 3rd St NW -- - 37 69 -- -- S. Division North of 3rd St SW 39 .2 39 178 0.00% 8800.00% South of Main St 29 100 32 193 10.34% 93.00% North of Main St 78 162 78 182 0.00% 12.35% Auburn Ave South of 3rd St SW/Cross St 690 948 699 991 1.30% 4.54% North of 3rd St SW/Cross St 357 570 410 670 14.85% 17.54% South of Main St 321 441 332 807 3.43% 82.99% North of Main St 324 525 329 508 1.54% -3.24% North of 1st St NW 299 524 305 506 2.01% -3.440/a South of 5th St NW 5 541 5 518 0.00% -4.25% Auburn Way South of Cross St/ 4th St SE 710 1163 691 1164 -2.68% 0.09% North of Cross St/ 4th St SE 579 938 570 984 -1.55% 4.90% South of Main St 559 789 547 831 -2.15% 5.32% North of Main St 474 758 465 747 -1.90% -1.45% South of 2nd St NE 557 747 550 736 -1260/6 -1.470%, North of 2nd St NE 488 758 482 724 -1.23% -4.49% South of 5th St NE 837 "690 547 685 34.65% -0.72°� North of 5th St NE 856 1234 875 1206 222% -227% 3rd St SW East of "C' St SW 712 458 533 422 -25.140% -7.8610 West of Auburn Ave 571 511 472 450 -17.34% -11.94% East of Auburn Ave 269 250 218 230 -18.96% -8.00% 1 st St NW East of "A" St SW 60 11 73 8 21.67% -27270/0 West of Auburn Ave 60 38 62 10 3.33% -73.68% 3rd St NE East of "A' St SW 291 272 277 297 -4.81% 9.19% West of Auburn Ave 372 187 375 181 0.81% -321 - This roadway segment was not coded into the 1996 calibrated model but was Included in the 1996 transit center analysis Transportation Model 17 I C ITY OF AUBURN DOWNTOWN PLA N TransportationModel ITable 11 Comparison of Projected Traffic for 2020 for Calibrated City model and Re- calibrated Downtown Model - This roadway segment was not coded Into the projected 2020 City model but was Included in the projected 2020 downtown analysis J r Transportation Model 19 1 2020 2020 Re- Percent Difference Calibrated calibrated City Model Downtown Model Roadway Location nb/eb sb/wb nb/eb sb/wb nb/eb sb/wb Main St West of "C" St SW 1380 683 1017 700 -26.30% 2.49% East of "C" St SW 706 455 870 561 23.23% 23.30% West of Auburn Ave 546 357 516 370 -5.49% 3.64% East of Auburn Ave 361 309 461 348 27.70% 12.62% "C" St SW North of "C" St Ir)terchange 664 1271 237 1336 -63.31% 5.11% South of Main St 451 1421 282 1047 -37.47% -26.32% North of Main St 346 872 93 851 -73.12% -2.41% North of 3rd St NE 274 698 252 839 -8.03% 20.20% "A" St SW North of 3rd St SW 109 119 261 86 139.4% -27.73% South of Main St 92 192 168 354 82.61% 84.38% South of 3rd St NW 39 60 356 325 812.8% 441.67% North of 3rd St NW - -- -- -- -- - S. Division North of 3rd St SW 144 7 67 322 -53.47% 4500.00% South of Main St 95 92 43 225 -54.74% 144.57% North of Main St 106 189 105 308 -0.94% 62.96% Auburn Ave South of 3rd St SW/Cross St 890 2486 1101 2338 23.71% -5.95% North of 3rd St SW/Cross St 338 1520 557 1136 64.79% -25.26% South of Main St 300 1041 377 754 25.67% -27.57% North of Main St 364 969 358 701 -1.65% -27.66% North of 1 st St NW 359 945 350 703 -2.51% -25.61% South of 5th St NW 4 898 3 686 -25.00% -23.61% Auburn Way South of Cross St/ 4th St SE 532 1517 703 1526 32.14% 0.59% North of Cross St/ 4th St SE 563 1223 557 1136 -1.07% -7.11% South of Main St 628 1354 544 1415 -13.38% 4.51% North of Main St 527 1351 497 1544 -5.69% 14.29% South of 2nd St NE 572 1290 593 1569 3.67% 23.63% North of 2nd St NE 642 1265 611 1581 -4.82% 24.98% South of 5th St NE 1012 1133 1063 1538 5.04% 35.75% North of 5th St NE 1115 2100 1187 2437 6.46% 16.05% 3rd St SW East of "C' St SW 1218 750 1097 1079 -9.930/6 43.87% West of Auburn Ave 1147 805 950 941 -17.18% 16.89% East of Auburn Ave 457 405 265 435 -42.01% 7.41% 1st St NW East of "A" St SW 139 51 61 11 -56.12% -78.43% West of Auburn Ave 99 30 29 19 -70.71% -36.67% 3rd St NE East of "A" St SW 280 237 412 364 47.14% 53.59% West of Auburn Ave 215 53 404 166 87.91% 213.21% - This roadway segment was not coded Into the projected 2020 City model but was Included in the projected 2020 downtown analysis J r Transportation Model 19 1 Transportation Model Table 13 Comparison of Projected Traffic for 2020 with "A" Street but not Transit Station Roadway Location 2020 Downtown Model nb/eb sb/wb 2020 with "A" Street nb/eb sb/wb Percent Difference nb/eb sb/wb Main St West of "C" St SW 1017 700 1028 711 1.08% 1.57% East of "C" St SW 870 561 866 530 -0.46% -5.53% West of Auburn Ave 516 370 545 316 5.62% -14.59% East of Auburn Ave 461 348 504 320 9.33% -8.05% "C" St SW North of "C" St Interchange 237 1336 241 1482 1.69% 10.93% South of Main St 282 1047 365 926 29.43% -11.56% North of Main St 93 851 62 644 -33.33% -24.32% North of 3rd St NE 252 839 225 585 -10.71% -30.27% "A" St SW North of 3rd St SW 261 86 113 546 -56.70% 534.88% South of Main St 168 354 169 710 0.60% 100.56% South of 3rd St NW 356 325 473 919 32.87% 182.77% North of 3rd St NW -- -- 230 799 -- - S. Division North of 3rd St SW 67 322 49 370 -26.87% 14.91% South of Main St 43 225 49 243 13.95% 8.00% North of Main St 105 308 104 256 -0.95% -16.88% Auburn Ave South of 3rd St SW/Cross St 1101 2338 1142 2342 3.721/6 0.17% North of 3rd St SW/Cross St 557 1136 504 1045 -9.52% -8.01% South of Main St 377 754 378 806 0.27% 6.90% North of Main St 358 701 353 736 -1.40% 4.99% North of 1 st St NW 350 703 346 738 -1.140/6 4.98% South of 5th St NW 3 686 4 722 33.33% 5.25% Auburn Way South of Cross St/ 4th St SE 703 1526 706 1445 0.43% -5.31% North of Cross St/ 4th St SE 557 1136 567 1327 1.80% 16.81% South of Main St 544 1415 540 1317 -0.74% -6.930/6 North of Main St 497 1544 499 1373 0.40% -11.08% South of 2nd St NE 593 1569 598 1415 0.840/6 -9.820/6 North of 2nd St NE 611 1581 605 1422 -0.98% -10.06% South of 5th St NE 1063 1538 985 1358 -7.34% -11.70% North of 5th St NE 1187 2437 1183 2218 -0.34% -8.99%o 3rd St SW East of "C" St SW 1097 1079 1053 1386 -4.01% 28.45% West of Auburn Ave 950 941 1236 917 30-11% -2.55% East of Auburn Ave 265 435 182 520 -31.32% 19.54°/ 1st St NW East of "A" St SW 61 11 61 10 0.00% -9.09% West of Auburn Ave 29 19 29 20 0.00% 5.260/6 3rd St NE East of "A" St SW 412 364 316 369 -23.30% 1.37% West of Auburn Ave 404 166 322 164 -20.30% -1.20°/a - Thk madwav segment was not coded into dw projected 2020 city model but was tndww to the Projected 2020 downtown analysts I Model 21 Tr�utsportatio CITY OF AUBURN DOWNTOWN PLAN Transportation.. - Insert figures for report. See coreldraw files r96.cdr and maps_20.cdr Transportation Model 23 Existing Land Use LUI I LU2 I LIB I LU4 I LUS I LU6 I LU7 I LUS I LU9 I LU10 Offn Induariil HotcU Pah& SFDU Mf -DU Raail FIMG Educ I.�lnivusn anufac Mdcl Rids Fiknamc: 6973• Rlcname. r\97342aut)vnodcl\2020\Lity_rrdl\20caist.lu2 2005 Land pdel--Build Ot 2020 Land Use to Put in City Model - Existing Plans Zane N Dwelli LUl SFDU ` UWW. LU2 MF -DU - 1-1.13 R—i LW Officeudus4ial FlRESG LUS Ed.lavcrsi I LU6 L137 LUS anal LU9 Had/ Morel LUIO Pah & Ridc MEN 0© LUI SF1Dl1 ® IImp" D LW 016ae WS Edw LU6 LU7 LUS LU9 HoW maw LU10 P=k& hide 35 S % 433 266 0 370 ar/wb 43 0 0 37 52 10 115 250 9 177 0 432 0 0 39 m 15 121 433 0 32 0 0 0 0 40 4 15 82 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 56 209 68 58 7 0 0 0 0 0 42 50 39 150 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 80 14 96 128 0 16 0 93 0 0 49 20 25 175 1 180 0 7 0 0 0 613 s0 7 30 113 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 51 86 73 101 187 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ffkname:11973r Filename: f197342aub%modcPCO20WLinN%20ee)ast.lug Df -n. ira, r>o.,f 9MR V awi")mt and Mar 2020 Revised Land Use -per Auburn Planning Dept - EXlstinc oleo-11a�aaararrtlraaro.aa�. SOW -wr++►a..6dkwTA Buil. acro-1rr..n.r....•0af: Land Use MEN 0© LUI SF1Dl1 ® IImp" D LW 016ae WS Edw LU6 LU7 LUS LU9 HoW maw LU10 P=k& hide 4•F— ar/wb fym .aa. 35 0 0 356 23t 0 24 0 35 0 0 313 5 96 77 1 a 13 a S 0 ' �©o©oo©�■o�■� 37 a 0 66 332 a 17S 0 o©Moo 0 0 306 34 10 50 n 9 2 a 22 0 a 39 7 15 97 354 0 32 a 0—___O 0 3DS 9 0 31 79 0 0 0 0 a 0 40 0 0 22 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 206 4 1S 6o 24, 0 0 0 20 0 0 207 20 0 57 71 a 0 0 42 0 0 48 60 $4 39 50 0 16 0 0 208 0 0 71 79 0 0 0 0 49 20 25 102 101 0 7 0 0 209 0 15 42 11 2 0 TOO a 0 50 7 15 141 0 0 0 0 0 41 56 209 68 58 7 0 0 0 42 so 39 ISO 180 0 0 0 0 51 16 73 101 IQ 0 1 0 0 a 0 210 a a 0 0 0 0 . o a 112 211 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 431 oleo-11a�aaararrtlraaro.aa�. SOW -wr++►a..6dkwTA Buil. acro-1rr..n.r....•0af: Land Use 2005 Model La Model Land Use 7.aoc a LUI SF1Dl1 LU2 MFDU LU3 Re"a LW 016ae WS Edw LU6 LU7 LUS LU9 HoW maw LU10 P=k& hide 4•F— ar/wb fym .aa. 35 0 0 356 23t 0 24 0 35 0 0 313 5 96 77 1 a 13 a S 0 0 37 a 0 66 332 a 17S 0 410 0 0 306 34 10 50 n 9 2 a 22 0 a 39 7 15 97 354 0 32 a 0—___O 0 3DS 9 0 31 79 0 0 0 0 a 0 40 0 0 22 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 206 4 1S 6o 24, 0 0 0 20 0 0 207 20 0 57 71 a 0 0 42 0 0 48 60 $4 39 50 0 16 0 0 208 0 0 71 79 0 0 0 0 49 20 25 102 101 0 7 0 0 209 0 15 42 11 2 0 TOO a 0 50 7 15 141 0 0 0 0 0 41 56 209 68 58 7 0 0 0 42 so 39 ISO 180 0 0 0 0 51 16 73 101 IQ 0 1 0 0 a 0 210 a a 0 0 0 0 . o a 112 211 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 431 2005 Model La Model Land Use @i x 0 a� ae N O Y N o P J. e ■■ O N La► 971 s � 649 202 7 -r 1124 /} s r� L6 Q794 02 8' Yr $ \j/1►/�/ u6 � & � � Ti P 914 d 077 ll 7} wt M b�\ 179 �1 0 S N 270 196 1011 $ vs a .p. l.V � pee to, 9L9 lip •Lf 1 119 d6 ,nVnJ' lo "i d O N O Y N o P J. e ■■ O N La► 971 s � 649 202 7 -r 1124 /} s r� L6 Q794 02 8' Yr $ \j/1►/�/ u6 � & � � Ti P 914 d 077 ll 7} wt M b�\ i 179 �1 0 S N 270 196 1011 .p. l.V � pee 7Jp 1 i � 1P .pe se /W 179 �1 0 S N 270 196 a � 1P .pe se /W 1 MIND BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF ' IDIOM CORPORATIO N L MAR I ? ARAI/JACKSON MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Mullen, Jack Locke, Bob Sokol, Paul Krauss (City of Auburn) cc: Julia Walton (Arai/Jackson), Janet Shull (BWR) FROM: Susan Gygi SUBJECT: A Street Alternative Configuration Analysis DATE: Friday, March 05, 1999 PROJECT: 97342.02 Step 1 of Task 7.1 of the revised Scope of Services (dated Thursday February 4, 1999) has been completed. This memorandum will provide analysis of the four configurations as well as results. Outlined below are descriptions of each of the four iterations. All the alternatives were run using the downtown revised land use and calibration including,. the parking associated with the transit center with a trip generation rate of 0.70 instead of the 0.41 as used with all other parking stalls in the City, the A Street ' loop with the roadway configuration matching that of A Street between Main Street and 3'd Street SW, and the Auburn Way changes as listed in the revised Scope of Services. Iteration #1: ' • A Street south of Main — 2 travel lanes and on street parking on both sides of the street • A Street north of 3`d NW — 2 travel lanes with no on -street parking ' • A Street between Main and 3°d NW — 2 travel lanes and on -street parking on both sides of the street Iteration 2: • A Street south of Main — 3 travel lanes and on street parking on the west side of the street ' A Street between Main and 3'd NW — 2 travel lanes and on- street parking on both sides of the street • A Street north of P NW to 15'h Street — 2 travel lanes with no on -street parking Iteration 3: • A Street south of Main — 3 travel lanes and on street parking on the west side of the street • A Street between Main and 3"i NW — 3 travel lanes and on street parking on west side of the street • A Street between 3'd NW and 15'b Street — 2 travel lanes with no on -street parking Iteration 4: • A Street south of Main — 3 travel lanes and on street parking on the west side of the street • A Street between Main and 15th Street — 4 travel lanes and no on street parking • Auburn Way changes (as listed above) will not be included. In