HomeMy WebLinkAbout28261
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RESOLUTION NO. 2 8 2 6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITE.' OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE AUBURN PARKING STUDY
FINAL REPORT.
WHEREAS, downtown parking issues were identified as a
major concern of the City, its business community and its
residents; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Law
directs jurisdictions to review their parking ordinances as it
relates to employers and make revisions to comply with Commute
Trip reduction goals and guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the King County Guidelines for Commuter Parking
Policies provide a framework for local jurisdictions as they
review their parking ordinances to comply with the State
Commute Trip Reduction Law; and
WHEREAS, the City established a Parking Citizens Advisory
Committee to address downtown parking issues and the review of
the City's parking ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the recommendations and conclusions of the
Parking Citizens Advisory Committee are contained in the
------------------------
Resolution No. 2826
February 20, 1997
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
report entitled "City of Auburn Parking Study - ]Final Report"
and include amendments to chapter 18.52 entitled "Off-Street
Parking and Loading"; and
WHEREAS, the study and the recommendation; established
herein are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and have no
adverse environmental effect; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on
the "City of Auburn Parking Study - Final Report" on December
3, 1996 and January 7, 1997 and recommended approval to the
City Council on January 7, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public Hearing on
February 3, 1997 to consider said recommendations,;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, IN A REGULAR MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED, HEREWITH
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The aforementioned Auburn Parking Study-Final
Report, attached as Exhibit "A", is herewith adopted.
Section 2. It is herewith directed that the Auburn
Parking Study-Final Report be filed along with this Resolution
-----------------------
Resolution No. 2826
February 20, 1997
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
with the Auburn City Clerk and be available for public
inspection.
Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement
such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry
out the directives of this legislation.
DATED and SIGNED this 3rd day of March, 1997.
CITY OF AUBURN
Q . ??Cxt'
CHARLES A. BOOTH
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Robin Wohlhueter,
City Clerk
AP OVED AS TO FORM:
Michael J. Reynolds,
City Attorney
------------------------
Resolution No. 2826
February 20, 1997
Page 3
AUBURN PARKING STUDY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City of Auburn
Charles A. Booth, Mayor
Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning & Community Development
Bob Sokol, AICP, Senior Planner
Betty Sanders, ASLA, Associate Planner
Nick Afzali, Transportation Planner
Citizens' Advisory Committee
Trish Borden, Auburn City Council
Don Cheney, Auburn Resident
Pete Lewis, Chamber of Commerce
Darrel Majors, Auburn Downtown Association
Bill Morchin, Downtown Business Owner
Janice Nelson, Auburn Resident
Lynn Norman, Chamber of Commerce
Kerri Olsen, Auburn Downtown Association
Fred Poe, Auburn City Council
Mary Stanton, Downtown Business Owner
Bill Taylor, Auburn Planning Commission
Doris Thompson, Auburn Downtown Association
King County Metro
Diana Ehrlich
Eileen Kadesh
Consultant Team
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Berk and Associates, Inc.
December, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND AND STUDY PURPOSE .................................................................. 1
LAND USE, URBAN DESIGN AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PARKING........ 2
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 EXISTING DOWNTOWN SUPPLY AND DEMAND ..................................... 5
DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................. 5
DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 5
Duration .............................................................................................................. 9
Utilization ...........................................................................................................11
SHARED PARKING DEMAND .................................................................................20
SUMMARY OF PARKING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS .......................................24
CHAPTER 3 FUTURE DOWNTOWN PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ...................27
CHAPTER 4 MAJOR PARKING ISSUES IN DOWNTOWN AUBURN ...........................31
CHAPTER 5 AUBURN DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN ...................................................35
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................35
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIES ....................................................................................37
Parking Management Strategies ..........................................................................37
Medical Complex Area .......................................................................................39
East Main Area ...................................................................................................41
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ........................................................................42
DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN (MAP) ...................................................................42
CHAPTER 6 ORDINANCE REVIEW ...................................................................................51
CHAPTER 7 PARKING FINANCE .......................................................................................57
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF PARKING FACILITIES ............................57
FUNDING MECHANISMS ........................................................................................60
Local Improvement District (LID) Formation .....................................................60
Business Improvement Associations ....................................................................60
General Obligation Bonds ...................................................................................61
Revenue Bonds ..................................................................................................62
Public-Private Partnership Agreements ...............................................................62
Commercial Parking Tax ....................................................................................62
Fees in Lieu of Parking .......................................................................................63
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................64
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
LIST OF TABLES
Pa,e
Table 1: 2015 City of Auburn Land Use Projection .............................................................28
Table 2: Parking Space Supply and Demand Summary ........................................................28
Table 3a: Recommended Implementation Strategies Short-Term (0-2 Years) .....................43
Table 3b Recommended Implementation Strategies Medium/Long-Term (2-10 Years)........ 46
Table 4: Summary of Revisions to the Auburn Parking Code ............................................... 52
Table 5: Summary of Parking Facility Financing Options .....................................................58
Table A-1: Existing and Proposed Parking Requirement Comparison ................... Appendix A
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Downtown Auburn Parking Inventory Subareas ........................................ .............6
Figure 2: Downtown Auburn Parking Inventory Analysis Areas ............................... .............7
Figure 3: Average Parking Duration - Downtown Auburn Subareas ......................... ...........10
Figure 4: Parking Utilization by Subareas - Medical Complex Area .......................... ...........12
Figure 5: Parking Utilization by Analysis Area - Medical Complex Without Garage .. ...........14
Figure 6: Parking Utilization by Subareas - West Main Street ................................... ..........15
Figure 7: Parking Utilization by Area - West Main Street ......................................... ..........16
Figure 8: Parking Utilization by Subareas - East Main without Safeway ................... ..........18
Figure 9: Parking Utilization by Area - East Main without Safeway .......................... ...........19
Figure 10: Parking Utilization by Subareas - East Downtown ................................... ...........21
Figure 11: Parking Utilization by Subareas - West Downtown .................................. ...........22
Figure 12: Parking Utilization by Subareas - South Downtown ................................ ...........23
Figure 13: Current Shared Parking Demand ............................................................. ...........25
Figure 14: 2015 Parking Demand by Land Use ......................................................... ...........29
Figure 15: Recommended Parking Plan .................................................................... ...........49
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS
APPENDIX B: CITY OF AUBURN COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCE
APPENDIX C: KING COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR COMMUTER PARKING POLICIES
APPENDIX D: AUBURN PARKING ORDINANCE WITH REVISIONS
t:ltrans\abrn00011aubfinal.doc
Auburn Parking Study 1i David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND STUDY PURPOSE
This parking study was initiated to review the City's parking ordinance and to design a
parking plan for downtown Auburn to address existing parking problems, :future needs, and
incorporate policy direction from the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law,
King County's Guidelines for Commuter Parking Policies, and the Downtown Auburn
Design Master Plan. This study is a comprehensive examination of policie.,, ordinances, and
programs affecting parking in Auburn. The products and methodologies of this study were
designed to create a parking plan for Auburn that would:
• Promote state mandated and county parking policies (e.g. CTR goals);
• Be based on estimated future demand;
• Support the Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan;
• Be financially feasible;
• Be sensitive to the needs of the business community; and
• Support the goals of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
To accomplish this study the following tasks were conducted:
• A review of the parking ordinance, evaluating needs and potential revisions to the
ordinance;
• Data collection of existing conditions in Downtown including supply, utilization, parking
duration and turnover rates;
• Analysis of current supply and parking demands;
• Forecast future demand for parking; and
• Development of solutions to identified parking problems.
The study team consisted of the City of Auburn, King County Department of Metropolitan
Services (Metro), a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), David Evans and Associates, Inc.,
and Berk & Associates, Inc. The CAC was closely involved throughout the study process.
Metro's role in the project was to monitor and review study efforts as they :relate to bringing
the City of Auburn parking plan and ordinance into conformance with the County's parking
policies. The policies recommend that cities and the County adopt policies and plans to
reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles (SOVs), adjust minimum parking requirements to
meet existing demand, establish maximum parking ratios, evaluate and revise parking
standards, encourage employers to reduce parking supply where; excess exists,
encourage shared parking, include standards for bicycle parking, encourage pedestrian
connections, and review on-street parking supply as a means of accommodating the City's
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
economic development. In summary, the guidelines direct jurisdictions to manage the supply
of parking to reduce the use of the single occupant vehicle.
LAND USE, URBAN DESIGN AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PARKING
The Commute Trip Reduction Law and the King County Guidelines for Commuter Parking
emphasize the effect that parking has on different types of transportation. Parking's impacts
on a community, however, are much more far reaching. The amount of land dedicated to
parking can frequently consume more space than the development it serves. Parking,
therefore, is a significant land use that can have major implications for any development in
terms of land use, urban design and cost.
One can clearly see the impacts of parking on land use and urban design when one compares
the appearance of Downtown Auburn to newer development along Auburn Way North. On
Auburn Way North, development is oriented towards customers who are arriving by car.
Buildings are typically set back from the street behind a large parking area. Customers
heading to other businesses, frequently return to their car, drive to another parking lot and
then enter their second business. Pedestrians or transit riders who approach from the street
must walk through the parking lot to enter the business. Downtown Auburn, particularly
Main Street, developed prior to the automobile. Buildings were constructed on the street,
easing access by pedestrians. Customers heading to another business typically walk to their
next destination. Parking in downtown is clustered into larger public lots.
As described above, parking requires the dedication of a significant commitment of land,
which translates into a tremendous dollar commitment on the parts of both developers or a
jurisdiction. Parking in a surface lot can cost upward of $5000 to $10,000 per space with the
cost of structured parking even higher. Due to these high costs, the provision of parking can
financially make or break a project. Conversely, a lack of adequate parking can make it
difficult for a sufficient number of potential customers to access a business. This study will
attempt to balance these sometime conflicting impacts on a community and develop an
approach which meets the overall goals of the City as outlined in the Downtown Design
Master Plan and the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Auburn Parking Study was managed by the City of Auburn Department of Planning and
Community Development. A Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) was established to
provide direction to the study consultant and the Department of Planning and Community
Development. In particular, the CAC identified parking issues of critical concern to the
downtown business community. The CAC included representatives from retail business,
service sector business, medical services, the Planning Commission, the City Council, the
Chamber of Commerce and the Auburn Downtown Association (ADA). CAC meetings were
held throughout the study.