the tables presented on the following two pages, both the model generated counts and the v/c ratio for certain roadway segments are presented as well as node capacities at major intersections in the downtown area. Only segments with v/c ratio and node capacities above 80% of capacity are presented. For ' reference: • Level of Service "D" equates to Vic ratio of 81-90; • Level of Service `B" equates to v/c ratio of 91-100; • Level of Service "F' equates to v/c ratio of above 100. u 0 2003 WESTERN AVENUE, SUITE 100 0 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121-2114 ■ 206/448-2123 ■ FAX, 206/441-1622 0 BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) March 11, 1999 - Page 2 ' Model Generated Counts and Level of Service Street C Street north of SR -18 C Street south of Main C Street north of Main uy ScE'"JIL ii (/I H JIrCCI k-onpguranon Model Generated Counts Northbound or Eastbound Southbound or Westbound It. l It. 2 It. 3 It. 4 1 IL 1 It. 2 It. 3 It. 4 353 360 362 357 2,619 2,657 2,630 2,620 1,020 1,009 998 997 1987 1,926 1927 1927 404 405 349 345 944 909 941 930 I v/r ratio Northbound or Eastbound Southbound or Westbound It. l It. 2 It. 3 It. 4 It. l It. 2 It. 3 It.4 94 95 94 94 83 82 82 82 C Stred north of 31 NW 733 731 761 769 778 781 780 721 C St south of 150 ST NW 780 778 808 817 679 682 681 623 A Street Loop A Street north of 2'd SW A Street south of Main St 215 700 1,133 190 706 1,131 216 765 1,212 216 759 1,231 1,110 1,225 861 1,271 1,493 979 1,241 1,464 962 1,228 1,459 970 123 98 95 94 136 115 113 112 126 87 93 95 92 A Street north of Main Street 1,266 1,231 1552 1,585 720 795 747 743 141 137 119 88 88 A Street north of 1' St NW 1,174 1,165 1,472 1,530 952 979 969 1,037 130 129 113 85 106 109 A Street oath of 3a U NW A Street south of 150 St NW 489 221 485 218 659 239 678 241 1,171 491 1,177 491 1,185 490 1,351 539 130 131 132 OiVWm Sired Hath of 30 St SW 257 264 262 261 631 631 629 629 Division %wh south of Man St 359 345 375 366 338. 323 324 323 OiVWN Street north of Man St Mvisioo Street with of 30 NW 705 441 705 414 705 314 705 292 872 201 868 206 868 206 868 206 97 96 96 96 Aulmm Avenue south of 3" SW 1,314 1,289 1,298 100 2,098 133124 123 Auburn Avenue north of 3" SW 790 760 760 760 1560 1,532 1,531 1,531 Aubum A"nue south of Main St 739 745 719 717 977 938 955 957 Auburn Avenue north of Main St 608 509 494 494 858 830 848 851 Auburn Avenue south of 311 NW 205 205 205 205 1,181 1,164 1,157 1,145 98 97 96 95 Auburn Avemie north of 150 NW 2,388 2,388 2,355 2,355 Z610 2,614 Z594 2,381 85 85 84 84 93 93 93 92 Aabw Aveoue south of 150 NW 1,163 1,163 1,146 1,143 1,165 1,164 1,163 1,160 Adm Way oorlh of Cross St 683 679 678 677 1,412 1,395 1,391 1,391 Aul m Way south of Main St 721 731 723 719 1694 1,681 1,683 1,683 Auburn W north of Man St 685 694 685 684 020 020 079 014 Aahurn W south of 5th St NW 2,098 2,099 2,080 2,080 1376 1365 1364 1,358 30 Sired SW east of C St 3" Strad SW east of Division St 1,034 1,477 1,040 1,539 1053 1,532 1,051 1,529 Z064 1,438 2,350 1,401 Z323 1,141 Z315 1,413 126 131 129 129 82 86 85 85 80 30 Strad SW east of Auburn Ave 749 748 749 748 692 683 683 683 83 83 83 83 1 ° Street SW -60 of A St - 308 197 186 176 168 168 168 * 168 V Street SW west of A Si. 950 950 950 950 450 450 450 450 106 106 106 106 95 95 95 95 Main Street west of C St 1,047 1,057 1067. 1,067 1334 1351 1,359 1,338 87 88 89 89 111 113 113 112 Maio Shot east of C ST 975 994 1,049 1,054 793 774 746 740 81 83 87 88 No Strad west of A St 956 986 1,076 1,093 847 875 744 736 80 82 90 91 Man Strad eat of A St 442 425 424 431' 577 598 652 656 Main Street west of Auburn Ave 708 674 654 643 655 662 669 661 Main Street east of Auburn Ave 806 791 759 746 641 650 656 640 Man Street east of Auburn Way 1,019 994 965 952 486 484 491 487 85 83 80 V Sired NW east of A St 747 732 710 729 349 373 430 432 81 81 P Street IN west of Auburn Ave 231 225 235 266 413 410 398 390 P Sired NW east of Auburn Ave 323 323 323 323 689 694 689 688 3a SkM NW east of C St 432 427 390 386 1,003 970 1,046 1,123 30 Strad NW east of A St 545 543 552 606 1 212 207 178 170 3a SkW NW west of Auburn Ave 886 871 849 846 1 117 117 98 101 , r.'6n42aubUvpc% mecv)90 WbLiwadom,mem.doc BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) March 11, 1999 - Page 3 Model Generated Node Capacities by Iteration for A Street Configuration Intersection It. l Node Ca It. 2 ties It. 3 It. 4 Auburn Avenue @ 15th Street NW _ 92_ 92 92 92 Auburn Avenue @ 5th Street NW 105 105 104 104 Aubum Avenue @ 3rd Street NW 83 82 81 80 Auburn Avenue @ 1 st Street NW 101 101 100 100 Auburn Avenue @ Main Street 98 91 96 95 Auburn Avenue @ 2nd Street SW 102 101 100 100 Auburn Avenue @ 3rd Street SW 106 106 106 106 Auburn Way @ 1 st Street NW 93 93 92 92 Aubum Way @ Main Street 81 92 91 90 Auburn Way 0 Cross Street 81 80 80 80 Dkidon Strad 01 st Street NW 141 141 139 139 Division Sheet a Main Street 101 100 101 101 Division Street @ 3rd Street SW 122 126 126 129 A Street 0 A Street NW 106 101 115 80 A Sheet @ 3rd Street NW 133 132 143 109 A Sheet 0 1st Street NW 98 100 109 85 A Street 0 Main Street 103 106 112 101 A Street @ 1 st Street SW 121 128 129 129 C Street @ 15th Street NW 88 88 88 88 C Street @ Main Street 104 103 103 103 C Street @ 3rd Street SW 126 121 126 126 C Sheet @ SR -18 Wesibound Romp 1 3 94 93 93 C Street'@ SR -18 Eastbound Romp 85 85 85 85 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS: As seen in the model generated count table, the changes in volumes for the roadways within the downtown Auburn area in relation to different configurations of A Street do not differ greatly. The list below outlines the areas where counts differ greatest. The changes in volumes are on the order of 100-300 vehicles during the pm peak hour period. This increase equates to approximately an additional 1.6-5 vehicle increaseldecrease on these roadway segments every minute if the increase were to be steady over the entire peak hour. Northbound: Southbound • A Street north of Main Street • C Street south of Main Street • A Street north of 1s' Street NW • A Street north of 2nd Street SW • A Street north of 3rd Street NW • A Street north of 3`d Street NW • Division Street south of 3rd Street NW • Auburn Avenue south of 151' NW • Auburn Avenue north of Main Street • 30° Street SW east of C Street rWrM2aubXvVc% ortes�99M*s.kauions.mem.dm BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) March 11, 1999 - Page 4 To further this train of thought, below is a list of roadway links that differ in Level of Service depending on the iteration used. Northbound: Street Segment It.1 It.2 It. 3 It. 4 A St. south of Main F D E E A St. north of Main F F F D A St. north of I" NW F F F D Main St west of A St D D D E Southbound Street Segment It. I It. 2 It. 3 It. 4 A St. Loop F E E E A St south of Main E 6 A St. north of Main Level of Service E D A St. north of 1" NW F F Main St north of 3rd NW F F F As a final comparison, below is a list of the number of roadway segments for each iteration that exceed Level of Service C. Northbound: Street Segment IL I It. 2 IL 3 It. 4 Level of Service D 6 9 6 8 Level of Service E 0 0 1 2 Level of Service F 4 3 3 1 Southbound Street Segment It. I It. 2 It. 3 It. 4 Level of Service D 1 2 1 1 Level of Service E 6 6 6 6 Level of Service F 6 5 4 3 In addition to the above tables, we have included copies of the model -generated volumes for each alternative for your perusal. The next step is to review the information contained in this memorandum and the attached plots and decide upon the preferred configuration of A Street. When this is completed, the 20 -year downtown plan run with the preferred A Street configuration will be compared with the Existing 20 -year Plan Alternative. Increase in traffic over the existing 20 -year plan alternative more than a specified amount will be identified. Mitigation measures for these intersections will be completed in accordance with the final EIS document. If there are any questions concerning this memorandum, feel free to call. r.W342aub\*WVoff"N o3osbs.itentiooe.mem.doc G 11 u u u ti U. � 7' 7, � o- 0 n /off -, •, ,�' � n\/n�w.% �GO•� p O N (� fog ii � �i•'�� H W W 6 z "C^ Street H •j 9 'O T J T «A„ Street SNt :441 A 2,T, o 31.1 rt rt O c L..7 - 0 Pt. t YJ '6fi3 .s3 J,•Y., '',21 ■d•.Z j- "VQ SFE• M 665 'a E0 J ti rt i Q .,y TOS eta rJ gib,: • .z. 41, o w 't z3z ■ � N w J I rt V4 0 lD t `°" P ^ rt v V ft V . 7 N u 0 v� ' th .a w ti /1 __ ... .... i N - a ' acrYOYot r O Y rw•e a Y M 1 11111 O 0 V 0 0 O 0 F O � n � E; E; . ... off ar �Y a ap +a'+. o _ ;..?w4 ... nG r� N .: n� 6 II ��I �� in ' ry ��•- o N ... , . ,... .,.. .. , .. n.._ .... .e. ... ..,.. 'n „� d w ry� n a ': :: a i m � - illll ' - aF��?s ' 'x"66 E.�fi 'S � l w £ ... off ar �Y a ap +a'+. o _ ;..?w4 ... nG r� N .: n� 6 II ��I �� in ' ry ��•- o N ... , . ,... .,.. .. , .. n.._ .... .e. ... ..,.. 'n „� d w ry� n a ': :: a i m w 6 =en 29T m- saa III BUCHER, WILLIS & RATUFF ��UOI�I CORPORATION io_.t 6661—£--'pw MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Sokol m Ice Welsh, Steve Mallen, Ilia Walton, lane[ Shun FROM: Susan Gygi SUBJECT. ASsrost Configmaaon Review&Dzm DATE Fbd8y, Mamh 241999 PROJECT 97342 Bob: Paowmkphmeemvemdmm WNsesday, Mamh 24, 1999, mgardmg my Marti S*' Im rtsnsmioel M dma mnceming me dmteadw amdwaY cm68omoons for A S VM As derailed in dw Febsamy 461999 revisor Stupe Of Sewiaa, I have levhwei she modei All have mese in mns to repot[. C42CUY of A Street if 900 vehtdzmourllarn. lobawd m m is is e GsssScatim of A SVM as aMalm CollMor IS Vamd m me CRY Long -Range Plea nq w sponds w tM cslazinev used in me citywide Wibmmd .mad. Poc a shoe[ dielma wum d l5° SVM IJN. the evsdssg imdei mo.w A Strat u a Minor Arterial with 3 hnp each dsecdm. Thulwk was mdmvned at I,}W vdodes/homllaee. pl B=n and D(v Stzeet HW list Ibe mcmuz in Q Qcm 1•SVM NW isb on tops being genaatM by sone 209(me HoVimp. Ms zoo u losdiog m in, b2wpmasm rcrwy jns, MW of I" Stroh ]be cnno voo lick Is wo smell to pmvidebaeic winnows the graphics. lWe(me, d oyingw bdevre the wbmee m this mmtmnim udng vommes mmh d she a®her 205. me node willnm 6elmce.IM figure below will detail rhe 2020 vdurres w meamaenmwpaasin,o Maio SVa[ to 1"Street HW spa H Sseetb Division fw ltensim fll. Ltmt- as,y 7156— Main V m�.I�9)s� Sfr f 793 m 4 655 1 1 _.�2<m wamagx Aevan. Sne1m • F"m= w ................... .... .... .. aT Irr T-�. BW - MEMORMIWM(CM11NUED) M "26.1933 prea] Using dm tnp ge Mlion tutors fm dowmown, the number of nips by trip type for zone 206 are preserved Mow for the year AM predonvvance of [hese trips is amndy loadin OJa . 8 onto Auburn Nam. Baud Work WwY6axtl Xome fkmeBvtlg6a p6ugvpam.e NmHme8uN 'foot OnA ,,,G Iml i ring i Den Ocu 0DPC 0deet UR bJ LWB i 1$ 1 139 1 "1 1 Mfi 1 111 1 316 1 107 1 1.ro1 I 598 I.aobiog at Ne items above, as well ss aprelinJmry review of the model irmlt, we believe Mc downlown model and the projections ss shown w the previous r,mssrb c acmlrsmy reflect the projected Baffic given site assumptions statim m the M hSe, 1999 soil pmvioos menimmdpms for rhe dorvrs amea. please review the items m tiered above, m well a ft pmjeedops from frc smms 2 and deteomine the PmR configmayonofASeeea. Iftllve arc aBY gt]lwd Sfeel folly to ull. BWR - MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) 11 1999 - Our 2 Model Genevan Guns and Level of Serricc by Ilervionfor A Street Confieural _� Sen Oa Cayxide Abdel 6memled faah X609H 58/40 .- -I18 -- 10100oeelmmMedd &oemgd __ Xwaoeda Imbed SMOoudaWa10 A.9 X.3 84 III X.3 N.] IL 4 <Se DDAWA d36W 1,240 4h 118 419 417 P53 1649 1,on CAme dill _ - 02 01 1118 04 401 IN 4N-404- -1111 1311 1799 103 _ IOW NxInwl6d MoM 135 116 113 168 11T1 951 1,03 963 $enan5dY0W 00 591 131 131 2V 333 In 7✓3� 651 641 651 658 I51104114lSeMMW NS 501 381 388 388 N] 558 561 513 Snen 115 180 He 115 91 > 1 ._ ) Snrmn6dY SW-- - 99 ]N 131 113 131 131 319-_ 419 3)9 9 545 ASeeol dhl 211 113 10 315 IN 0_ no 505 Seen wAd1X0e5Om .21 135 281 141 AT 300 394 318 No 531 Nei elle AXW 119 251 323 300 313 323 410 6AA1M18/ 410 IN SIM"Off AXW TV W 290 IN 159 NO IN 99 941 100 SlnwsMdl LXW I IM 486 IN IN IN 151 NI m w 11,19 Slnl "01342% 101 19 14 14 74 14 510 40 WS 491 YwmAdWYSt 0 IN N IN 93 0 IN 3N 283 m 4mmIM1dM®L 0 IN 151 10 1N 131 516 del] 540 408 ' vmv16dYXW N 13 89 IN N N 105 IO 126 IN Mn d SW @ ZW 1014 UM ION Ill Z45 zm Z4D Z467 mAeon Xm6d YSX 311 110 419 429 43 449 1 1l 1351 IN AvmsmWdMdn 51 IDS 931 30 3N 331 M7 1031 1024 1.019 1011 Aswne�u�IddMdn 51 No 923 334 302 304 304 on on fill In kbmArcmesn6o11e NW 207 IW 161 IN 161 161 No 914 936 934 mAramv6dYN1 164 tifill 1,119 1,119 1,119 1191 Zhol 4MMill 2X5 VoWl 16018112161,11 NW 01 961 A9 599 No 548 1 1,137 1 3 lm nmM10 SI 542 1191 09 593 50 50 120 1 2 I 0 1267 sm6dYom51 N5 I 560 953 559 NO 142 1,414 1,426 1423 mAldMebL 439 915 505 505 505 % 14D 1409 1420 1403 Ablm md6dSRLXW 141 494 965 991 9N 991 1 1 3 1150 1 LIm5114mdI2 In 905 9" 90 90 IN / Jimm 11378001 1loW i AmM'emdOidML 1,110 810 1189 1135 11N 1,193 1,101 110 1,111 IIO YS0m5WemdMdun An 10/8 865 159 IN IN IO 593 a8 01 6" e4M well 0 61 61 61 N N 9 41 S0alemd(L rmflmj 551 190 a1 191 191 Ia m In 111 S volial 4 N N6 IN SA IN 593 me 40 3N 405 "StamdAk 611 MS 4N 93 m 40 1H 110 30 3N ' Sem wadM6mAw 515 NO 95 NI w 60 324 3N NS 312 "StmmdAdaob MI 259 416 411 416 411 311 311 331 299 o Shmlmdlu6omW 414 N5 555 59 5154 555 NI NI 361 343 SMd3Wm0dASl _ 43 0 195 NS 210 101 61 61 N N Se mwd151 40-�- N9 IN 156 1A 133 512 351 418 NS NSe XWlwzdll 113 IN 2N }5J 2N 265 118 93 16 0 Stan MWwnd M6wn Ave 1N 41 1 191 311 m Tom 61 0 61 61 � mmv:sola.wums.lww<uw�neia<om+ma:emcorwmbg.mH.l+kema.ae p�n.Inlool e ti 0 1 1 1 1 1 v E 0 C' U, 7 Am 79 �E i� 0 F \7/$/ � . ƒ�} � ) § ) ] ` !!! ) Lt114 If iff-� in Per - EEBTILI _br. Bill MEMORANDUM(CONTPaUED June la, 1999 - Page SUNIAlf ANp I'll STEPS As seen in the comparison of 2005 City-wide model results. 2005 Downtown model resin¢. 2020 al wide model faults, and 2020 Downtown model results, the changes in volumes are net suriffcanu outside the downtown area. The predominant increases occur within the downtown area and on SR18as well as a ro-directiwl of traffic on local Porous to bake advanuge of the shortest maker fastest trip. per City of Aubum standards, intasecYon analysis should carr on any intersection with 10 or more addi em al trips for any land use development, he previous discussions with City Staff, the possibility of tratring this threshold of 10 vehicles to 50 was Nmfeal Due to Nis prrjea having a sigleficmt impact on the dowmown area and its fluid uses, as well as be &cb the final product will not be project specific, we would suggest a threshold of 50 vehicles. With any significant development (developurent producing 10 pm peak hour vehicle tips) a tri impost study may be required which will look specifically atthe impacts for surrounding intersections related to Wt development. For you use, we If v lm copies of all model generated volumes for both the m -build and aownwwo Wad we xmetm Ito the year 2005 said 2020 projected years as tow Ne 6ty-wide and Dowetown models. We have than iaclaM dirtermees bawem the nobWld as downtown land use scwrim fm both modi(Cuywide as lbwntial for bothln lamed years. The oe 3"u m review Ne ivfantation cmWnW in rh s mensmaodum as the attached plobs and determine whether or not a tbreWlold of m Additional 50 vehicles to m Inwxction is acceptable for mWysis of that inmrsecdoo (leas Sable 3). Mltgetcn me:mms for theseinbefsePe tion will he compleed in aawdanae with the float ELS document If there are any questions conceral this memorandum had has mcall TO N- P.04 Appendix II Public Art 1 Appendix II: Public Art The Auburn Public Art Plan by Vicki Scuri Steworks Opportunities Identity Art nurtures and establishes neighborhood and city Wide ownership.' Cultural Context Art integrates history, culture, and social dynamics into the Project. often considering myth, legend and desire. Spatial Structure An unifiesq vement and orientation in a fundamental, operatic way. Gateways Ari creates a semse of belonging and they define boundaries. Serendipitous Discoveries Art reveals and rc'ests the city in creativity and surprise encounters, mur vand humor. Phenomena Art formers with environment to create awareness of the natural world and influences of temporal change. Lighting 111umirution An provides beauty and safety, Identity and civic pride. Infrastructure An acts as a powerful urban artifact which aHms duality of life and emulating. Greening Landform and Environmental Art directly relates to quality of life, quality of experience, and ecology. Noise Mitigation /Drainage An water features provide noise regulation and drameage opportunities. Appendix ll: Public Art 3) Pedestrian Bridge lighting: pedestrian and site lighting reflect seasonal Charge, mitigate weather and mark celebrations, Create landmark • environmental design of bridge: all elements • Identity statement. bridge as metaphor 4) Pedestrian Linkages • phenomem. wind and sound elements paving: actin designed pavers, patenting and puule Inserts bus shelters: custom designs rue guards, one grates, bollards, bentltes: custom designs drainage: amenity oppormrrlty • gghgng: pedestrian and sasonW lighting calors 5) Parking Lot greening: pocket park and overhead line and -vine begin reference hop vine trellises ungation: amenity art tome and water feature, "tlantlng" spa Wder system, agriculture reference • berrre: screening and snaring opportunities • drainage: amenity and water feature • graphics & signage: wayMding devlow • lighting: pedestrian eMancement 6) Parking Garage • mitigate moa: custom designed sudaces. and sculptural buiWng form • trews atrecmrea: greening as art Identity: art panels, environmental graphics and signage as waylinding • laming safety and appearance • ventilation: opportunity for phenomena 7) City Pocket Park • an as hmdscape design: bringing. greening and drainage as amenity • custom paving: game mote or patterning Appendlxll:Nblicbt Public An Examples Public An enriches public space, creating opportunities for social Interaction and cultural exchange. This plan broadly loofa at the city as a palette for public art and environmental design ' investments Public An as mainly Movies the city N its identity and cultural context, by recognizing spinal structures, gxtevays, mnidots.pedestrian linkages, infrastructure, greening, openspare, phenomena, lighting, revealed history and serendipitous discoveriesCreativeopportunities elmace quality of life issues the city, ' The examples of public an illustrated on the following pages demonstrate the types of projects whirls eadch a city through the ' thoughtful imagination of art. design and iNmsWNne. These projects, varied and respective to scale and place. Imnarorm everyday envlmnme s Into significant daily experiences. ' Appendixll: Public Art City Clodias Street Amenity Bill Whipple, Question Mark Clock Seattle,WA CommunityCenter Gateway Ginny Ruffner, South CommunityCenter, Seattle, WA Traffic Median Gateway Marker Anita Margrill,hhe MeedngofTwo Fivers, Antloch,CA Appendix It: Publl< An Infrastructureasa Public Place RobertHarrison, Toumamenr Players Club ' Bndge,SCattsdale,AZ Appendix It: Publl< An Appendix ll:Public An Bus Shelter Kevin Berry, Goldwater Blvd., Scottsdale,F il�r} Appendix Market Analysis • Catalyst Project Appendix III: Market Analysis and Catalyst Project Pro Formas Introduction This appendix contains the economic analyses conducted to ase the preparation of the Auburn Downtown Plan: l) the Downtown Auburn Market Analysts, and 2) Catalyst ProjectPro Formes The Market Analysts was used to develop the future lend use, m locate and size catatysf projects, and to assist in the long term wltb hastiness recmios ent The Catalyst Posited Pro Formas were developed to determine the fesaibility of key projects in the downtown core. They are being used by the City of Aubum to identify levels of development and the need for public stimulation of key project¢. Appendix III 'Mmket Analdis and Catalyst PrgM Pro Formas twamMr�.)Mn pxn:c l'OP RE' evAND( NMnwMONLY AUBURN DOWNTOWN PLAN MARKET STUDY MARCH 1998 PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN BY PROPERTY COUNSELORS 1221 SECOND AVENUE SUITE310 SEATTLE WA 98101 Table of Contents (Cont.) ILWnr. Prize VI. Retail Demand.................................................................................................... 6-1 ..................... 9-5 Overview..._ ... ......_.._ 6-1 Regional Market Conditions ...._ .... .._......... __...6-3 Retail Sales Trends. ............ ........ ......................__...__..................................... 6-6 Retail Centers in Auburn...._,,, 6-6 Projected Demand.. ...... .........__............. ......_... 6-10 VII. Office Demand......._........._ ............... _......................................... _.............. _.... 7-1 Regional Market Conditims.................._..._.......... ................... ......... .............. 7-1 Local Office Market Cwditions....... ...... .._............................ ....... ..... ............. . 74 ProjectedDemand ........ ---- ................._.............................._.. 4-5 VRI. Demand for Lodging ............ _........................ __........ _ .......... _.._.... _................ 8-1 Overview of Regional Market....... ........ .....--... ........ .......... ............ ..................... 8-1 Coral Mallet Conditions..... .................. ............... ................... 8-1 Projected Demand. ............ ...... ...... .............. 8-3 UC. Residential Demand ......... _............ _................................... _........... ._..... _............. 9-1 Single Family For -Sale Housing....-- ............. ................................................... 9-3 Senior Housing... .................... --- ... .............. --- _ ..................... 9-5 Projected Demand ... ........ —-............. ......_........................