Auburn Parking Study 2 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
Parking problems have been a concern of Downtown business owners and the City for a
number of years. Several studies have been completed which have helped to identify the
problem and suggest and implement solutions. In June of 1985, the Central Business District
Parking Acquisition Plan was completed by the City. This plan formed the basis for the local
improvement district, which resulted in the construction of several public parking lots. In
February 1992, the Auburn Downtown Association completed a parking study which
analyzed parking space occupancy and turnover rates. The ADA Parking Committee was
active in 1993 and 1994 in identifying parking problem areas. One result of this committee's
work was the allocation of money by the City Council to conduct this study to revise the
overall city parking ordinance, thoroughly analyze downtown parking conditions, and
recommend both short-and long-term solutions to identified problems.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 3 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
CHAPTER 2
EXISTING DOWNTOWN PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
DATA COLLECTION
An inventory of the existing parking conditions was conducted within the downtown
boundaries as defined in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. To facilitate data collection and
interpretation, the downtown was divided into 20 parking subareas typically named for a
business within the subarea. The parking inventory subareas are presented in Figure 1.
These subareas cover both off-street and on-street parking that form contiguous and logical
parking units.
Data for 4,507 parking spaces was gathered over six weeks between the end of June and the
end of July, 1995, by the City of Auburn. The data was collected between 7:00 A.M. and
6:00 P.M. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Data was not gathered the week of
July 4th. Data gatherers recorded license plate numbers in 15 or 30 minute increments by
parking stall numbers. Data was analyzedfor parking usage, turnover and duration. The data
was formatted by space number, time of day and license plate number.
The data presented in this report represents what is believed to be an average parking day in
Downtown Auburn and is consistent with data that has been collected at other times of the
year. Analysis of retail sales taxes in Auburn indicate that the summer months generate a
moderate amount of business activity relative to other months. The Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, and other data sources show
that summer months typically generate higher parking demand, with the :holiday shopping
season being somewhat higher. Additional data was collected for select subareas during the
week of December 15, 1995, during the holiday shopping season, which is recognized as the
busiest time of year.
DATA ANALYSIS
A macro level analysis was conducted by aggregating the parking subareas into six analysis
areas. Figure 2 shows the parking areas. Areas focus on sections of downtown with similar
land uses, parking characteristics, physical and psychological boundaries. They are:
• Medical Complex - This is generally Downtown Auburn north of Firs: Street NW and
west of Auburn Way. This area serves.a variety of medical related uses, including the
Auburn Regional Medical Center. This area has been cited as a parking problem area due
to long-term on-street parking by workers in offices, medical complexes, and the post
office.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 5 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
Figure 1: Downtown Auburn Parking Inventory Subareas
.Am
IMMUMM.
Vw-
ieo o we ae. Aft M sm u. xo
Auburn Yarkmg Study 6 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
Figure 2: Downtown Auburn Parking Inventory Analysis Areas
Mh ST ME
Z ! [7rzAt
21W Tr MW
-T?1! 7-'77.?(
EEO [11111
V4 AVJN sr.
FM ?a?[M
om?
mm=
1BkFFFT]
C ad sr ew
F-1 I
FT1 I-E
!N Er EW
L W M m
R'E
pw AVE
FFFF TM 1=
=1 I
>baea
o ?
MA R EE
David Evans and Associates, Inc. Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
• West Main Street - This is the area along West Main Street between the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks and Auburn Avenue/A Street SE. This ?Uea is
primarily retail and the City Hall complex. It is a highly pedestrian friendly area with a
community focus.
• East Main Street - This area is Main Street between Auburn Avenue/A Street SE and
Auburn Way. This is the counterpart to West Main Street. A Street SE forms a logical
barrier between these two areas. Like West Main Street, East Main Street is a very
pedestrian friendly environment made up of higher density retail establishments.
• East Downtown - This is primarily downtown Auburn east of Auburn Way. This area is a
mix of residential and commercial establishments. Auburn Way is a busy thoroughfare
that provides both a functional and psychological barrier for convenient parking. Parking
characteristics are relatively homogeneous in the north and south ends of this Areas.
• South Downtown - This area is south of the Main Street area. This area is separated from
Downtown Auburn primarily by the psychological barriers around Safeway and 2nd
Street SW. The built up environment is primarily auto-oriented with large building
setbacks and large parking lots.
• West Downtown - This area is downtown to the west of the Burlington Northern Railroad
Santa Fe Railroad tracks. These tracks provide both a physical and a psychological
barrier to parking. This area is a mix of commercial, light industrial and residential uses.
The data was analyzed to determine:
• Parking Supply - The number of on-street and off-street parking available in each
subarea. The parking supply of downtown Auburn is the total of the parking spaces
currently available.
• Effective Capacity - Eight-five percent of supply is defined as the effective capacity by
The Urban Land Institute (ULI), The Dimensions of Parking, 3rd Edition,. This
accounts for fluctuations in data collected on a typical day and driver frustration looking
for available parking spaces in the last 15 percent of vacancies. Metro also uses 85
percent of supply as effective capacity. Eight-five (85) percent will be applied in this
study.
• Average Duration - The average length of time a car is parked anywhere within a given
subarea.
Auburn Parking Study 8 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
• Utilization - A measure of the usage of the available parking at a given time. The
instances a car was parked in a space for each interval are summed and divided by the
total supply. Utilization of 85% of the parking supply is considered "full." (See effective
capacity)
• Maximum Usage - This is an area-wide measure that yields the peak parking utilization
for an entire district. It is measured at the time interval at which the highest number of
spaces are used within the entire analysis area.
Initially, the analysis included all parking spaces within the study area. Later, after initial
presentation of analysis results to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), it was decided to
conduct the same analysis excluding "single-use" private lots, due to the perception that many
of these lots are underutilized, but not available to the general public. Examples of such lots
include the Seafirst Bank lot and Vehicle Licensing lots in the License Bureau subarea. The
expectation was that including these lots over-represented the capacity for parking.
However, because many of these lots actually have high utilization, removing them from the
analysis also lowered some utilization rates. There were not significant shifts in utilization or
duration with the removal of single-use private lots.
The CAC also requested that the analysis period be changed to 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. to
better reflect a typical business day, instead of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., which includes the
entire time period for which data was collected. While this didn't change the utilization
figures, it had the affect of reducing average duration values and the number of vehicles
parking over five hours because many of the cars parked for longer duration arrive before
9:00 a.m. It was therefore decided to leave the analysis period as 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The
resulting analysis, excluding single-use private lots is presented below.
Duration
Parking duration was determined by counting the instances of a license plate number in a
parking space anywhere within a subarea, rather than a particular space. This accounts for
individuals who "shuffle" cars to avoid parking time limits. License plate data was primarily
gathered by recording the first three digits or letters of a plate. Some redundancies were
encountered which would have caused an over-inflation of parking duration estimated, but
searches for redundant numbers showed these were statistically insignificant. A detailed
analysis of current parking behavior on a space-by-space basis was conducted by tabulating
the number of vehicles parking over five hours. Figure 3 shows the average parking duration
for the 20 subareas. The results are also presented at the bottom of Figures 4 through 12.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 9 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
M
p
u
.pool
w
Fri
?J
cr3
0
w
0
0
U
w
O
C N
Y = •- L
.L=
9+ d C t? L N
- U) LL
O v _
•? O cts L
E Q a.
c M U) CL
co m od t O M
,< Y U) X: FL
11 ¦¦ ¦?
p
O L
.J
V
?p
w 'a
co ?+ 3 >+ m
ip C ? O L
`i.._co
•ta?cn>u.
It® ono
to 0 qqe m N ? O
The data show that on the average, the parking spaces for areas in downtown Auburn, have
parking durations of less than four hours. The three important retail lots, Penny's, Rottle's
and Safeway, all have average durations of about an hour to an hour-and-a.-half. The A St.
Auto subarea and the F-Street subarea have average parking durations of five hours or more.
The F-Street subarea is primarily used by residents. Aero-Space Lodge and Valley Medical
subareas have average durations over four hours.
The A St. Auto subarea has over half of the spaces used by vehicles parking for more than
five hours. Valley Women's Medical Center, F-Street, Kencade Construction, and Aero-
Space Lodge subareas have over 40 percent parking for more than five hours. In these
districts, the lack of parking space turnover can make access to these areas difficult for short
duration parkers, particularly in those areas with high utilization such as Valley Women's
Medical Center.
The data indicates that, for Downtown as a whole, the duration of parking is not impacting
the parking supply. However, in high turnover lots such as Rottle's, Safeway, Penney's, one
or two cars parked for a long duration can have a significant impact. In particular, employee
parking would have a significant impact on parking duration. For example:, one car parked
for six hours takes up the same space as six cars parked for one hour each.. Those six cars
are potential customers who must park elsewhere.
Utilization
Medical Complex
The Medical Complex analysis area is made up of the subareas called Valley Women's
Medical Center, Hospital Garage, Doc's Inn, Hospital, and First Interstate. This 253 space
subarea serves patients and staff from area clinics, staff from the post office and area
residents. The Hospital Garage, although included as a subarea for data collection, was
subsequently removed from the analysis. Private lots, such as the funeral home parking lot,
have also been removed. The Post Office is located just north of the study area boundary,
but impacts the Valley Women's Medical Center, Hospital Garage, and Hospital subareas
because the post office does not provide employee parking. The post office is federally
exempt from local parking regulations.
Figure 4 shows the utilization and number of spaces for each subarea, as well as the percent
of vehicles parking over five hours. Eighty-five (85) percent of the parking space supply is
defined as the effective capacity. The Valley Women's Medical Center subarea is operating at
capacity with an 85 percent utilization rate and 41 percent of the spaces used for over five
hours. The remaining subareas are close to 70 percent utilized at their peak times of day
(around 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.).
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 11 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
CCU
C?