_ ---- 9-6 Din n11 I9R FuV c% nun CAMRrEnTOW Y Development Inductees - describing the major factors which will affect demand in Downtown Auburn in the future. • Retail Demand - identifying the type and amount of retail development which Downtown might expect to capture. • Office Demand - identifying the type and amount of office development which Downtown might expect to capture. • Lodging Demand - identifying the type and amount of hotel and conference facility development which Downtown might expect to capture_ • Residential Demand - identifying the type and amount of residential development which Downtown might expect m capture. The findings of the market analysis are summarized in the remainder ofthis section. SUMMARY MARKET AREA The minket mea for Downtown Anbom is the area from which it will draw 80 no 90 pemmt of its sales. R is identified as the area shown in Figure 1-1 on the following page. It extends from the Aubum City limits at me north into Pierce County on the south, from I-5 to the west, and expanding to the east along SR -I8 and the Aubum-Enumclaw Highway. This area recognizes the exirtiug concentration of retail development in Fedusl Way, Tukwila and Puyallup; the crucial boundary of the plateau to the west; and the existing transportation routes extendng to the cast. • This trade area has a turret population of 192, 000, with potential growth to 222,000 by the year 2010, and 258,000 by 2020. • There were approximately 69,0110 households in the minket area in 1996, with an average household income of $61,000. • Aggregate personal income in the market area is S4.2 billion. DOWNTOWN PROFILE The Auburn Downtown is an established business district with surrounding residential development. • The DOwnmwm core area is 28 acres with 1.8 million square feet ofbuildmgs. Adman DOWNTOWN PLAN .wwxeTSTUDT Paoeeefv COUNa¢013 CnM18R r, PAGe2 PRAFT lbalbvnw AW](OMMaNTr%NIY • There are 304 businesses in Downtown, of which 84 are retail, 157 am service, and 44 are Finance Insurance and Real Estate_ Within the service category, there is a large concentrate of health care providers, • Taxable retail sales in Downtown totaled $38.1 million in 1996 and $403 million in 1997, representing approximately 4 percent alienable sales in the City. • Auburn retail businesses generate approximately $195 per square foot per year in gross sales, compared to $213 per square foot per year for industry averages for community shopping centers. On a per square foot basis, apparel outperforms the averages, grocery stores are comparable to averages, and general merchandise, eating and drinking, and personal services are lower. • Them are 331 residential units N dowmmwo, ofwhicb 20 percent are swgte family. DEVELOPMENT IN OTNER COMMUNITIES The experience of other communities suggest rhe kind of opportunities which might be available to actionver and ways it can compete to attract development Auburn should incomme its intensity of commercial and residential development, and attract more office and high main development as sites in close in communities become scarce Over time, Auburn will take on a ebaraemu more similar m the suburban cities on the east side of Lake Washington. In particular, Auburn should be competitive with Renton for the type of downtown mixed use development which the latter is currently attracting. Animals location on the commuter mil line, and its compact identifiable downtown compare favorably to the chamcterof Renton. There a eral development trends and opportunities which will influence development in downtown Auburn. • Growth in Market Area Population and Spending. Auburn has a relatively higher capacity for residential development and will capture a higher share of regional growth than it bas historically. • Growth in Downtown Employment and Population. With strong growth Outlook for medical related employment, finance and business services, and City employment, the additional activity in Downtown should spur further development. • Commuter Rail will provide the greatest influence symbolically, if not economically. The service will establish Auburn as a convenient place in live fm those commuting or employment centers throughout King and Pierce counties. In quantitative terms, AUBURNDOWNTOWNPIwx nNCYErSNOY PBOBurrc CmMBBroes Cme2Rt,PAGEe Oanrn Pox Revrw ono COMMFNVONLY which am prevalent elsewhere in the South End Office dcvelopmmnt in Auburn typically houses tenants serving local residents tied businesses. Typical tenants include health care practitioners, other professional services, and fins ncerinsumnodreal esmm businesses. Of the approximately 300,000 squaw feet of office development in Downtown Auburn, over one-half of it is health care related, and one-quarter government. Only 20 percent is traditional private office space users. These is no Class A office apace (new office buildings with modem building systems and high quality interior and exterior finishes) in Downtown Aubum, A Class A once building in Downtown would attract image conscious office tenants already located in Downtown or elsewhere in the City. A 50,000 to 70,000 square foot four story building such as the Centennial Building in Kent would meet this need. Growth in the Auburn Medical Center would support 5,000 square feet of absorption per year. Overall office absorption should be sustainable over time at approximately 15,000 squaw feet per year. LODGING DEMAND Auburn has approximately 350 hotel or motel rooms. The existing properties are generally limited service hotels with limited meal service or meeting space. Most are located in North Auburn. The only large meeting facilities m the City am in the Green River Community College or fiataml and civic facilities. Auburn would benefit farm a full service hotel with hoed service and meeting facilities. In the immediate future, it is likely that any new lodging will co mit" to be limited service. It might be possible to amac: a goad quality fimbi hotel, and independent restaurant, and some type of public meeting facility in a coordinated development project. The overall result would be equivalent to a small convention hotel, and could attract moderate sized convention of 150 to 200 attmdms. The opportunity for such a development is dependent upon: - Identifying a site with access and visibility to SR -I8, and - A strong effort to provide amenities such as the meeting space in a public private cooperative effort RESNEN l DEMAND The Auburn housing market is responding to the need for higher density, affordable housing. Over 50 percent of the new housing built in Auburn since 1990 has been multifamily. Auburn is an established apartment market. Auburn apartment vacancy rates are 4.3 percent. Rental rates are the lowest among South King County communities, with average rotes of $481, 555, and 662 per month for one bedroom, two bedreoMone bath, and two bedroonJtwo bath units, respectively. Auburn single tardily home prices at an average of $138,000 are comparable to Federal Way, but lower than Aonoan DuwmownPury mc[r5iuov PROPExiYCOVN3ELOas CNAPtex 1, PACE6 DKArI rOF RFWFw xmocoMN IN tuna Il. MARKET AREA CHARACTERISTICS The City of Auburn is a part of the larger Central Puget Sound region. no economic climate for this region has important influences on its various component communities_ The market area for Aubum and its Downtown is also larger m scope than the city itself, and the economic characteristics of this trade area are directly relevant to the development potential of the Downtown This section of the report provides a description of characteristics of the larger region and of de Downtown trade area itself. REGIONAL OVERVIEW The Paget Sound region is defined generally es Seattle mM its surrounding counties, and specifically as the Seattle Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). The CMSA contains six cowries - King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Island, and Thurston counties. The four larger counties are members of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and are the subject of extensive economic modeling and ficansconfling. For the patpose of this section, the four -county area is considered to be the greater Seattle region. The economic base of this region is dominated by aeroepace, forest products, defse, and international trade. Software, biotech rcust", telecommunications, services, and tourism are increasingly important sectors. While The Boeing Company remains the largest employer in the stet¢, the economy has diversified extensively over the part two decades, and the sale's economy continued to grow in spite of large cuts in Boeing employment at the beginning of the 1990s. With Boeing recovered and increasing employment, all sectors of the economy are among and employment is projected to grow steadily. The historical and projected levels of population, households, and employment, are summarized in Table II -1. AueuaNDOwm'ownPury mU Snmv PWrtax Courvs¢waa CYurtxall, Pnc¢I DRAJI FOx REviEw ANE DNallN1ONLY developed unincorporated areas to the east The characanstica of this area are shown in Table 11 3, Table 11.3 Market Area Characteristics South Kina Countv Ecom' PuaNBwnORery:relfuw3, PaiPm f WS The area's population in 1990 of 518,000 represented 34T, of King County's population with that figure p jented to increase to 37%bythe year 2020. Approximamty 70% of the housing stock in this area is single-family dwelling units, although that factor is projected to decline to 57% by 2020. The average household size is projected to decline significantly, as it is projected to do in most areas, although the average sou remains higher Nan in the county and the region as a whole. The income figures represent the percentage of households in the area which fall into each of income quartiles defn d for a region as a whole. By definition, 25% of the region's households fall man each quartile. If percentage of households in a particular area exceeds 25%, it has proportionately more households on that category. in the case of South County, there is a propormenermly Water number of upper middle and upper income households. Current population levels for South King County cities, the County and the region as a whole are shown in Table 114. Auburn is the fourth largest city in South King Counry. Auburn grew at a rete faster than the county and region as a whole. It should be noted that current population levels for the county and regain earned the projected levels for the year 2000 as shown in Table 11-1. Those projections are intended to reflect long term Atea"DO iNTOWNPr..IR M.rRRrre M" PROPERry COurvaawRS CMPaRILPACE3 1990 2000 2010 2020 POPULATION 51KA5 597,608 666,550 ]59,9]9 HOUSEHOLDS 199,615 234,885 280,347 324,934 AVERAGEHOUS6DOLDSIM 260 253 2.38 2.34 SINGLEFAMILYHOUSEHOLDS 139750 155,238 125,527 184,557 PERCENTSINGIHFAMILY 6966% 660m. 6261% 56]9% LOWERINCOME 19.Y/ 1975 1]P/a 193Y LOWERMIDDLE 23.4% 23.4% 23.8% 23.8% UPPER MIDDLE 28.1% 27,2rt 26.7% 266°/ UPPERINCOM6 293% 29-f 30.4% 303% TOTAL EFIPLOYM&NT 28208 331,903 390,686 438,606 Ecom' PuaNBwnORery:relfuw3, PaiPm f WS The area's population in 1990 of 518,000 represented 34T, of King County's population with that figure p jented to increase to 37%bythe year 2020. Approximamty 70% of the housing stock in this area is single-family dwelling units, although that factor is projected to decline to 57% by 2020. The average household size is projected to decline significantly, as it is projected to do in most areas, although the average sou remains higher Nan in the county and the region as a whole. The income figures represent the percentage of households in the area which fall into each of income quartiles defn d for a region as a whole. By definition, 25% of the region's households fall man each quartile. If percentage of households in a particular area exceeds 25%, it has proportionately more households on that category. in the case of South County, there is a propormenermly Water number of upper middle and upper income households. Current population levels for South King County cities, the County and the region as a whole are shown in Table 114. Auburn is the fourth largest city in South King Counry. Auburn grew at a rete faster than the county and region as a whole. It should be noted that current population levels for the county and regain earned the projected levels for the year 2000 as shown in Table 11-1. Those projections are intended to reflect long term Atea"DO iNTOWNPr..IR M.rRRrre M" PROPERry COurvaawRS CMPaRILPACE3 DMn_ FOR RPvie W AND COMMON] on Y Table II -5 Auburn Area Major Employees ne➢Odng Company 12,420 Super Mall 3,850 SuperValue(West Coast Grocery) 818 Auburn School District 785 Muckleshoot Indian Casino 700 Auburn Regional Medical Center 560 Social Security Administration 500 General Services Admwmxtion 473 Federal Aviation Administmaon 400 CityofAubum 395 Insulatehrdustries 375 Fred Meyer 259 Key Bank Processing Center 239 Puget Sound Auto Auction 200 City -Wide (Total) 33,000 sa�cnrmem�m.wa,eum rn.sa..me�we AunuRNlbwNPowry Ptnry Manaei3llNV PROPnRTYCOnN58rORa CHA RII,PAGC5 DneR PoFRwrt WAND CUMNENT ON LY The projected market area for the Anbum Downtown Ca shown on the map on the following page Generally, the area is limited to the west by 1-5, extends to the Auburn city limits to the north and into Pierce County in the south, and extends eastward, increasing in width to the edge ofthe urbanized arca. The breis for this designation is as follows: • Residents to the west of 1-5 are likely to travel north and south on 1-5 to other close by areas rather than travel farther east. • The market area is limited to the north and south by concentrations of competing development to Renton, Tukwila, and Puyallup. • Highway 18 and the Aubum-Enumclaw Highway provide movement routes from the unincorporated meas an the east and south into Auburn. A secondary Area extends fabler north paid east along SR -I8, and south to SR410 in Pierce County. The resultant area is approximately ten miles in width Hall to south) and 15 miles east a west. All projections Are based on projections by the Puget Sound Regional Council for Component Subareas (Forecast Analysis Zones). The characteristics of t11is market area are summarized in Table U-7 and 11-8. As shown, the final handcar area papulation was 191,900 in 1996, and is projected to grow, in 203,100 by the year 2000. The average household income for the market area is estimated to be $61,200 in 1996. Table II -7 Auburn Market Area Projected Population AupOan UOwxrowrvPux MuxnTMEW Puoeax'1v Cburvsa141ts (mamERU,PAeu7 " Ammm Annul Grath 1996 2000- 2010- 19% 2000 2Mo 2020 2000 2010 2020 Markft Area Population Pomace, 93dsm 100,200 112,700 127,000 Loo 1.2% 12% Secondary 98100IOtwM1 114200 130,900 12 10 14 Total 191 W 20310) 226900 257900 14 1.1 1.3 San¢: FlNa sauna pa9s,,a imma R;xly toureebe AupOan UOwxrowrvPux MuxnTMEW Puoeax'1v Cburvsa141ts (mamERU,PAeu7 " DnmT Fun RFVH, A AN o COMM LN 1 ON Table II -8 Auburn Market Area Income Table 11-9 summarrzes selected population And household characteristics of the primary and secondary market areas. ArmeAAD eNrNWNPwry man ftuov PROP¢attCOMELORS CHAMRIl.PAce9 A ... mruu Ae6Rate Market Area Income Primary $57,100 20 Billion Secondary 666W 22 Billion TOW blaw 42 Billion I(vie Guvry 63.900 Sov¢: PugISwMApa®Ifartil P�Wsly tammbrt Table 11-9 summarrzes selected population And household characteristics of the primary and secondary market areas. ArmeAAD eNrNWNPwry man ftuov PROP¢attCOMELORS CHAMRIl.PAce9 DR AF FOR Rrww AND conusn I over Enumclaw Plateau (FAZ3200) Black Diamond/Lake Sawyer (PAZ 33 10) Lake Heights (PAZ3420) LakeTapps/Dieringer (FAZ806) Lakeland (FAZ3030) Southwest Sees Creek (PAZ 3426) Lake Mendom (PAZ3427) The subareas projected to show the greatest growth (thereby increasing their share of papulation between 1990 and 2000) are: Mgoue/Pacific (FAZ 3110) Auburn South (PAZ 3120) Black ThamondlLake Sawyer (FAZ3310) Lake Heiglits (FAZ3425) Lake TappsMiermger (FA280(d Southwest Sears Geek (PAZ3426) MiltonlPdgewood (FAZ 1200) AVee¢u Umvrcrowx PLAN MwRRr!S11O PROPERTYCOUNSELORS CwArt[a11.Pac¢I1 FAR m F FOR NEVIEw AND Comun'r Our v III. DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC PROFILE This profile provides a description of current economic and land use conditions in Downtown Aubmn. It is intended to provide an understanding of the Downtown and a basis for projecting frture opportunities. This profile is organized in seven sections: land Use Inventory Deadness Mix Business Performance Residential Development Other Activity Generators Attitudes Toward Dcamtown Lend Availability and Price LAND USE INVENTORY The area identified as the Downtown for proposes of this study includes 98 acres and 1.8 million square feet ofbuilding area as summarized in Table III -I. As shown, retail is the single largest land use (as classified by the King County Assessor). Residential and padding are the next largest categories of use. AnNUWV OTVMOWN PUN aAm(eTSNNY PROPERTY COONs¢eovs C11i lq PACE DRmi'. FUR NLa LLa 4Na( IMMENi ONty Table III -2 Downtown Auburn Business Mix sicro . -�2 -59 RETAIL TRAIDE 84 27.6a 52 eriala/sara 5 z �l//Raiidi„9 Ma 523 Wallpaperl 525 eldwarels 526Rhode res/Garden dipplill l 0 Re 5PMobil,xoms inertia Other 51 central Merchandise 2 0.7% 533 Vr,,re S t.... ./R Other General .08 54 Foods 2 0.7% .98 2-543 i[N ye[aG1e/Mea[ - 0.08 544 v,dy/Nur/Cmfectianery - 0.08 545 a,irP, Pilaster - 0.08 546 Estella, - 0.0 Other aM Stoll' 0.0% 55 s Anne IXalere/vasa 2.34 551-552 a Mew/Oead) 553 AICIIIIRY Dealers 3 I.oa 554sell", star,1.38 ne/A ilia Ets 1nc 56 el/Ac..... rill 561-565 'reining 4 1 3% 569 other Ad .ries 57 PiRmlit,n../Purrishin9/Gryipeent 571 �aAian l8 572 ee a 1.0% 5ID acs/nnaic steres Eating/Grinkin9 Places 23 7.6a ellan,eus Retail Stores 31 10.2% 591 stores 1 0.38 594 sit cell..roue sheppin9 Goods 16 M% Retail"' 1 0.36 593 el/Ice 1 0.36 599 ONer R Gil stores 32 3.9% 70-89 SERVICES 157 5116% 70 le/Xotele, s .08 72 Personal Sersirr, 20 98 o.0% 753er ve/Repair services ns 0.96 79 Other s 84 27,61 15-17 � 19-39 PJCd41./OTILITI65 0'7% 40-49 7 2.38 50-51 1 .38 NA cR/xxsmaRc7/RPu PSTnTR 44 X14 c 90 r luat GTNER BUSINESSES 4 I6s _ 304 .0% Sw�¢: Pr.peny cnuwlm AOBVRN YCOUNSHAMRS wNNE,PACE3 PaOPeRiv COUNBnuRe CNnrtW nl, PeCe] 1 ORmi FnR1 VICE AND 9 OMMI Ni ONLY 1 79 otneT se11e111 e4 46 5 4-099 262 6,396 1 15-1] CONTRACTING 0.061 0.090 1.89011.99 0 19-39 MANV PACTORI NG 2 203 0.160 0,137339 1 40-991 RONSP COMM. /IITI LS TI Es 109 970 0.061 1.551 50-51 WHOLESALING NG 1 0.01'1 0.033 1,316 6,864 60-67 ESAe/i NSVRANC a/xeAL 99 95 09310.98 10.590 ESTATE TTE 0 0-19 aril, oTxea BUSINESSES OT 4 239 0.3]9 0.333 1 Tota 2,581 Total All 31d1e [[ies 304 6,879 65,33 1.000 1.000 1 Scarce'. edh OeOerlrtmlNRmnue.0ue6ely Buurese Repa6 WasM1rglni rvpeTytnanulort 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AUR1111N OOWMOwry P[M' CMrtEI[I, MKM, 6NUy PROP[ReY CouN¢[wR¢ PACE nRA.F7. FRKREWPvnrv6('OMMENTON- Y Table 111.4 Auburn Downtown Retail Sales Tax Collected by Business Type BIC Description Totals Totals Retail Trade 52Retail Bldg -$31,67 $30,75 Materials 7 3 53Retail Gen .$13,99 $10,29 Merchandise 4 8 54Retail Food Stores $59,98 $60,86 2 8 55 Retail $25,36 $26,72 Automotive/Gas 9 7 56Retail Apparel &$30,64 $31,14 Accessories 0 9 57 Retail Furniture $10,01 $8,933 5 58Retail Eating &$29,10 $29,49 Drinking 7 4 59Misc. Retail Trade $42,58 $46,83 8 1 Services 72 Business Services $10,31 $10,68 5 3 73 Personal Services $7,260 $8,201 75 Automotive Repair $18,02 $22,30 9 7 76Misc. Repair $2,801 $2,810 79Amusement/Recreatio $1,425 $1,550 801fiedical/Health $6,080 $6,029 Service 86Mem ership $156 $140 Organizations 87 Eng/Arch/Accountant $40 $103 Misc 15General Building $3,118 $2,835 Contractor 17 Special Trade $5,562 $5,286 Contractor Ausuery B)Wmown RAN NhhMAITSTUDY FROPERTYCOYrveEDMIS CXArtf0.D1, PAGE nxuCFUN R VECe AND COMm[N C ONIv Table III.5 Auburn Downtown Businesses Sales Performance Gross Buildi sales ng per SIc Description Receipts Area 8a. Trade 52RetaiI Bldg. 31,306 170.79 Materials 5,346,81 5 53Retail Gen. 14,340 103.86 Merchandise 1,489,29 6 54Retail Food Stores 47,556 434.73 20,674,1 40 55 Retail 32,944 152.01 Automotive/Gas 5,007,86 8 56Retail Apparel A 26,112 257.32 Accessories 6,719,02 2 59 Retail Furniture 14,880 94.15 1,400,94 2 58Retail Eating A 42,287 85.97 Drinking 3,635,36 9 59Misc. Retail Trade 90,859 89.46 8,128,60 7 300,28 174.51 52,402,0 4 60 Service72 Business Services 32,720 32.71 1,070,28 0 72 Personal Services 32,193 56.78 1,828,06 6 75Automotive Repair 25,578 110.78 ACOURN Wo TOWN PLAN MARKETSTUDY PNOPNetYCOUNSELORS Cwv ERIII Pm[9 Dior f I ORMeow enn Comurn r unit Comparing gross receipts and building area provides an estimate of aa]es per square loon This measure redeem how efficient a business is in generating sales. These figures can be compared to dare fiom community shopping centers as reported in Dollar and Cents of Shopping Centers by the Urban Land Institute NLD_ Figures reported from these surveys indicate the following median sales performance in 1993, with an adjustment m 1999 price levels $ per SF Tom] Community Shopping Centers $187 $213 General Merchandise (Discount Dept.) 136 155 Grocery Store 395 450 Apparel and Accessories; (Marais) 189 215 Earning and DriWting(Restaurant with Liquor) 184 210 Peraoml SaWces(Cleaners) 107 222 Comparing Donenmvm perfomtance measures to these averages leads to the following conclusions: • Downtown Auburn retailers outperform the average figures for apparel. This reflects the strength of posters. • Downtown Aubum retailers are transposable m the averages for grocery stares. This ref tecta Ne atrevgfh of Sahway. • Downtown Auburn retailers fall behind the averages for total retail, general merchandise, eamg and drinking, tied personal services. RESIDENTIAL USES The Downtown Auburn planting area includes a mix of single family and multifamily dwelling units. As shown in Table III -6, (here me approximately 331 residential units in the area Approximately 20 percent of dose units we single family units. These units are generally located west of St. or east of Auburn Way. The multifamily units are provided in duplex, triplex, and 4-plex buildings as well as several larger apartment complexes. The larger buildings are listed in Table III -7. As shown, the only apartments built since 1960 sure the two King County Housing Authority complexes - Wayland Arms and Gusmves Manor. AUM)"DOWMOWNPIwN ManaFrSNDY PROPER coo SELO0. COAereN 111, PAGE 11 DRu¢ Poa ro VrW mar? CObWYM Orvry The average assumed valuation for single family residences in the area is $75,000_ Actual listings and recent sales are in the range of S60,000 to $120,000. Rents are affordable, falling in the range of $300 to $400. On a per square foot basis this is equivalent to $0.60 to SI.00 per month_ ACTIVITY GENERATORS There are many facilities, businesses or activities which smart people to the Downtown. The existing businesses which provide a swung attraction include_ Rowe's clothing store Safeway grocery stare Aubom Regional Medical Center City Hall Past Office Commercial Hat Aubum Performing Arts Center Aubum Dinner Theater There are several major events and festivals held each year: Springfest, a celebration of spring Good OI' Days, an annual event in August attracting 30,000 people Downtown Authors Street Fair in June and July Veteran's Day Parade, the T" largest such parade in the nation Christmas, including a parade, a kstival, and Tree lighting There are several facilities in the greater Aubum area which attract people who might visit the Downtown. Emerald Downs, a Ihemmer thoronghbmd racing back Muckleshoot Indian Casino, offering poker, craps, roulette, and blackjack SuperMall of the Orem Northwest, a regional shopping center featuring factory outlets and off -prize retail establishments, as well as a U screen charmat Muckleshoot White River Amphitheater, a 25,000 seat outdoor performance Aust" Do as mwry Pr..rx manam'sry y PaovemvCouuser m CYuerea Dr. PAme 13 NIR %rI IORRtviEW %Nn CJRe1LN F ONLY Employer: Bikepmml, aesthetics, sense of community What do you dislike? Citizens: Tissues, traffic lights, traffic Busuiesses: Shonhoms, taverns, safety Service/Civic: Lack of depemuentswmu dmgsmres, streecaope Employers: puking, homeless, leek of diversity What typo of business would you like to ace? Citizens: Fine dining, teen clothes and sporting goods Business: Bakery, upscale ise cream, candy Service/Civic: Bakery, Department store, family dining Employers: Family clothing, specialty restauum bakery What would you like to see happen? Citizens: Service businesses, men place, police presence Business: Develop RTA station are"ght time activities Service/Civic: Restaurants, anchor business, landscape Bmployets: More outs, more parking, close St. Plans Ations DowanwoNPLM' IdAAKETSTwy PROPERTY COVNsrLOw9 CILAMR tn, Pao 15 DRAFT NOK REeIF" ANOCO.umLNI O.a AOOOPNDOANNwNPWN MARKETSTUDY PKOP[KTYCMMELO CHI IV, PAGE 2 1 1 DE :T. I:oa W,vu.W AND( OMMI N I ONI v 1 Percent Multifamily This measure reflects at least two factors'. the extent of affordable rental housing and higher density- With the exception of Bellevue and 1 Auburn, the cities shown have more multifamily than single family dwelling units. Autumn has Diffusely few multifamily units. 