C's
Ci
.N ?
? U
U
b
CC3
•?' 000 ? tO0 ? ? M N O O
U
m
U
w
Wd 00:9
Wd 0£:9
Wd 00:9
Wd 0£:ti
Wd 00:V
Wd o£:£
Wd 00:£
Wd 0£:Z
Wd 00:Z
Wd o£:
Wd 00:
Wd 0£:Z6
Wd 00:U
Wd 0MI
wH 004
wH o£:o?
WH 00:04
WV 0£:6
WV 00:6
wH o£:8
WV 00:8
WV 0£:L
WV 00:L
L
a?
C U
C ?
d 00
d
.W a
12 0
CFJ
d
c
UL
'a vs
N Q,
O C/]
S ?
I 00
c Cd
V ?
O M
C)
N
0
ti
0
00
0
0
M
0
N
O
Figure 5 shows the aggregate parking utilization for the analysis area without the garage.
This distinction is made to analyze the potential parking utilization of the medical complex
area after the new medical offices open. The garage will be dedicated to serving only the
medical offices and may be fully utilized by this use. The utilization curves are cumulative
and represent the aggregate utilization for the area. The entire area has a supply of 757
spaces. The utilization rate for the entire area, without the garage and private parking lots, is
approximately 77 percent. The average parking duration of the Valley Women's Medical
Center subarea is 5.76 hours, indicating that much of this parking is employee or resident
parking. Average duration in the Hospital subarea is 4.6 hours.
The amount of long-term parking in parts of the medical complex hinders patient and other
short-term users. From 18 to 41 percent of the spaces are used by long-term parking (over
five hours) depending on the specific sub-area. Long-term parking contributes to the
problem of patients not able to park near their doctors' offices. Parking management
strategies, where parking duration limits are placed on specific spaces, could alleviate many
of these problems. However, some arrangements for providing long-term parking must be
made to prevent spillover into adjacent residential districts as full usage of the medical office
building will more than fill the empty spaces in the parking garage. This will exacerbate
parking problems in the area.
West Main Street
The West Main Street analysis area includes the City Hall and Shamrock subareas. Figure 6
shows the utilization and number of spaces for each subarea, as well as the percent of
vehicles parking over five hours. This shows parking in the City Hall subarea to be operating
closest to capacity with a peak utilization (maximum usage) of close to 80 percent. Peak
utilization near City Hall is within ten (10) percent of capacity. City employees are also using
public lots and police vehicles are using city employee lots and on-street spaces. Peak
utilization for the Shamrock subarea is almost 60 percent.
Figure 7 shows the aggregate parking utilization for the area. The utilization curves are
cumulative and represent the aggregate utilization for the area. The entire area has 333
spaces. The maximum utilization for the area is 65 percent. The average parking duration is
2.7 hours. The moderate utilization and parking duration indicates that this subarea is serving
an appropriate balance of parking needs.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 13 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
U
• r-+ aA
C;j
c?
? O
CC3 cu
CAA N a,
• ~ • ?--1
PLO .--? 0
?D f
C
j
?n U
c3
^
Wd 00:9
Wd 00:9
Wd 00:V
Wd 00:£
Wd 00:Z
Wd 00: 6
Wd 00:U
WH 00:
Wed 00:01
WV 00:6
wv 00:8
WV 00:1
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
1` CO LCD 44* M N r
00
00
kn
b.Q
Cld
? n
r- o3
0 0
L
w
U
-a
m
a
as
m
m
12
a?
c
L
¦
.Q
0
¦
N
V
0
¦
b
Mi
a
t"
CC
cli
0
q
CLI
cn
cs
C?
bA
bfJ
? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O
00 1` (D LO tl' M N r
a,
U
U
5
w
Wd 00:9
Wd 00:9
Wd OO:V
Wd 00:£
Wd OCI:Z
Wd OCI:6
Wd O01:U
wd 001: 4 6
wd 00:ft
WV 00:6
wv 00:9
WV 00:1
Y
v
0
i
s
U)
t
V
\R
0
h
0
0
N
?o
U
.F
ct3
• ^'
CAA N ?
C?
WV 00:L
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o? o 0 0 0
M N N r r
00
N
O CIS
F"{ ?:) c
V? •? U
U
0 0
Wd 00:9
Wd 00:9
Wd 00:V
V
O
Wd 00:£ L
Wd 00:Z
s
Wd 00: ?
Wd 00:U
Wv 00:64 -
wv 00:M
A
WV 00:6 ()
WH 00:8
N
0
q
00
East Main Street
The East Main Street analysis area is made up of the Rottle's, and Penny's subareas, with
the on-street portion of East Main from the First Interstate subarea. Figure 8 shows the
utilization and number of spaces for each subarea, as well as the percent of vehicles parking
over five hours. The Safeway lot was not included because the Safeway lot is a private lot
that Safeway has allowed for use by some area employees. This special arrangement relieves
the other two lots of several vehicles. During the study, about 55 cars were parked in the
Safeway lot for more than five hours. It is unknown how many of these were Safeway
employees and how many belonged to other businesses.
Parking in the Penney's subarea is operating closest to capacity with a peak of about
83 percent. Since J.C. Penney's closed its Auburn store in January 1996 (six months after
completion of the parking survey), there is a noticeable reduction in parking usage in this
subarea. However, any new use of the building will return parking demand to the same or
higher levels. Rottle's is at approximately 80 percent, and Main On-Street is at about 70
percent utilization.
Figure 9 shows the cumulative parking utilization for the area, excluding the Safeway parking
lot. The area has 297 spaces with a maximum utilization of 75 percent. This data indicates
that the existing parking supply is adequate to meet the demand for parking, however,
utilization is within five (5) percent of the effective capacity for much of the time period
between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. A future increase in demand, or a period of higher
business activity, would increase the utilization to near or above capacity;, as well as shift
parking to adjacent subareas. Average parking duration for the area is one -to one-and-a-half
hours, indicating high-parking turnover.
A special data collection effort was made for the Penney's subarea on Wednesday,
December 20, 1995, and for the Rottle's subarea on Thursday, December 21, 1995, to
estimate the affects of winter holiday activity in the East Main area. The Penney's subarea
was over effective capacity (above 85 percent) from 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (extent of data
collection). An 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. sample on Saturday, December 23, 1995 found the
Penney's parking at 103 percent utilization. In other words, the lot was completely full with
several cars in unmarked spaces.
Data was collected for the Rottle's subarea at 10:00 a.m., and from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. on
Thursday, December 21, 1995. At 10:00 a.m. the subarea was at 76 percent utilization, and
from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m. the lot was over-capacity. Data was also collected on Saturday,
December 23, 1995 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The lot usage of lot was exceeding supply
(utilization was over 100 percent ) by 10:30 a.m. through 12:00 p.m. At 11:30 a.m. and
12:00 p.m., the lot was at 102 percent and 104 percent utilization, respectively.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 17 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
00
M?
h?
6TO
4.)
C?
CIZ?
? O
'mss
.? w
cld
p I
°h° o 0 0 0 0 o
?? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.? 00 I` ?O O 'd' M N ?
U
ti
U
A
w
Wd 00:9
Wd 00:9 i
?I
Wd 00:V r cd
OQ
Wd OWE _ ?
Wd OO:Z
Wd 00:
Wd 00:U y
U
= A
c?
W V{./004 L
CL°
wY 00:0
WV 00:6
wd 00:8
0
WV 00:1 I?l
T
0
0
0
O
t-I
00
4
v c?
Wd 00:9
Wd 00:9 a
Wd 00:V
c
O
Wd 00:E c
U
•
? 's
^ c
o
•
C?$
CAA N a?
03
03
03
• X
w
Cd
pi
CD CD CD N N LO O ? O
0 (U
M I
N
Wd 00:Z
Wd 004
Wd 00:Z ?
WV004?
Wv 00:0
WV 00:6
Wv 00:8
WV 00:1
c
c
a?
IL
?n
a?
0
w
¦
h
ti
O
ti
0
0
a
ao
o?
llz?
East, West, and South Downtown
Parking characteristics for the East, West and South Downtown analysis areas and the
subareas that made them up were similar in utilization, turnover and duration. These analysis
areas include the following subareas:
East Downtown West Downtown South Downtown
• License Bureau • Kencade Construction • A-Space Lodge
• R&K Photo • Sunbreak Cafe • A St. Auto
• Burger King • Mazatlan
• F-Street
• Flapper Alley
Figures 10, 11, and 12 show the utilization and number of spaces for each subarea, as well as
the maximum mean usage for the analysis area. There are 813 spaces in East Downtown, 369
in West Downtown, and 653 in south Downtown, for a total of 1,835 parking spaces in these
three areas; 1,291 of these spaces are within three blocks of the Main Street area. The
figures show that all of the parking subareas in these analysis areas are under 60 percent
utilization at any time during a normal day, except the A St. Auto subarea which reaches 80
percent. The low utilization of the existing supply in these subareas indicate that these areas
may be able to serve as overflow from other areas.
SHARED PARKING DEMAND
An analysis was conducted to compare actual parking demand (based upon the survey) for
the entire downtown area with the demand estimated from Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) parking generation guidelines. ITE parking generation rates are available for
the peak hour of parking generation for a variety of land uses. The peak hour varies for
different land uses, therefore, summing parking requirements for each land use during the
peak hour will over-estimate parking demand. A procedure for shared parking analysis was
conducted for this study based on Shared Parking, Urban Land Institute (ULI), 1990. This
procedure estimates the parking demand on an hourly basis, and then determines the peak
hour demand for all land uses in an area.
The shared parking analysis was applied to land uses in the downtown study area using land
use quantities in gross square feet (gsf) by business type. The land use data is from the
Business Improvement Association (BIA), adjusted to reflect the slightly different boundaries
used for the parking study. A high and a low estimate was prepared because land uses under
1,000 gsf were listed as "<1,000". The high estimate assigns all values less than 1,000 feet to
be 999 gsf, and the low estimate assigns values for each land use at 500 gsf. According to
the shared parking analysis methodology, total demand for parking using the high estimate is
2,800 spaces. The low estimate is 2,450. The high estimate will be used as a conservative
value because of the small difference between the two.
Auburn Parking Study 20 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
hWnJ
C/1
ct
N
ct
O
? Q
A-j
• r-+ W
5-4
ct
P I
°O o
II O
co
R
U
54
00
O
L
4o 0
a N
Ct
cd
0 0 0 0
N O O
M
Wd 00:9
Wd 00:9
Wd 00:V
Wd 00::£
Wd OOZ
Wd 00: ?
Wd 00:U
Wed 004
WH 00=01
WV 00:6
Ned OO:B
IV 00:1.
h
0
0
00
Q ?
L U
d cd
CL
N
M
m ca
m
L ?
00 0
Y ?
U
L ?
as ?
kn
O
r
a C,3
0
M
coo
N
I N
I
m
O
L
m C
d U N
N a3
r-L
C ?
0 o0
1
a0
Cf)
Cfs
Cld
j
ct Q
?A
?
• POO , ?
? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.? ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?? 00 I` t0 O qqt M N r
oe? 424 M
Wd OO:t:
Wd 0£:6,
Wd 00:6 0
Y N
Wd 0VU
Ct3
?
a
C ? N
Wd OO:U
M 0£: 6 6 I
j
W00:6 6
VYV 0£:06
AIV 00:0 6
AIV 0£:6 =
v
MV 00:6
H
Nd 0£:8 U
Nd 00:8 cd
?Q
VH 0£:1 Y o
N
VH OWL
0
0 0
C3
R3
C?
Wd 00:9
--L- 0
' Wd 00:9 = ci
M
N
' Wd 00:V M
I' Wd 00:£
I Wd OD:Z
V 1.
Wd 004
Q
U
Wd 00:Z
I
' WV 00:?
wH 00:0
I V
Wed 00:6
J
d (U
' WH 00:8 m Cd
a
I C? c a
a 00
' Wed 00:1
0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o 40 CD
co ti W LL M N
0
U b?A 1 tn
? v? ?
? M
42 -,1-
0
The resulting shared parking analysis is shown in Figure 13. Peak utilization (maximum
usage) calculated from data collected for this study shows the peak demand to be 2,600. The
effective capacity is 3,831 (eighty-five percent of 4,507). The actual aggregate parking
utilization for the downtown study is about 68 percent (including all spaces). Since the
shared parking analysis estimates 2,800 spaces and the actual data collected is 2,600 spaces,
the ULI shared parking analysis should provide a good basis for forecasting future demand.
SUMMARY OF PARKING CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
Downtown Auburn is an approximately six square block area which can be divided into three
use categories: the downtown retail areas, residential areas, and the medical complex:. The
core downtown area is very pedestrian friendly, with wide sidewalks, on-street parking, and
nearby off-street parking. There are residential areas close to the retail area. The medical
complex is in a partially residential setting served by on-street parking, and small off street
lots.
Currently, the overall parking supply in downtown Auburn meets parking demand, although
there are some supply problems in the Medical Complex and East Main areas. Overall the
areas are operating from 38 percent utilization to 77 percent utilization during peak periods.
(Eighty-five percent is effective capacity.) The average parking duration ranged from
approximately one to five hours for the subareas. The percent of long-term parking, (over
five hours) ranged from seven (7) to 50 percent for the subareas.
Long-term parking uses almost half of the parking spaces in the subareas of Valley Women's
Medical Center, F-Street, Kencade Construction, A-Space Lodge, and A St. Auto. With the
overall available supply of parking, there is flexibility to look at downtown parking
management options to address problems in subareas.
Parking management options could be particularly effective near doctor's offices in the
Medical Complex area, near storefronts in the West and East Main Street areas, and the
Rottle's subarea. In these areas, some parking time restrictions may already exist, but
enforcement is not consistent. Increasing parking enforcement could prove an efl7ective
measure of getting people with longer-term vehicle parking needs to park in long-term areas,
freeing up spaces for customers and patients. At the same time, convenient long-term
parking must be made available and be easy to locate.
The Medical Complex area currently includes several homes. This means that restricted areas
would need to be applied on a special dispensation basis. Short term or patient only parking
would mostly be on-street. Concurrently, there is a need to provide longer-term employee
parking. Much of the downtown Auburn study area is a residential area and over-restriction
could leave local residents without a place to park their own vehicles. Private lots, parking
permits, or residents only on-street spaces are potential ways of providing this necessary
parking.
Auburn Parking Study 24 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
M
W
• PWA
03
r?
C?
?-1
^^CC3
F-?-i
CC3
0
O O O O O O O O Cl O
O O O O O O O O O,
LA O LO O Lf) O Lf) O LO
d' V M M N N ? T-
.N
6
1 ca
E
a)
._
S U
£ m
L
m
i?
? N
m
*0
CD
6
L v
O
0
Long-term employee parking could also be made available in areas within walking distance of
businesses, but not immediately obvious to new visitors or shoppers. This would free nearby
parking and make better use of underutilized parking areas. There are some large, private
parking lots in the area that are underutilized. The owners of these lots should be
approached to explore the possibilities of the use of these lots by employees of other
Downtown business. It is important to note that these are private lots and current zoning
requirements may preclude this option. Opening up this parking for downtown employees,
reducing the time limit on close-in downtown parking areas and enforcing parking laws could
create convenient short-term parking for shopping and business oriented parking.
Security is also an issue with parking, especially if lots are far from destinations or in
unfamiliar or potentially dangerous locations. Security issues can be addressed by foot
patrols, "buddy systems", increased activity, or better lighting and design.
Many public parking lots are also underutilized. Revitalization of these lots and improved
signing would improve the use of these lots. Application of the Downtown Auburn :Master
Plan concepts, in the same design as Main Street, would tie-in the public lots to the
downtown environment and improve the perception of accessibility and safety of public lots.
Lastly, existing parking is poorly signed and often people cannot tell private from public lots
or know that there is a lot a block or so away. Better signage, combined with properly
designed elements like street trees, furniture, covered walkways, and attractive bollards will
make parking and walking a more positive experience and lessen the parking burden for both
customers and employees. A program to upgrade the parking lots, consistent with the
Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan, would increase the utilization of existing parking
and integrate parking into the downtown urban design. A downtown Parking Map would
also help to identify underutilized public parking. Chapter 5, Auburn Downtown Parking
Plan, will explore solutions to these identified needs.
Auburn Parking Study 26 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
CHAPTER 3
FUTURE DOWNTOWN PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
As new development takes place in Downtown Auburn, the demand for parking in the area
will likely increase. To prepare a reasonable estimate of future parking demand, we must
establish projections about the types and amount of development that will take place in
Downtown Auburn in the future. While future development in the area will largely be a
function of the private sector, the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance serve as guides for that development. By applying assumptions based upon those
documents, observing current development trends and identifying those parcels of land that
are likely to be developed in the future, projections can be made about ibture downtown
development.
A parcel was determined to be a potential site for development in the following instances:
1. Vacant Land - land with no significant or notable improvements or building
improvement valued at less that $500.
2. Redevelopable Land - land that is zoned for commercial or industrial uses but is
currently occupied by a single family house.
3. Vacant Building - an unoccupied structure in reasonable condition.
Once the vacant and redevelopable land were identified, projections for new development on
these parcels was assumed to occur of a type of use and quantity consistent with the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, but adjusted to reflect current development trends
in the downtown. In general, these adjustments resulted in a density that was greater than
those currently found in new development, though lower than the highest densities allowed in
the zoning ordinance. This adjustment was made to reflect the fact that permitted densities
are significantly higher (at least three to four times higher) than what is currently being built.
Vacant buildings were assumed to be filled by a business occupying the square footage of the
building.
Table 1 presents the existing and projected future land use quantities for office, retail, and
residential, space in downtown Auburn for the year 2015. According to the projections,
downtown will grow by approximately 186,000 square feet of office space (83%), 221,000
square feet of retail space (65%) and 146 units of housing (23%) between 1995 and 2015.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 27 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
Table 1: 2015 City of Auburn Land Use Projection
1995 225,136 337,609 647
Growth 185,860 220,850 146
Percent Increase 83% 65% 23%
Source: Auburn Comprehensive Plan
The ULI shared parking analysis described in Chapter 2 was applied to land use projections
for 2015. The resulting 2015 shared parking forecasts are illustrated in Figure 14. The chart
shows that at full buildout in 2015, the estimated peak downtown parking demand would
equal 3,742 spaces.
Existing and future parking supply and demand are summarized in Table 2. The existing
effective capacity is 3,831 (85% percent of actual capacity) for the downtown Auburn area.
The existing effective capacity exceeds the future demand by 89 spaces.
Table 2: Parking Space Supply and Demand Summary
1995 2015
No New
Spaces With Current
Parking Code 25% Reduction
in Code
Supply 4,507 4,507 6,412 5,787
New Spaces 0 1,905 1,208
Effective Capacity' 3,831 3,831 5,450 4,919
Demand (measured) 2,600
Demand (Estimated)' 2,800 3,742 3,742 3,742
Estimated Utilization 73% 98% 69% 76%
Surplus (Shortage) 1,031 89 1,708 1,177
a) Eighty-five percent of supply
b) Based on Downtown parking data collection, July 1995. Utilization is 68 percent.
c) Shared Parking, the Urban Land Institute, 1990.
d) Effective Capacity minus demand.
Auburn Parking Study 28 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
2015 410,996 558,459 793
7
9
11
1
K
5
7
9
11
Q
0 ?
C 0 0
j
N
N
W rA
n
w
? ? ?
44-
r /
??
? 0 0 0 O w ?.? 0
N
O
b
CD
CD
C'+ 4?bl
cr
r
CL
cn
CD
Table 2 also illustrates how many new parking spaces would be required for new
development by the existing parking code in the downtown area. The parking code
requirements were calculated for the difference in land use quantities from 1995 to 2015, as
presented in Table 1. The existing parking code would require 1,905 additional spaces for
additional development. Code required parking in the downtown area could be reduced to
meet actual demand, as directed by the King County Guidelines for Commuter Parking
Policies and to better reflect the mixed-use nature of downtown as compared to other areas
of the city. In addition, this will lower the cost of development in Downtown Auburn and
potentially help to generate new and redevelopment in the area. A 25 percent reduction in
code-required parking would provide 1,208 new spaces (an increase of 28 percent) resulting
in 1,177 spaces over the estimated demand. This would result in a utilization of 76 percent in
2015 compared to 73 percent in 1995, which would provide similar overall parking
conditions in the future as is experienced today.