1 Household Income: The cities fall into two general income categories: the Nearside comarmunitass with higher ineomcs and the south County cities The Citycf Aubum is at the low end ofthe latter range. 1 Downtown Growth: Each of the cities has an identifiable downtown, and each downtown has or is experiencing a significant level of development. The nature of 1 their development is summarized below. • Kent has experienced a major increase in office development since the completion 1 of the regional justice center. That facility has created demand for moral and justice related services. Additional retail development should ultimately fallow as well. Like Auburn, the Kent downtown will provide a station for the RTA 1 commuter rail. The rail service should attract new residential development downtown. 1 Renton: Renton downtown is experiencing significant redevelopment at least partly through the aggressive marketing efforts of the City's economic 1 development manger. New upscale eating and drinking establishments have located downtown. Amixed we "condominium style' 104 unit apartment project is planed on a site assembled by the City through relocation of several auto 1 dealers. • Bellevue: Bellevue's downtown has been the fetus of considerable attention by 1 the City since the late 1990'x. There was much investment in retail and office space in the early 1980'x. The City made a major investment in a downtown 1 park, transit center, pedestrian improvements, and a convention center. Residential development has occmrzed throughout the downtown. Currently, there am 3 or 4 jar hotel, restaurant, cinema, and entertainment projects proposed in 1 downtown. • Issaquah: The City has experienced a tremendous level of retail development on 1 both sides of Interstate 90. The pedestrian scale downtown core has benefited for the private development of a new performance space for the Village Theater, and a major multiuse community center. 1 Kirkland: Kuklamps downtown has been so successful in attracting residential and commercial development, that the City passed a momtorium allowing time to Acautw 110"PAwN PUN sremmrsrvar PmoeewrcCONNsatoae CnamxlV,Pann1 DRArc Ra loilax ArvoCOMMrm ONLY V. DEVELOPMENT INFLUENCES The market support for additional development in Downtown Auburn will result from continuation of existing trends and responses to new opportunities. These trends and new opportunities are addressed in this section. Growth in Market Area Population and Spending Growth in Downtown Employment and Population Cnmmutu R®1 Serviw Mixed Use Development Summary GROWTH IN MARKET AREA POPULATION AND SPENDING Section 11 provided a description and projections for demographic conditions in Auburn and its trade area. It is useful to step back from those specifics, and thick instead about Auburn's role in the region. With passage of the Growth Management Act in the early 1990's, the Stale and regions are being forced to channel population growth and new development into existing urbaoizd meaz. Auburn is a logical candidate for a notable share of that growth. Table V-1 compares Auburn's normal household wast to vacant residential capacities in King County. Table V-1 Regional Development Capacity King County AVEum+DOWWWWn PL.w MARXATSNUY Pw¢ERL YCOUnSELORs CUEne.¢ V, PACE I Sham of Shareof Vacant Households -199] Housing Capacity Aubum 2.2% 3.4% Suburban Cities 40.7 3Z5 All Cities 77.4 62.1 King County IOo.o 100.o AVEum+DOWWWWn PL.w MARXATSNUY Pw¢ERL YCOUnSELORs CUEne.¢ V, PACE I Diurt: Fo2nevirw Arvo(OMMENTDMy Growth in downtown population will also support growth in retail and service businesses_ Considering the types of purchases typically made within a I to 3 mile adne; - food, convenience retail, personal services, the avenge spending per household in support of err -by businesses is approximately $5,000 annually. This spending would largely be captured by downtown businesses. COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE A commuter rail station in Downtown Auburn is planned as part of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) project in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties The commuter rail service will provide peak hour commuter rail service between Lakewood, Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett, using existing tracks and new locomotives and passenger can. The segment from Tacoma to Seattle will be one of the first elements in the transportation system. Stations at the Tacoma Dome, Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila, and Boeing Access should be in place for service beginning in the year 2000. The service will rem at peek homes of 6" - 9AM and 4PM to 9PM every 30 mmmes. The rail station will include a park and ride facility for 500 cars, convections with local bus service, and facilities for passenger drop off. Projections for the system call for 900 boardings per day in Aubum at stabilized operation in 2010. The projected mode splitby uses is: 40 percent bus transfer 55 famous Park and Ride 5 percent offer (walk car bike) This facility should establish Auburn as a convenient area to live for commatera W employment centers throughout south King Canty and north Pierce Comfy. The sudden and rail service should: Encourage population growth to Auburn generally Encourage population growth in downtown Aubum within walking distance of the station Support retail services The level of potential demand catimat d for residential and commercial development is estimated below. Amman nowrvrowry 0ary MuxciSTmov PROPERTY Cgmsewxs CHAPTER V,PAGE 3 Dvprn PoxRtvitw ANDCoeIMEm Oiry • There arc strong incentives favoring construct [on of single -use housing at higher densities including lower equity rc imernouts, higher rehire on investment and lower risk. • The higher costs of mixed-use development put pressure on rents- To the extent that the market won't support Mose rents, the projects won't be built. Generally, the economic conditions which contribute to opportunities for successful mixed-use development are: • sanding demand for both residential and commercial uses within a district. • land prices which we high enough to encourage density. Generally, a land price of $8 per square foot requires densities of 35 units per acre to keep land costs below $10,000 per unit • rents in the range of $0.85 per s heme fact per month are necessary to recover the development costs. Commercial rents of $12 per square foot per year, triple net, wic required. Conditions do not yea exist in Downtown Auburn to encourage large scale development of mixed-use housing. However, them is demand for single use housing, particularly housing for sections where the requirements for puking are not as great. SUMMARY These influences will combine to provide opportunities for additional development in downtown Auburn. The strength of Me various influences suggests the following overview of development opp ndrifies. • Office development related to bealth services and a Class A building for other professional services is one strongest immediate opportunity. • Residential development will become increasingly popular in the downtown, with a particular stimulus down commuter mil. • Incremental development of retail will continue, building upon the success of existing strong retailers and sometimes and the addition of new employers and residents- • Additional development of all types will occur, as each development creates demand for others and provides an overall unease in vitality and interest. Actual development potential for each of several types of uses is presented in the sections which follow. AVauwu Oowxmwn Penx auaxvrSNnY Pnoeeaiv COVrvsmuas CHAPTER V, P•cr 5 URArr You NF,u IFW nvo CnMMiRT Owv VL RETAIL DEMAND The potential for additional retail development in Kent will be related to the development influences described in the previous section and the Downmwn'a ability to capture sales related to those opportunities. In particular, potential demand will be determined by total market area sales, the Downtown competitive position, and its associated market share. The contribution of these bacteria are considered and quantified in this section. The conclusions are not intended to be a forecast of future development, rather an estimate of what could occur under a set of assumptions and possible actions. The projections of retail demand as well as the demand for other uses, are an important element, but only e elements in identifying a physical plan, and economic strategy for Downtown Auburn The predations are presented in five subsections as follows Overview of Retail Development Regional Market Conditions and Shopping Pattems Retail Sales Trends Andorra Retail Carters Existing Downtown Retail Development Projected Downtown Retail Development OVERVIEW Retail development occurs either in a stand-alone building or in a shopping center with 2 or more entail businesses. Shopping centers fall into several Categories, which differ cording be the number and type of stores, the amount of space and site area, and the size of the market area it serves both in terms of popuhttion and distance. Table VI -1 summarizes the characteristics ofseveml types ofshopping centers. Downtown Auburn has the general scale and business mix of a community scale shopping centers. It has the potential in serve a market area which Could support a regional shopping center. Downtown Auburn also has the Imperial to serve as a specialty center. The extent to which Auburn Can maximize its capture in any of these roles will depend upon competitive as well as market area characteristics. The regional market conditions are discussed in the following sections. AUeUNry OUWrvioWNPIw MARnEY6TUnr PROPERTY COCKNELORE Ounca its, FACE Oanrv. I'on RFVlewnrvo CommrnTOnu REGIONAL MARKET CONDITIONS Retail marker conditions in the southend as improving. As shown in Table VI -2, the area showed strong absorption in the fiat hall or 1997. Vacancy rates are low in all building types except community neighborhood and strip specialty. With the strong economy in the area, and continued strong absorption, these vacancy rates should drop. Table VI -2 Southend Retail Market Conditions AVAB.ABILITY Sq. FG Year Total 1997 750,00) Buildiag Type Leasable SF Vacant SF %Vacant Regional 6,970,4(0 155,266 2.23 Commmity/Nelglabmhpod 12,798,759 1,317,443 10.29 Strip/Specialty 1,178,379 t79,425 15.23 Freestanding 4,816,138 255,241 5.30 Power Center 1,776,809 125,032 7.04 Southend Toml 27,540,484 2,032,407 7.38 ABSORPTION Sq. FG Year Total 1997 750,00) Year Total 1996 262,852 Year Tom[1995 1,410,478 Year Total 1994 178,567 Year Total 1993 -163,375 Year Total 1992 127,139 LEASE RATES thousand Average 10.50 per Sq. Ft. Source: CB Commercial, Second Quarter 1997Markel Report There are several major shopping tappers in South King Comfy and Nordi Pierce County, which shape shopping patterns. The characteristics of bar major real are surmaansed in Table VI -3. Aneppry OOwrcrown Pury MARKaT3rmY PROPERTY Comenhu x4 CNArtnaN, PAGES UaAFr Poet Ed WE w AND CammeM Owv an mese centers overlap to some extent and also compete strongly within the Auburn market area The presence of these centers is reflected in data on current shopping patterns in South King County. Table VIA summarizes the shopping patterns of residents of several South King County communities according to research prepared for the Valley Daily News. As shown in the table, 86 percent of Aubum residents shop in Aubum itself and 52 percent shop in Federal Way- Residents of cities to the north favor Southeenter. Only 25 percent of residents of the areas identified as new growth, mostly areas to the east shop in Aubum. Generally, residents shop close to home except lot major purchases, or comparison shopping items. Table VI -4 South King County Shopping Patterns luma .... Bae9Paa :e �aoem; co ... oaso Mpla ax etch. MCKe flPNolanw, May1995 Baa 0.55.50) subutan Scare acan, These results are similar to results of the Chamber of Conscience Survey in 1993. While patterns have undoubtedly changed somewhat with the opening of the SuperMali, Auburn residents establisbed the following patterns in 1993: 67% of grocery purchases made in Aubum 59. 