As growth continues however, additional downtown development could further exacerbate
existing parking problems. Of particular concern are the areas with the largest parking
problems (e.g. East Main, the Medical Complex) or subareas near capacity. In Chapter 5, the
Downtown Parking Plan provides remedies to problems for growth in individual subareas.
Auburn Parking Study 30 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
CHAPTER 4
PARKING ISSUES IN DOWNTOWN AUBURN
Parking issues were identified in downtown Auburn through discussions with the CAC, from
interviews conducted to assess the willingness of downtown businesses to pay for parking,
(conducted as an element of the finance chapter), and input from City staff. It is important to
document these issues, as well as analyze them in light of the data collection and analysis
efforts, because the parking problems in Auburn, whether actual or perceived, are critical to
the business environment of the City. The issues are summarized below:
Issue 1: All day parking is occurring on City streets and City lots.
There is a concern that all day parking on City streets and in City lots is impacting the
accessibility of short-term parking near businesses. The average duration for on-street
parking is approximately four (4) hours. The parking duration, posted on signs is two or
three (2 or 3) hours in high use areas. Fines for over parking are $5.00 in public lots and
$2.00 on Main Street.
Issue 2: There is a lack of all-day parking for downtown employees.
This issue has been a historical problem for downtown businesses. It is especially critical in
the Medical Complex area, where employee parking and parking by medical patrons overlap.
The post office is also in the same area and doesn't provide employee parking. In the retail
core, employee parking is critical during the Christmas season when there is the highest
number of employees, as many businesses hire temporary employees. Safety is a concern in
the medical complex area where shift changes occur at night, and in the downtown retail core
during the winter when it is dark early.
All-day free parking in the retail core for area employees is available on "D", "E", and "F"
Streets SE, in a few vacant lots spaced around the core and, to a limited extent, in the
Safeway lot. The Safeway Parking, however, is at the discretion of Safeway and should not
be counted on as a stable parking source. Parking for a fee is available through leased lots
throughout the downtown, but these do not significantly add to the parking supply. Some
banks, restaurants and stores offer their employees on-site free parking. All day free parking
in the medical complex area is available to some employees on-site. In addition, long-term
curb spaces are located on the periphery of the downtown though this may impact
residences. The new parking garage in the Medical Complex will be filled by the employees
and patients of the hospital's new medical office building.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 31 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
Issue 3: Parking regulations are not enforced
The Auburn Police Department does not place an emphasis on enforcing parking regulations
due to the limits on police time and lack of impact by the small fines. Also, downtown
business owners will sometimes complain if on-street parking regulations are enforced
because of the frustrated reactions they receive from customers.
Issue 4: The public doesn't know where public lots are located
Many of the public lots lack visible, clear signing for location or to identify them as a public
lot. Currently, directional signing to public lots is not provided or is limited. Also, the
condition of many of the lots are old and with substandard landscaping. Re-development of
the public lots, consistent with the Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan (i.e., consistent
with the new, Main Street-look) would encourage the utilization of public lots, and improve
the appearance of the downtown environment.
Issue S: There is a lack of convenient parking in the downtown.
There is a common feeling that there is a lack of parking in downtown Auburn. However,
data indicates that there are several underutilized lots within easy walking distance of major
destinations is Auburn. One problem is that some lots directly abut major destinations and
are the most favored parking areas. A good example of this is the Rottle's lot. The R.ottle's
lot is at the center of downtown Auburn and is located close to many downtown destinations.
The convenience of this lot causes it to have the highest utilization and highest turnover rates,
which feeds the perception that there is a lack of convenient parking in the downtown. Other
nearby lots are not utilized to the extent of the Rottle's lot. From discussions with the CAC
it appears that an acceptable walking distance to parking is two or maybe three blocks
depending on the location and environment.
Issue 6: The medical office complex area has serious parking problems.
Parking utilization at peak times of day (10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.) averages about 70 percent
in the medical complex area. Only the East Main Street area exceeded the medical office
complex parking utilization. The perception is that parking is extremely limited in this area.
A new parking garage was completed in 1995 to serve the hospital's medical office building.
It is currently open to the public, relieving some of the parking pressures in this area. As the
medical office space fills up, the garage will be limited to only employees and patrons of the
new medical office development. On-street parking duration is not limited in this area, and
there is a need for perhaps a two to three hour limit so that patients can be provided with
convenient short term parking. Parking problems in this area are exacerbated by the post
office which does not provide parking. (The post office is exempt from providing parking by
federal law.)
Issue 7. Safety Issues, Street Lighting, etc.
Employees and owners of business are very concerned about the safety issues surrounding
employees who must walk a distance to available long term parking, especially after dark. As
Auburn Parking Study 32 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
a consequence, employees generally prefer to park as close to work as possible which
impacts parking available to customers. This makes it difficult to recommend and expect that
employees will park in the under utilized lots at the fringe on the downtown area. Specific
safety concerns are; lack of street lighting, lack of parking lot lighting, lack of sidewalks, safe
crossing of arterials (especially Auburn Way) and walking alone after dark.
Issue 8: Cost of supplying parking is a hindrance to new business.
The downtown area is faced with conflicting needs for increasing the parking supply due to a
tight supply in localized areas, and the desire to encourage new business to locate in the
downtown. The high price to supply parking, combined with the limited space for parking in
a downtown area, can be a hindrance to new businesses. A significant way to increase
parking downtown would be to construct either more surface lots or a parking structure, but
financing either is difficult for either the City or area businesses. Although a lack of parking
is perceived as a problem, the CAC suggests that, at present, the Downtown will benefit
more from additional businesses and increased investment in existing buildings rather than
additional parking. Due to the high cost of providing parking, a waiver or reduction of
parking requirements in targeted areas can be a strong economic development tool.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 33 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
CHAPTER 5
AUBURN DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN
SUMMARY
This plan utilizes a balanced approach to address Downtown Auburn's present and future
long and short term parking needs. The components of this plan address both the supply of
and the demand for parking. This approach seeks to reduce the demand for parking, better
utilize existing public parking, increase the usage of underutilized private parking through
leased and shared parking arrangements, and finally, provide some guidance in the purchase
and establishment of additional public lots in the future. In this manner, parking issues can be
addressed in a manner that is phased, cost effective and affordable fbr the City and
Downtown business and property owners. The components of this plan can be summarized
as follows:
Reduce Demand for Downtown Parking
By encouraging individuals to walk, bike, carpool or take transit, the demand for parking can
be reduced. Providing new parking can be extremely costly, and each downtown parker who
chooses an alternative transportation mode to downtown "provides" an additional parking
space for other employees or customers at a fraction of the cost of new parking space. This
plan proposes the formation of a Downtown Transportation Management Association
(TMA) which will assist employees of the Hospital, Post Office, the City of Auburn and
Auburn Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce members in the use of other
modes of transportation. The cost of establishing a TMA will have to be considered relative
to the additional benefits made available to Downtown businesses. This strategy to reduce
demand is also supported by the City's and Metro's Plan to establish a transit hub in
Downtown which will significantly improve transit service to the area. The establishment of
a downtown circulator bus would also reduce demand for downtown parking by greatly
expanding transit accessibility throughout downtown.
Better Utilization of Existing Public Parking
While some public parking lots are heavily used, several receive limited usage. By increasing
signage and preparing a downtown parking map, public awareness of the less; used lots can be
increased, thereby lessening the high demand for the more heavily used lots. In addition,
parking restrictions on these lots can be waived from 6:00 PM to 8:00 AM to allow for
parking by residents. City employee parking lots should be made available to the general
public after 5:00 PM Monday to Friday and all day on weekends and holidays. In some
areas, this plan recommends changing the time restrictions on parking to better match the
parking needs of that particular area. In one area, relatively unused two hour parking spaces
will be converted to unrestricted parking, while in another, two hour parking spaces will be
placed in an area with a lack of short term parking. The downtown shuttle bus discussed
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 35 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
above would also increase the utilization of existing parking by making it easier for
downtown employees to use "outlying" underutilized parking.
Creation of New On-Street Parking
In some limited areas of downtown, there are places where on-street parking is currently not
permitted, but can be made available. Allowing parking in these locations can provide new
parking for the cost of a few signs and some paint.
Increase Opportunities for Shared Private Parking and Lease Arrangements
There are several large, paved, under-utilized private parking lots scattered throughout the
Downtown area. Current regulations hinder owners of these lots from leasing the unused
spaces to other users. This plan recommends changes to the City parking ordinance which
ease the creation of such arrangements, thereby making better use of the existing, though
unused, spaces.
Parking as an Economic Development Tool
The cost of providing parking can be a significant hindrance to new businesses or new
development in Downtown Auburn. The Plan recommends changes to the parking ordinance
that reduce or, in some cases, eliminate the requirement for new businesses or new
development to provide new parking in specific targeted areas. These provisions include the
elimination of additional required parking for the reuse of existing buildings in the central
business (C-2) zoning district. The CAC recognizes that these provision may exacerbate
downtown parking problems. However, the benefits of attracting new businesses are felt to
outweigh the liabilities of this provision.
Identify Locations and Potential Funding for Future Public Parking Facilities
This plan identifies two potential locations for public parking facilities. One is located along
the east side of the proposed right-of-way for the extension of A Street NW just north of 3rd
Street NW. A second is proposed near B Street SW and 2nd Street SW in conjunction with
the new transit hub to be jointly developed by the City of Auburn and Metro. A 50-100
space parking facility in either or both locations, particularly along A Street NW, would
address long-term parking needs in those areas. This plan does not establish a provision for
future LIDS to fund the development of new parking. The CAC indicated that while parking
is certainly an important issue facing Downtown at this time, the dollars invested in an LID
by property owners could be better used by upgrading their businesses and buildings.
Advisory Committee
A citizen's advisory committee should continue, after completion of this study, to guide the
City, and provide a forum for coordination and implementation of parking solutions. The
ADA could continue with their role in identifying parking concerns and developing solutions.
Auburn Parking Study 36 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIES
This chapter includes a number of strategies for addressing downtown parking issues. First,
it includes some general parking management strategies that make more efficient use of the
existing downtown parking supply and therefore may preclude the need for high cost capital
improvements. Next, the chapter recommends more specific strategies for addressing
parking issues in the Medical Complex and East Main areas.
Specific implementation strategies are summarized in Table 3a and 3b following the
discussion of the Medical Complex and East Main areas. A brief analysis of the effect of each
strategy and the potential cost is also presented in these tables. At the end of the chapter,
Figure 15 presents the recommended on-street and off-street parking plan for Downtown. It
illustrates the recommended changes to current parking regulation in Downtown.
Parking Management Strategies
Parking Redistribution
Currently, parking areas with high utilization in Auburn are closely bordered by areas with
very low utilization. Often, people visiting Auburn to shop or conduct business are not as
familiar with the streets and provision of parking as are those who drive there daily. By
shifting employee parking to nearby areas with low parking utilizations, the amount of
available parking can increase by as much as 30 percent in the high use areas, thus saving the
expense of building, maintaining and managing a new parking facility. It is important to
remember that areas like East Main have high parking turnover rates. By providing parking
in adjacent areas, freeing up even a fraction of the spaces currently used by long term parking
can create opportunities for a large number of customers. For example, in the East Main area
most of the parking duration was for less than an hour. If an employee is parked in a space
for an eight-hour day, that means at least eight customers were unable to use that space. In
addition, some long-term parkers move their vehicles from space to space. This practive
should be discouraged. Many downtown parking problems can be addressed by managing
parking to provide the correct balance between long-term and short-term parking.
Parking Duration
Patrons, clients and patients need access to convenient short-term parking. Parking duration
restrictions can be a very effective means of ensuring that this amenity is provided. A three-
hour time limit is generally enough to conduct business or shop, but not enough to allow
people to park through a business day. This ensures turnover in parking and makes
convenient parking more likely.
In high use subareas, parking should be restricted to three hours. In lower use subareas,
parking should be unregulated to allow use by long-term vehicles. Evert if new parking
facilities are constructed to add spaces, parking restrictions will still be necessary to
effectively use the new spaces.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 37 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
Urban Design
The existing parking lots can also be used by those less familiar with downtown Auburn by
including easy to see and understand signage that directs people to nearby parking. The
"Easy Parking" program in Portland, Oregon uses bright, unique signing to highlight lots.
This program has been very successful in bringing shoppers to downtown. Parking lots can
also be purchased or leased by parking management associations that can uniformly sign lots
and provide urban design enhancements. Good street lighting and pedestrian amenities such
as benches, cross walks and good sidewalks will also make walking a safer and more
pleasurable experience, so that individuals may be willing to walk further to a parking space.
New Spaces
If current parking patterns continue, and no other new parking is added, some areas will need
more parking over the next 20 years. The Medical Complex and the East Main districts
combined will need about 200 new parking spaces. A joint facility could be placed at the
southeast corner of 1st Street NW and Division Street. This facility would be centrally
located and capable of serving virtually the entire downtown Auburn area.
There is currently a plan to build a large parking facility, connected to Commuter Rail or a
transit hub in the vicinity of West Main Street and C Street SW. Possible sizes range from
small surface lots to a 450 stall parking structure. This facility is located on the Western edge
of the study area and is within 1/4 mile of about 70 percent of the downtown area. It will
serve all of the East Main area and most of the Medical Complex. If this structure is built,
another structure would be unnecessary, though small surface lots may be helpful to serve
localized needs.
Parking Code
The Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law and King County parking
policies encourage jurisdictions to adjust parking requirements to meet actual demand.
Current parking requirements are actually over-supplying parking in the Downtown area.
This occurs primarily due to the mixed-use nature and shared parking that occurs in a
downtown area. Excessive parking requirements can place an unnecessary burden on new
businesses. This study has found that current parking requirements provide an excess of
parking spaces relative to demand. It is therefore recommended that parking requirements
for new development in downtown be reduced by 25 percent. This will continue to supply
new spaces while taking advantage of some of the current excess supply. Specific
recommendations are compared to other jurisdictions in Appendix A. Other proposed
changes to the parking code, to enable the recommendations from this plan, are presented in
Table 4, Chapter 6.
Transportation Management Association
Since the passage of the Washington State CTR Law, large employers meeting specific
criteria have been required to develop transportation demand management (TDM) programs
to make it easier for their employees to commute to work by methods other than their
Auburn Parking Study 38 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
automobile. Typically, the affected employers designate a transportation coordinator with
responsibility for the TDM program and coordination with King County Metro through a
contractural arrangement between the City and Metro. Metro has a number of programs
available to these employers to simplify the use of alternative modes by their employees such
as carpool matching, transit fare subsidies, and guaranteed rides home. Auburn General
Hospital and the City are major affected employers in the Downtown.
Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) are associations of businesses with the
purpose of encouraging alternative means of commuting work. A TMA in downtown
Auburn could serve all downtown employers, including the Post Office, City Hall, the
Hospital and the all ADA and Chamber of Commerce member businesses. A Downtown
TMA could disseminate information to the numerous small medical offices and other small
businesses, though the costs of establishing a TMA will need to be fully weighed relative to
its benefits. The TMA would, however, enable all downtown businesses to participate in
programs offered by Metro and would vastly increase the ability to form. carpools as the
number of potential rideshare partners would increase.
Medical Complex Area
The Medical Complex analysis area has limited parking facilities that serve both residential
and commercial uses. Overall, the utilization of the parking supply reaches 77 percent, with
the Valley Women's Medical Center and Hospital subareas in the northwest section of the
area at 80 to 85 percent throughout the day. Several localized uses have contributed to this
high parking utilization. The Hospital, the Post Office and several small doctors' offices
create a mix of short and long-term parking, with approximately 37 percent of the cars
remaining for over five hours. The Hospital has built a parking garage, but additions to the
Hospital itself and the construction of the new Hospital Medical office building is projected
to use all of this facility and perhaps generate more parking within the area.
Short Term Strategies
The Medical Complex is adjacent to the West and East Main Street areas and it is likely that
several people park in spaces close to their work or appointments and walk to the Main
Street area to shop or have lunch. This means that there is less turnover and parking
becomes harder to find. Parking from the mostly full East Main area could also be spilling
into the Medical Complex due to people searching for a space.
The northern end of the East Downtown area is also nearby, with the R&K Photo and
License subareas operating at 40 percent utilization within three blocks of the Doc's Inn, the
Hospital, and Nelson's subareas. Currently, the Doc's Inn, Hospital and Nelsons subareas
have 453 parking spaces and have an average of 24 percent parking over five hours. If
about half of these cars parked over five hours are assumed to be residents, that leaves 12
percent, or 68 vehicles that are employee parking. If these cars parked in the available
parking in East Downtown, the maximum utilization for the Medical Complex area could
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 39 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
decrease to 63 percent from the current 77 percent. The problem areas in the Valley
Women's Medical and Hospital subareas could decrease to 68 percent.
The shift of long-term parking from the Medical Complex to East Downtown could take
place by regulating parking durations, enforcing the regulations and improving pedestrian
access to East Downtown. A free downtown circulator bus would also increase access to
these underutilized parking spaces. However, there may also be a shift into the residential
areas to the North of 3rd St. NW. A solution to this problem is to enforce existing parking
duration restrictions and limit more on-street parking with two-hour (Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) parking limits. Two hours are generally enough. for a
doctor's visit, but is not long enough to park for employees or residents. Two-hour
restrictions should be judiciously applied, in the vicinity of existing residences. Alternatively,
a residential permit parking program could be considered.
The high rate of long duration parking in the medical complex area limits parking for patients.
The north side of Second Street NW between Division and A Street NW should be restriped
for two-hour spaces. Also, the medical community, ADA, Chamber of Commerce, and City
should meet with the U.S. Postal Service to identify and resolve their long-term parking
needs. There are two gravel parcels with potential to provide long-term spaces for the post
office, one to the east and a second to the west of the post office.
Long-Term Strategies
The Medical Complex currently has one parking structure that is dedicated to the new
medical office building that is part of the Hospital. It is possible that a new general purpose
parking lot or structure could benefit the area. The Medical Complex area will need
approximately 100 additional parking spaces within the next 20 years. This would account
for future growth and maintain average street utilization at about 85 percent in 201.5. In
order to benefit the largest problem areas, this facility would need to be placed west of
Auburn Way and North of 2nd Street SW. A structure could be located on the existing city
lot at 1st Street NW and North Division Street. This location would serve the Medical
Complex, City Hall, and Main Street. Unfortunately parking structures cost from $5,000 to
$10,000 per space. The CAC cited other concerns for downtown business that were more
pressing than financing a parking garage. This makes the construction of a parking structure
unlikely.
An additional possibility for a future parking lot exists on the east side of the right-of-way for
the future extension of A Street NW to the north of 3rd Street NE. This area would serve
post-office employees and remove them from on-street parking spaces. Since these spaces
would be most convenient for long-term rather than short-term parking, the city may wish to
institute a parking fee which would assist in acquisition and maintenance. Additional. long-
term parking was considered along 3rd Street NE/NW, but the city's transportation division
indicated the street space would be needed for future capacity.
Auburn Parking Study 40 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
East Main Area
The East Main analysis area is primarily retail oriented with the most easily accessible parking
in the city. Both the Rottle's lot and the Penny's lot are owned by the City and are directly
connected to the heart of downtown Auburn. These lots have high utilization and high
turnover rates.
Parking durations are one to two hours. Both the Rottle's and Penney's parking lots have
about 10 percent of their parking used by cars parking over five hours, which represents
about 25 spaces.