1%of professional care in Aubum 5U% of professional services in Aubum 47.5% of clothing purchases in federal Way and 260A in Aubum 33% of arguer household items in Aubum cud 33% in Federal Way AUBURNDownrown Pury MAnserSrooy PBOreaty COUrvseuma Cn.v1peary,PACB5 DRAFT Poa BEV I EW AND COIAMEM ONLY anchor store was an event beyond the Mall a control, but has a noted marketing of the mall. Development of the second phase of the pioneer is uncertain at this time. The SuperMell has generated significant increased retail sales to the City and does attract shoppers from throughout the Puget Sound region. AUBUM ODwm'owry Pt.w MuutciMEY PaortrtrYCDuesatoas Cxsnfla N.PA0&7 14 r� s4:39r�;RRRa Ua,F] tea NrVEW ANDCOMMEN r llrvry Auburn North Auburn North is a neighborhood scale shopping center at Auburn Way N. and 15° SC NE in north Auburn. Tire center is a pan of the growing commercial district in this area, Total gross leasable area is 152,000 square feet with Albertson as the anchor tenant, as well as a PayLess drugstore. With the closure of Ernst Home Improvement Centers throughout the region, the center does have significant amount of vacant space. Door retail development in this general area includes a Food Pavilion north of 15's St. NE, and several hotels and restaurants along 15" NW, Fred Meyer is a major stand -along retailer several blocks south of Auburn North on Auburn Way. Auburn South There is another major neighborhood scale shopping center south of Downtown along Auburn Way South. Albertson and Payless me the major returns at this center at Harvey Road. There is a QFC store at 2902 South Auburn Way. Auburn Auto District Auburn features several auto dealers along Aubum Way north of 15" St. NE. Know as the Little Detroit of the West these dealers limestone a large share of notable retail sales in Auburn as shown in Table VI -5. PROJECTED DEMAND Downtown Auburn has the potential to Expand it retail acbiry in several ways: - Provide goads and services to employees and visitors to non -remit businesses. - Provide goads and services to users of commuter rail. - Increase market area capture by attracting businesses thad complement existing smug remilers such as Rattle's, antique stores, and miscellaneous mail businesses. - Build on drawing power of popular restaurants such as Sunbreak, particularly in its new facility. - Build on success of performing arts center and Auburn Dinner Theater, with additional entertainment businesses. AUBURN OOWMOWN PIAN MMYErSNDY PROPERTYCOUNSELORS CHAPTER IV, PACE 11 DRAEL POR Pass a ANaCOMM] Nr<)m. Businesses such as general merchandise (variety stores), apparellaocessoricv, Rmiture and appliances, eating drinking and miscellaneous rectal have the potential to income their market shares significantly as me Downtown grows and develops in response to the influences identified earlier. The projected levels of retail development are estimated in three stages. - Market area spending is estimated as the product of projected households, average household income (with real growth at less than I percent per year). - Downtown share is calculated as the product of market area spending and assumed market share. - The increased level of sales is transla ed into square feet using a factor of $200 per square foot. As shown, the demand for new retail space would vary brain 89,000 to 296,00 square feet by the year 2010, equivalent to average arcual absorption of 6,000 an 20,00 square Ret. The range on demand is quite wide reflecting a range of frame outcomes. Generally, the low end of the range is consistent with steady improvemrnts m Downtown market conditions. The high end of the range is consistent want aggressive actions to attract employers, residents, businesses, and shoppers to the Downtown. The Downtown will have in compete for all of these factors, but the sectors identified are ones when Auburn can be competitive. AUBURN DOWNTOWN RAN MARKETMIDY PROPEIXre CmMaerORs CRAPTIRAMPACEt] i I he zero vacancy rate in Auburn is due to the fact that there are few Auburn office buildings in the data base- In fact, the annual Puget Sound Leasing Guide prepared by Me Puget Sound Business Journal and the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) does not include any Auburn office buildings. The office space which does exist in Auburn S either owner occupied, smaller than 10,000 square fret, or classified as industrial. LOCAL OFFICE MARKET CONDITIONS The smaller office buildings which & exist in Auction generally serve local residents and businesses. 'typical tewnts in such buildings arc Health care practitioners (doctors and dentists) Other prof siottal services (attorneys, accountants, wchitats) and Finance/lnsutav<e/Real Estate businesses As presented in Table HI -I tete are 298,000 square feet of buildings in Downtown Aubum classified as office by the King County Assessor. That space can be further classified as: Government 69,496 MericaVDrnrel 1]1,5]5 Other Office 5],86] 298,918 As shown, the traditional office space portion is only 20 percent of the total amount. Much of Me medical office space is or six buildings. The size and vacancy status of these buildings is shown in Table WI -3. Auauax UowMrown PLnry MarKETSTUDY PaoeaarYConrvsetOw CFAPmRVO,Pwnei 1 City. The Centennial Building in Kent is an example of such a Class A office building- It is fill with average renis of $18.50 to $1450 per square foot per year, 1 Medical office space will grow with the market area population and the Antonio Medical Center- no Center plans to add 5 to G physicians per year for the foreseeable future- This growth alone would support 5,000 square feet of new office 1 development per year • Absorption of otter office space will continue atter the space vacated by relocating 1 tenants is backfilled. A 5 percent prewar rate for occupied office space is typical for stable office markets, as it reflects overall growth in jobs, increases in office using jobs, and replacement of functionally obsolele.space. AVmwa DownyawNPury Mxnr+.:9rvov Pxoeexiv CywNSwoxa Cmvmn Vll, Pnae6 UPArr FOR RevirwArvo COMmOT0S1N LOCAL MARKET CONDITIONS Them are several lodging properties in Auburn as shown in Table VIII -2. The eve hotels shown offer 346 rooms. All of the lodging is located in North Auburn around 15a St. NE. Father, all the properties are limited service hotels or motels. There is a restaurant mediately adjacent to the Howard Johnson property, but it is not operating at time. The average corporate rate for a double roam varies hour $45 to $64. Table VIII -2 Aubum Area Lodging A. s,se, 6. 6nYrents Brenton C. PoM nlcr PwA E. aMirg Ram PM G. traumata Solve PrtpMy Uunxba The Comfort Inn and Micmtel hm have been developed in the past year add their development can be attributed at least partly to the development of Emerald Downs. There is an additional limited service hotel planned for the North Auburn area, suit them are hotel sites available around me SuperMall. None of the lodging properties offers significant meeting facilities. The Comfort Inn offers one small boardroom. The major mewing facilities in the City are located in public buildings, churches and service dubs, or balls. Table VIII -3 summavea the capacity of these facilities. As shown, the Community College offers apace for groups up m 550, and the 'EM Hell has a capacity of 300. But none of the buildings has the ability to offer a Adedas Dowrvrowis Pury Muure vv PRoraary COUMeroaa CanrteR Vill, PACE 2 Rooms Room Rare Features Howard Johnson 1521 D St. 66 $64 B, G Comfort Inn I - 161° NE 52 $63 A, B, D, E Mimotel bar and Suites I6u and St. 97 $50 A,F Nendels 10215^ NE 35 $45 Value inn 9-10 NE 96 $55 346 A. s,se, 6. 6nYrents Brenton C. PoM nlcr PwA E. aMirg Ram PM G. traumata Solve PrtpMy Uunxba The Comfort Inn and Micmtel hm have been developed in the past year add their development can be attributed at least partly to the development of Emerald Downs. There is an additional limited service hotel planned for the North Auburn area, suit them are hotel sites available around me SuperMall. None of the lodging properties offers significant meeting facilities. The Comfort Inn offers one small boardroom. The major mewing facilities in the City are located in public buildings, churches and service dubs, or balls. Table VIII -3 summavea the capacity of these facilities. As shown, the Community College offers apace for groups up m 550, and the 'EM Hell has a capacity of 300. But none of the buildings has the ability to offer a Adedas Dowrvrowis Pury Muure vv PRoraary COUMeroaa CanrteR Vill, PACE 2 DKv,T. FOR art F"we COMMLNT O'ss Such a hotel could not rely solely on the meeting or greup marked segin Got. It would also have to capture commercial traveler business, and general tourist travelers- A successful facility would need to be located along a major state highway such as SR -167 or SR -18. Preferred locations in order of attractiveness would be: SR167at NoMi Auburn (near Emerald Downs and employment centers). SR -167 and SR18(at confluence of major highways and near SuperMall). Downtown off SR -I8 SR -164, Aubum-Enumclaw Road (near Mueklesheot Casino and Amphitheater) A Downtown location could benefit from the business travel in the Green River Valley and the increased visitor nage along SR -164. In summary, the opportunity exists for a lodging facility with approximately 150 rooms. This oppottwity is dependent upon: - Identifying a site with access and visibility to SR -I8, aM - Among effort to provide amenities such as meeting space in a public private cooperative effort. .aaauan DOwmnwrvPun m.a Te uov PROvvary OCARMI was CHAPTER Vlll, PAGE 4 UaArC FuaarviCwANn CnMMFNTOnrY APARTMENTS Auburn is an established apartment market in South King County_ Table IX -2 compares apartment market conditions among several sites in South King County. As shown, Auburn has rental rates of $481, $555, and $662 per month for 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom I beth, and 2 bedroom 2 bath units, respectively. These are the lowest rents of the conamunitan shown, although they are comparable on a per square foot basis. The vacancy rate is 4.3 percent, reflecting a tight market, although the rate is somewhat higher than in the other communities. Table IX -2 South King County Apartment Market Conditions -1997 Source: DupreFScoa, Aparnnene Vacancy Region, Fall 1997 The change in rental rates and vacancy rates is shown in Table IX -3. Vacancy mass have fallen since 1995 when they excmdd 8 percent. The average rental ate dropped yr that Year but has increased steadily since that time. The average annual increase was 3.2 percent, slightly higher Nan inflation. PROPM Bo OUNSEL Pury ersTwr Paov¢Rm Courvsero0.s (.A.rrt[a LC, Pwc¢E Auburn Kevl OOMalwa Imiclaw Federsl Wav Rentan Total Vvency Is % % % % % is IBR 32 19 2.4 0 3.2 3.0 27 2BRA BA 3.1 33 21 4.8 3.1 3b 3.3 