Short Term Strategies
There are 118 spaces available in the License Bureau and Flapper Alley subareas within three
blocks of Penney's or Rottle's lots. If only long-term (employee) parking were to relocate
their parking to the East Downtown area, the resulting decrease in demand of 25 spaces
would lower utilization rates to about 83 percent during midday, creating an easier parking
experience for Downtown customers. The 25 cars would be a very low burden on the East
Downtown district. A free downtown circulator bus would make these underutilized spaces
more easily accessible. This could result in an added capacity of up to 330 patrons over the
course of a business day, since the average duration of these lots is less than two hours. It is
recommended that all spaces in these lots be restricted to three-hour limits or less (Monday
through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) and this restriction should be enforced.
Exemptions might be granted for those with special needs.
There has been some comment raised about the misunderstanding of the location of available
public parking. The Rottle's and Penney's lots, as well as other public lots in downtown
could be revitalized in the scheme of Main Street and the Downtown Auburn Design Master
Plan. Page 14 of the Master Plan recommends improving key pedestrian connections, clear
directional signing to existing parking and diversion of long-term parking.
Several underutilized private lots in the south Downtown area could provide parking with
changes in the parking ordinance. For example, one private lot has 317 spaces with low
utilization that offers easy and convenient parking to downtown. This lot alone can provide
Downtown Auburn with 190 parking spaces. The lot is three blocks south of downtown on
A Street SE. The major problem with the lot is that it doesn't feel connected to the
downtown area. It is the same distance from the intersection of A Street SE and Main Street
as the BNRR tracks, but it feels farther away due to this lack of connectivity. Other close-in
long term parking should be made available on Auburn Way and along 2:nd Street SW in
front of Safeway, where the on-street spaces have little use.
Urban design treatments, signage and the improvement of businesses along A Street SE
would create a stronger connection between these areas and allow the downtown businesses
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 41 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
to take advantage of this large parking resource. This plan recommends easing provisions for
shared, multi-use parking to ease the use of these, and other underutilized lots.
Long-Term Strategies
A new general purpose parking lot or structure could benefit East Main, but the cost may be
prohibitive. Since the East Main area is in the center of the Downtown Auburn Study area,
the facility could be placed almost anywhere in the study area and still be within 1/4 mile.
Ideally, the facility would be located around the 1 st NW and Division area and could serve
the Medical Complex as well as the Main Street Core. In order to serve the East Main area
for the next 20 years, the facility would need around 100 additional parking spaces.. This
would account for future growth and keep average street utilization around 85 percent in
2015. Initially, it would lower subarea utilization to around 66 percent. Unfortunately,
parking structures cost from $5,000 to $10,000 per space. The CAC cited other concerns for
Downtown businesses that were more pressing than financing a parking garage. This makes
construction of a parking structure unlikely.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Specific strategies are summarized in Table 3a and 3b. Table 3a presents short term
strategies (0-2 years) and Table 3b presents medium to long term strategies (3-10 years). A
brief analysis of the effect of each strategy and the potential cost is also presented in these
tables.
Some additional strategies were considered, but due to cost concerns, difficulty of
implementation or the need for further study are not included on the implementation strategy
tables. They may be reconsidered at a future date, if the need arises. These startegies include
the designation of on-street carpool spaces, residential parking permits and a program where
businesses can purchase a limited supply of transferable parking passes for extended parking
for customers.
DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAN (MAP)
Figure 15 presents the recommended on-street and off-street parking plan for Downtown. It
illustrates the recommended changes to current parking regulation in Downtown.
Auburn Parking Study 42 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
6-1
w..
L
0
C
? N
O
b
a? y
b
? H
O ?
V
cc
M
e?
H
2 0
E"a
N ? ? o
?
N
El N
5 N N y y en
U
?
?
W .?
?
? O ? ? ? a rp3!
aq ?
O ts, Cd
bQ
?
-d U
.b o.
cd
-? r4 U
z 2 ar,? rA
p d
W _O
O O N ri' c
Pti y' C. U O O U Q
O
?
bOA _
'b
O cd
O 'b
O
N sZ' '? cd O O V
Op 3
O 0" cd Y
p cd
N o
b o o
"C U
aa?? ?? aa ? z A ¢ ¢
cd
w M
p °
¢ O s 0 "•O
V N C" N OU cd +- O p
W ?+ E y W
O O..
O O y N N N
4
r
O O
O -C
N
C'n 'C .
y
?1r
1
w° O cd
Q, O O cd O
o i
o
bq
bA bA
S3, O
O
Gn ? U
N O rri
ao
o-0
O
U
73
U c W a ? AEl p
b
, . Q, s
.
O V]
69
a O ai
H
C 00
o
U
O ?c
p aq
" O
V1 ? O O cd J, v'
O. ' ;-a too ?
Q O .N ? O h
?-? 00
03
? ? O ??
b W
?
W
W W cd
O
U 9 p
W O N
69 U '? .? cd
U b C"r 'O
O W c Q, ?° ? a. ? U?? U A
y
0
.r
CAS y
6? O
? O
"D
a? y
O
is
O ?
M
F
F V
E a)
G
?+ Y E
U ?
O
O O
0
?b
?
F oo
U O d v?
W j b u c bA
Gr p ? p
O ?' m O
bA V
bq
ou , dq
Q Lei
rA
a-? U
Q •? O ? ? O ? ?
O O U N y Q
Q O O
b ^C ,
ccd
4-4 V)
O a
O .? O is
O
F" O
?+ U
? cd
"
p ¢
(
Cd C a-?
r. 0 CD
o ? wp 4-4
O
Q U c? O O cd y.. .
?lr U
o ( A
0+
O DC b
•,.., U
O
? O cl rA
N U U
y
on Cfl
0
N
-5
N
?
'n
Y? 0. 14 (1)
cd u cn 0
r, t' .-
G/1 Gy
a
c3 ?- bA W 0
W C]. p . - O
A o Cd 4 z
t.
O ?+ L1' O
v U ti O O a
O O
6,
O cl O
U
F.'
vi
aU+
V
O
ti
id
W
A
¢w°
a
0
?i
Q, N
O
c F'
E ?
o ?
0
M
e?
H
b ? rn
G
U
C
r.
to
Ell. aw
o C+? ' V] p
Q
z
o
O
o
u
?
o? oU
A Z a? a a
a?
o -"
M
?,
cd
by N
? ^'
^C Cd
j o
?' M `?
a) ?
.?. ? yU+ cd
U
bA
? a)
Q ?
o
?
a a. a) °
' C
o Cd
CD.
a) W)
Id
F" Cd V Cd (D
E co
U cUd 0 ( o w w, O
0
W
i+q cd Q .? ~ (1) 1.2 11-
4
?
d (U
Q
O
"0
000,5
?" U Q
o
v?
txt..,b
cd
Q
? cd
a? .
a) yC O . C
d cd
~
O?
cd Q. y
s. c
A w
p y? cd O.
?
•'.
C L-
'C
i p
o,? d w a ° C? w cd
O +-? bA p r 00 N
GO 'C! b O O
cd
'o 4
d ? o
w a)
;, W Q
a) a?
+ CIS
a c oA
o o
„ on ?,
d
A Q O
C4
N
O.
pt
U
-CO
Cd
Q
0
W Z O O ti Cd 0.
"o y A
. .b s.
' ? ?? b
Gn
Cc 0 r.
4)
3 t
C
F"
?? rA
a?oU'?
-b?
U?-?
d
w
c
d
w a'
w U Q o
ti -o u o -°
U o on o
CA ct:
i cn
, cn A
d
o
w
?o
8
b F
a? on
c o
E ?
E
o
a? 'b
M
.0
C9
F-4
Con
U
a
GL,
W
W W
r
U ?
a
4r ?
O ?
O
w on
U
o O
U
O 'gU Fji
cd
?a
0
o p;
0
ai ? o
Cd
0 O
? "d U
O
0
a,
r.? U
0
O
4-
?.
0 4-i O
d
O
U
0
a
0
o
Z &n
Cd o 0
?O•?cd
v cd
N C?. to
1.4 -0 tz
C,l a?
? 4
cd c? a O
v? O N •s;
w u U
? UU+
y
N 'C)
O
m
cu
U
U.
'O O
cd O
o?.4?
o
O b4 • U
o H o
Urfa °
I?
c.
a Q.
4°
O
CO
0
A N Cd
cd
??o
b ? 3
y O CUd
O
a ? o
0
a,
U
y Cd
cl,
b ?
c p
N
O
A
U
vi
0
?C
id
w
b
A
'IT
-d
a
Qw°
wl
ee
i.i
r.+
C
O
4.0
C?
C
S
V
C
0
?a
M
.Q
O
N
LC.
L
bA
C
O
a?
h
W
F?
w
C
cad I.r ? {..i
0 o O o
6. o ai ?. o
?
?Gs d69
a?
a?
d
0
o ? •
-? o
Q o
'C L.7
O ?
Q o
• c? N C'.
? U
C "C
U y ?i
N
O
N Q
C>d?
44.
C) °
r o'
? o ? bA 'C
O cc
N
N
r2
0 cd
O
Q C:L4
? .'?4 N Q
o ?, `? bq
A ai ,- s4 ai
o o
ao
?"
en
? a
o
Q, c
a
9q co
0
a?
0~
0
a?
b
•
3
0
r. ;3
U
r
v
4-i
O
C
U
ti
a?
0
b O
.L
cA
W ?
H Cd
a.
W
?
Q
Figure 15: Recommended Parking Plan
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 49 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10196
CHAPTER 6
ORDINANCE REVIEW
The current parking ordinance was reviewed to identify changes needed to implement the
changes recommended in Chapter 5 of the Auburn Downtown Parking Plan, many of the
issues discussed in Chapter 4 and to incorporate the policy direction of Washington State
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law and King County Parking Policies. CTR requires each
jurisdiction's CTR plan to "...review ...local parking ordinances as they relate to employers
and major worksites and any revisions necessary to comply with the commute trip reduction
goals and guidelines..." Both the CTR and the King County Parking Policies address parking
because of the close relationship between commute travel mode choice and parking supply
and cost. The state CTR task force found that "local parking policy is critical to the success
of the CTR law."
The CTR law was adopted as part of the Washington State Clean Air Act of 1991. The
purpose of the law was to help reduce air pollution, traffic congestion and fuel consumption.