213MBA 6.3 3.1 4i 38 38 3.9 All Units 43 2.7 2.9 19 3J 36 33 Aelsul Rest b $ $ S $ $ $ IBR 481 534 487 518 510 541 516 2 B&1 BA 555 587 581 607 576 621 586 2 BR12 BA 662 682 601 679 249 679 AR Ren1MR5F 5 5 $ $ $ 3 $ IBR 075 0]5 0.74 071 0,72 081 075 2WlBA 065 0.69 067 068 066 092 068 21302 BA 067 069 0.66 - 066 0.75 0(K Source: DupreFScoa, Aparnnene Vacancy Region, Fall 1997 The change in rental rates and vacancy rates is shown in Table IX -3. Vacancy mass have fallen since 1995 when they excmdd 8 percent. The average rental ate dropped yr that Year but has increased steadily since that time. The average annual increase was 3.2 percent, slightly higher Nan inflation. PROPM Bo OUNSEL Pury ersTwr Paov¢Rm Courvsero0.s (.A.rrt[a LC, Pwc¢E ■ ■ �::e ■ 7 -. �_Z�ZZM7 : ■: e,ƒmmm, ; ■/ ■{ aAmmmb ` ■ _ ...... � _ � ■ a+,mme ■ -____- -- _ ■ J < ■ gƒ� / % ( Dani I'GM1 REview ANI)aTMNFNroury - Federal Way offers the Village Green and Evergreen Lodge The Village Green opened in September 1999 and is renting at rates of 81,200 to $2,500 per month. l'he surrounding communities of Kent and Renton have also attracted several privately developed federally subsidimed projects- The two cities have 5 and 3 projects respectively, developed by Senior Housing Assistance Group, each providing 100 units. PROJECTED DEMAND Auburn has demonstrated an ability to attract new single and multifamily development. The lower prices in Auburn reflect its greater distance from the employment centers of the Puget Sound region. The provision of the commuter rail service to Auburn will increase th e accessibility and convenience of Generating W employment from Aubum, and the lower prices should represent a bargain. This will be true for residents throughout Aubum, but particularly true f new residents of Downtown within walking distance of the commuter mil sending. New residential development in Downtown Auburn has three strong selling points: A small rawerfeel - Pmxhuitym goods, services, and amenities Convenient access to employment centers With completion of the commuter mil station and service, Dowvtoxn should be able to attract many rail users. Based on the projected ridership in 2010 of 900 boardings, and the estimate that 40 percent of the riders will arrive by bus and represent a marc likely Potential group for living downtown, a 25 percent to 30 percent share of these riders would support 90 - t 10 gaits. A project this size would be comparable in size to the proposed new mixed use project near the transf station in downtown Renton. Over the longer term, a capture of 10 - 20 peroent of the multifamily housing demand in the City would support 25 -50 units of new housing in the Downtown each year. Downtown is also m attractive place for senior housing. The Auburn Medical Center is a strong factor, as are the goods and services of the business districts. The Downtown would benefit from the potential spending of residents in market rate senior housing and assisted living projects. A 50 - 60 unit project should be supportable over the next 3 - 5 years. AgagaNDowNfowNPLAN MARKUSTuov PRoesaTVConxsewns CN.vrea EX, PAGE L AUBURN DOWNTOWN STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS TO: Julia Walton, Ami Release FROM: Ed Starkie, Leland Consulting Group DATE: 19 Augns4 1999 SUBJECT: TavmBINA, Truitt Site and Housing Site Douvtovm Leland Consulting Gmup has evaluated Orel feasibility ofdevelopmmt optium for three sato mdnwmown AUWao. Theaitfrme the TaweBock,CmAYdsaiW duehwd faade, and dle haurie ng sire get Som dueptOposcd Kmg Couely pokog wuch¢e. Tevig Blaak ProperigAcgwsitious Isvtl Pres Lmd 10girmIDt TOW 99ime Feet VYue Valm Vim 31dain St 3,902 E 29,300 $105500 S 138,702 9Mam St 11498 $ 11,200 S - $ 12,698 13 MainM 2,700 S 20,300 $187200 S 218200 21 Maio St 2,700 S 20300 $ 7,600 $ 95,600 2514eiu St 2,700 S 20,300 $ 72,600 $ 95,600 33 Maim St 2,700 S A0300 S 12,000 $ 35,000 3/Main St 8,955 S 67200 $ 6,700 S 82$55 15Au6umA 12,600 S 81,900 $365200 S 159]00 181st NE 5,400 $ 35,100 $139600 E 180100 hos 43,155 S305XO $961po0EI 00 1 IANE Ci 10,800 S ]0200 It 6500 S 87300 The Tavern Black The cement assessed value (not im2uddig the city-owuM parcel at le So -at Nfd is $4267,300. The high value addle baildioy¢, u W1,400, makes sNevdopvtmt doespet. Rcdevelopmmt court orate somkiem value It olTva the veoe by through budding dcaulitioa The value lads spproxim usly due good waded at vote ahvclmcd perking. Both saturiosesnweleod erynhaioa withoo[tlr City pmaL Costs for acquisition, demolition and concoction for the second serum, am shown below. total budding costs are accounted for with a combination of hard construction sem costs (costs for design, pen ting financing. etc I, perking cost and tenant improvements. In this scenanq tenant improvements for doctors offices we placed at twice the value rated! due to the specialized Serum ofmndical office apace. Or typical make[ Zmo4doa $ MAINE)e !nation, Same Tblel Canrflmd, She and Building S 8827,338 rnumfi oN (8.5 built b) slow fw amarketdeveloper whilereNm ran career fmkeSan Imv for retail to be bw by acomma[dimrec I3oweva,tetehospital ucotawalksdeveloper.t. an instimti0n with cxpevsim IMuiamevm Po< Md%ml MY view real esrem as a vm- Performing; aot canat of TaweRlock tier] thing eummic doch,the ability As Pro Forma secQMeebilie to INnJ Cass 12,786 $ 158 S IF055IO samtea Onto flue Medial!Mese Con 39,786 S 158 $ 6305510 bnildivgmulu Tocol 51,786 E 152 S ],84]j38 helfwppmcn&moY bele sandy criterion pant Rut 12,000 3 12.00 E 194,000 neceamy for 0m s•..Vamro 5% E (]200) hospial mcovsider ERectireGross S 146,840 building office IssasExpenseme 311% $ (91040) Strauss . CEh Fbw E 95,760 Availability ofOty Raae Student cars ASmt 63% Iavd fur parking (NEa RmtlialN 37938 S 15.60 S 563X1 aLsoxam make lass vararacy 5% E 281541 tluss�ano Weathethvsv E 534918 amacdve. PastioGExactness S We CYty aim Cari,a, E 534918 allow efficient use ofthe Mcefetumm Psset 85% hand required]. Cvmdcedpenav 7.1% An office building my bet fmfible because ofthc higher values oftbc r¢uclme wad the Specialized venue oflhc anal mar4a(doctorsl AttaNwg to 9m mum ov and mmsme, Ibis rcmmiomey be( ''blast IoLAND anwGtcae araturns Iwassic,ixwoen 99wwYacraasial Poster AW,ai On the development aide, the bousimg unit would sen for $¢5,000, a price affordable to a sham of the marker wrtmtiy renting. no project is self parking for owners and I pants TM1e mra protea if Ne 1 ounits does not ncludeaapwialtenant- improvement package for the retail. At a total cost of $703,00), the sale value allows a developer profit Of 150,000 or approximately 21%mtum on invespri Units Penuum TOW' 5 S 45,000 E 225,000 5 $MA00 $ 62s.000 life Panivres no Pastime is an amacfive bunting dent is worth rwmatiha ResNmtiou will require a epic abuctural upgende, shmemterim demolition aW wmim impmtwmn. Cosa for these ere combined m the 'frblO Budding Site adjoining bible. Pastime Bw Idivg Rmotatov SF most TOW Seumicu0®edeand interior Seismic]iid 2800 $ 1000 S 28,000 W demolitionarcngintomm Inerim Qn 2800 5 3.00 E 8,400 proof; door buildivgivtocunept lmRawrmnla 2800 $ 25M S 20,000 wvsmatimmdcayms. Sbotal E 106.400 Improsmrnbiessime�etbeaic SaRCosts 2UA $ 21,280 buildingsyetmaueeaody Cantingevry 15% $ 15960 mumrrSuoge and Out aU RmOudor Cost $ 143,640 pm6®sofihe interior with shwdmwnae wiBbe.eyin d. To cvatune Chef biftty Of this opdoq it IS necessary to their at the pry Lege value geperaed by We reputation. Ihuahme value neer be asevtaivW by admitting the equity rush dela Pon wen be supponW by the fidsleed Piper. The torn step IS b find nae ogsatmg stammer and ulcalne debt Givmrmtof1d5per Tvin Haildin Site sgrwefoy with u[pedes. Pastime BwldivgRmowtioa muncmepppmt S22,300of t3mw Rept 2800 S 15.00 E 42,000 debtatadcbtwveageraUoof Vacancy 5%E 2100 1.3. p�ctiae Gross S 39,900 fess E{c es E 450 E 12600 Mewaoum IepyW Nulty is Net Operating irchme E 22.300 by caPbilivug Cash£1ow pay nlJ Ratio $1 0 Before Tea by We Larger renin Cavb Flow6efnre TS S 6.300 me, 12 percent taatmcmw2moawe um cw. vvw+au..y-.are.x�ae.moew�mar-aa.+ AUBURN DOWNTOWN STUDY IMYIF.MP.NTATION PROJECTS TO: Julia Walton, Ami Jackson FROM: M Startle, Leland Consulting Group DATE: 19 August, 1999 SORJECT: Housing Sire Davatown Lemma CaysJUog Group has evaWmed We( bility ofdevelopmmt options for tluee site m dowbwo Avbam. 7tr rite m the Tavav Hlack, Itr Walk with &e imitt fa9sde, sad the houswg site enrol ham alta proposed Ring County pedwg swcmta Shia mem0madum discusses the bommass site "Wart w 1110 pmpoxd Kmg County park &Ride lm. The Block Opposite the Park & Ride The samurio for &e black opposite the park & ride near c011111AW a all is for tw0swry rafidatiat&selopmeat he Walsall is for 67 wits with auris of studies, ave bedr0owavd two bedroom .•:m. hebwdmgfootprimuablew=appmalmmely SO pdwtofth0 uwbeatdc puking u ummW b bke place ovasberedbaeu wi& the Rmseiwwn me mk®from&e Aubmv Davmtmw Plm Mmkd Sn Wy and reflect wttmt minket tares. Total building aura u 43,200 aquae fed wi&67 ma.Tie building; is see af550 saintute a assonant stick creosote p and we assume tura am no rte politicians that wawa aua0 examrdivary curs, the pm fame pmjear od opemavg cameb deldmmef 1Jity, apPlyivg a crynmliutiov tate to asigp assaingth asset sabot to b us &eassetvaluew ulcamw 43,200. S 18 E 788,000 14,400 3 43,200 15% 6,480 96 28,800 E 144,000 36,]20 67 550 20 0c coat using Fd&at an be Food for moswction. A4 slams in the following table, oat op rating iacomc was arrived d by&c stawerd moos ofcelatlatmg gross hratve, anal subareas vacancy nod opdarn% eaWtaea 1a.amcamaadocaow rmraenv�.erv=.o..e�-ea,ra+r+r.r�...enadr...�n+ - Appendix IV Potentially Significant Historic Properties 1 1 Appendix IV: Potentially Significant 1 Historic Properties 1 Introduction 1 All downtown protyrdes were evaluated for historic stgrommnce aurins the preparation of the Downtown elan. Conclusions reached about historic significance as .mmaaend 1 m the body of the downtown plan document, and the Poll detail of properties analysed are presented in this Appendu. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix lV Potentially 5lgnlfiant Historic Properties €€aaai MH ��..a.re$ae7l4¢j{':= € mo s?off o ?3g�ig5c � 59 _ i? a H 11H Mill E a� aae46e: s5uixx "s_a E $ ®�-a a ass's_----a--a$€ammmmm z i & �Se g 3� a82 1 a gMll Fgg E g� 3 a4 s � aB sa p 02 F im 32 i 33 102 a €e$Edzse� 8;g i5 a a oit,.°^3 a a P[tt.s»m ac»wd 't.zu€ `11eRa � €------ss»awry�se ws Ivo; $:,cw» � eg eoa��gsppas^A.a'��� �.w a-asxm-_x9cea""a ggg sggaSEE$$$aaa��$aa��a§� SEA SEE' '�-'''e a��w�aax "a §?��a "a Ride -`xi 65555555§= 5`555v3555555s s`+g "`5555556s=s,g5 ee55555555553 5sa 6r sea es sees e: sa €1€€s me;ssE" m ac'c'aa''ec"anu"a££ams£"s_"s_se"c_c¢9a'_a^c_cc@n9-a-3"?"9 ai$38saac G Gk zzk k K•w ,3,k GK6kK eKccK :GGnn�GGttS.,KsK.ktKG xawu�Ilz k� "e5Zz=:,=aez a€B:gkGKKKK==, K6kk ¢A.�".::o^we uGkGgkgwrgniLLz::kGA 33�3ww �jG «xa«S'40U .e:e:Aad«&G $ ^_ III '� ��� H i 88aiiifi$ 9 = i Hiiiaa=� I Inn INA-HEDU g-9 I Selected Bibliography EDAW, Inc. Historic Properties Reuse and Protection Plan. April 1998. EDAW, Inc. at al. Final Design Guidelines Manual for Sand Point/ Magnuson Park. October 1997. Washington State Dept. of Health. Water Recreation Facilities, Chapter 246-260 Washington Administrative Code. June 1994. Skilling Ward Magnusson Berkshire Inc. Sand Point Naval Station Seismic Evaluation. March 21, 1996. City of Seattle Dept. of Parks and Recreation. 1997 Condition Assessment Poon — Roofing. March 3, 1998. ALPHA Engineering Group, Inc. Asbestos Survey at Naval Station Puget Sound, building 47 Recreation Facility. September 1993. City of Seattle. Seattle Land Use and Zoning Code, Supplement No. 18 incorporating Ordinances through 119896. June 2000.