CTR makes demands on both jurisdictions and employers. Under this law, employers with
100 or more full time employees who commute during the peak period, and are located in
counties with over 150,000 people, are mandated to implement a commute trip reduction
program. The law seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and single occupant vehicles
(SOVs) by:
• 15 percent by 1995
• 25 percent by 1997
• 35 percent by 1999
The CTR law required that each jurisdiction prepare and adopt a local CTR. ordinance. The
City of Auburn's CTR ordinance is presented in Appendix B.
King County established and endorsed Guidelines for Commuter Parking Policies to provide
a framework for local jurisdictions to use as they review and revise parking policies. The
guidelines have a strong focus on adjusting parking requirements to meet existing demand
and to adjust parking requirements to a maximum rather than a minimum. Shared parking is
also encouraged as well as allowing parking below the minimum where there are incentives to
use transit or carpool. The purpose of the guidelines are to reduce reliance on the single
occupant vehicle (SOV) in support of the CTR law. The King County guidelines are
included in Appendix C.
Recommended revisions to the Auburn parking code recommended by the Advisory
Committee are presented in Table 4. Reference to the ordinance section of the zoning code is
identified in the first column. The study findings and recommendations are presented in the
second column. Recommended ordinance changes are presented in the third column.
Changes to the ordinance were also recommended to enable more creative solutions
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 51 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
specifically tailored for downtown. Appendix A presents a comparison of existing,
recommended, and other jurisdiction's parking requirements. The actual ordinance with
recommended revisions as a result of the Committee's recommendations and with additional
changes recommended by staff is presented in Appendix D.
Table 4: Summary of Revisions to the Auburn Parking Code
Chapter/Section Study Findings / Revision
Recommendations
18.52.010
General
A.1, A.2 Encourage redevelopment in the No additional parking will be
downtown area. required for any new use within
an existing building existing;
buildings in the C-2 District. No
new parking is required for new
buildings of slightly larger size.
18.52.020
Required Off-Street Parking
A.7 Lower parking demand for
elderly multi-family is more a
function of the level of assistance
than income in this area.
B
Study findings show that parking
is over-supplied when all of the
parking requirements for
individual uses are summed
together. This is due to the
mixed use nature of downtown
where patrons will visit more than
one business with a single stop.
The reference to multiple
dwellings for elderly housing has
been changed from "low-income
elderly" to "low income elderly
operated under contract with a
public agency or subsidized...."
Parking requirements have been
lowered from one space per three
dwelling units to one space per
four dwelling units.
Parking requirements for
commercial activities are reduced
25% within the downtown.
Auburn Parking Study 52 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
Chapter/Section Study Findings / Revision
Recommendations
Many of the parking ordinance "Downtown" is referred to, and
changes are applicable to defined as map 3.3 of the
downtown only due to the unique Comprehensive Plan, throughout
environment and urban design Chapter 18.52.
goals.
B.11 Studies show that traditional Parking requirements for office
parking requirements for office space city-wide is reduced from
space citywide are excessive. four spaces per 1,000 gross floor
The parking rate reduction is area (gfa) to one space per 300
consistent with Metro's gfa city-wide. The new rate
recommendation and other reflects actual demand as
jurisdictions. disclosed by other studies.
B.14 Shopping center parking Shopping center parking space
requirements should be consistent requirements are defined in terms
with current rates for parking of gross leasable floor area (gla).
demand. Parking requirements are reduced
from one space per 200 gla to
one space per 250 gla.
18.52.030
Reductions from required parking (renamed)
A. Study findings show that parking Parking requirements for all
is over-supplied when all of the activities are reduced 25% within
parking requirements for the downtown.
individual uses are summed
together. This is due to the
mixed use nature of downtown
where patrons will visit more than
one business with a single stop.
B. Allows sharing of parking with Provides table an dmethodology
areduced parking requirement for calculating reduced parking
when two or more uses can show requirement for shared parking.
that peakk hours of demand for
parking differ.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 53 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
Chapter/Section Study Findings / Revision
Recommendations
13.6 Allow under-utilized spaces to be Joint use of parking facilities is
included in the parking supply allowed where the existing use
required for new uses. has changed, and the new use
reduces the parking
requirements.
C. Mixed occupancies and shared When mixed occupancies and
uses are allowed a 25% shared uses are allowed a 25%
reduction. The new 25% reduction in required parking.
reduction recommended for The additional 25% reduction
downtown should not be in allowed in the downtown does
addition to the 25% reduction for not apply.
mixed occupancies.
D. If a use can show that it will New provisions allow for the
produce a lower than typical submittal of a parking study
demand for parking, a process showing lower demand and
should be provided reducing the guarrantee of parking which will
parking requirements. set asisde area for future parking
should the need arise.
E. Allows for a reduction in the New provisions allow for valet
parking requirement for uses with parking for a limited number of
valet parking. uses.
18.52.040
Drive-in Business
No changes
18.52.050
Off-Street Parking Area Development and Maintenance
C. Provides an off-site performance Requires lighting to be shielded
standard if lighting is provided. and less than 1/2 foot-candles at
the property line.
F. Curbing delineates landscaped New section specifying that
areas and helps keep sidewalks curbing around parking islands or
and parking lots clean. Overhang peninsulas is required. A two-
is allowed because of increased foot overhang is allowed of the
landscaping area required. vehicle adjacent to landscaped
areas.
Auburn Parking Study
Final Report 54 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
10/96
Chapter/Section Study Findings / Revision
Recommendations
G. (was F) Ensure consistency with fire Adds provisions that driveways
code. or aisles serving as emergency
access must be 20 feet minimum
width.
1. Ensure that a real pedestrian New provisions that sidewalks or
facility is provided to serve pedestrian walkways must be
parking lots at a distance from the visibly marked with striping or
business. unique pavement:.
J. (was H) Improve quality of parking lots. More detailed listing of items
included in a design review. The
threshold for design reviews is
lowered from parking lots of 100
spaces to lots with 50 spaces.
18.52.060
Development of Required Off-'Street Parking Spaces for One-Family Dwellings
No changes
18.52.070
Off-Street Parking Lots - Location
No changes
18.52.080
Off-Street Parking - In Lieu of Fees
Moved to downtown section
18.52.090
Parking Space Dimensional Requirements
A.1 Reduce any excessive Parking spaces parallel to a
requirement space dimensions. driveway are 22 feet long as
opposed to 23 feet long.
C. Allow overhang due to the Adds language to allow the
increased landscaped area length of a parking stall to be
required. Be consistent with included a two-foot overhang
other jurisdictions. onto landscaped areas.
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
55
Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
Chapter/Section Study Findings / Revision
Recommendations
18.52.100
Existing Off-Street Parking Reduction
Reductions are allowed if
requirements of expanded section
18.52.030 are met.
18.52.110
Fractional Spaces
No Changes
18.52.120
Parking in Front or Side Yards - Prohibited, Generally
No Changes
18.52.130
Off-Street Loading Spaces
No Changes
Auburn Parking Study 56 David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
CHAPTER 7
PARKING FINANCE
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF PARKING FACILITIES
A number of funding sources could be used to fund a public parking facilities. These funding
options include pay-as-you-go approaches involving use of the City's existing capital revenue
sources, property assessment mechanisms such as formation of a Local Improvement District
(LID) or Business Improvement Association (BIA), general municipal debt financing
approaches such as general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and other, less traditional
approaches such as public-private development agreements, and the commercial parking tax.
Many of these options are already in use in Auburn to fund other types of projects and
facilities. Each of these options will be described and analyzed below.
To address downtown parking deficiencies, municipalities may undertake a range of measures
to assure additional parking capacity. These measures can be categorized as ranging from
relatively quick and low-cost solutions (restriping and/or installation of parking meters) to
mid-cost alternatives such as leasing or purchasing property to site a surface parking lot, to
higher-cost options such as construction of a structured parking facility. This discussion
paper will address funding options for both surface and structured parking facilities.
Revenues for new parking facilities (surface and structured) typically start at relatively low
levels and increase over time as people become aware of the facility and its location, and
change their habits to utilize the new facility. Therefore, in the initial period of operation,
revenues may not cover acquisition and operation costs. This initial period is usually a
minimum of one year -- and can be considerably longer, depending upon the project.
In general, structured parking facilities have difficulty generating adequate revenues to cover
acquisition, construction and operation costs -- even beyond the initial ramp-up period. To
be financially viable, structured parking garages must be located in areas with both commuter
and short-term parking demand, must have a reasonable turnover rate (i.e. a stall is used
more than once per day) and need to be in use during weekdays, evenings and weekends.
Therefore, a parking garage with only daytime office employees as the primary users may not
generate sufficient revenue to cover costs.
Given uncertainties about the level of demand for a new parking facility (and its concomitant
revenue-generating abilities) it is best to be conservative when estimating the revenue-
generating capacity of a particular parking facility, and to identify additional funding sources
in the event that they are needed to cover costs associated with debt financing, operation or
maintenance. A description of funding options follows, with a summary of these options
presented in Table 5.
Berk and Associates, Inc. 57 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
Table 5: Summary of Parking Facility Financing Options
FUNDING DESCRIPTION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
OPTIONS
Property Assessment
Local Special assessment district. Properties receiving Expensive.
Improvement Properties receiving special benefit the special benefit Can be time consuming
District (LID) from certain improvements pay a pay for the and administratively
special assessment. improvement. No complex; can be
Primarily used to fund fixed capital general fund controversial.
improvements. impact. Can be difficult to
identify properties
receiving the benefit.
Business Association provides services to Initiated by the City could incur some
Improvement Area specified business district. The business sector - a administrative costs.
(BIA) businesses within the district pay largely private
for the services through operating sector undertaking.
assessments. Primarily used to
fund operating expenses.
Debt Financing
General Obligation Debt backed by the full faith and Lowest cost debt May require vote of the
Bonds credit of the City. financing. people.
Revenue Bonds Debt backed primarily by parking Does not impact City would be required
revenue stream. general fund. to absorb any revenue
Allows users to shortfalls.
repay debt.
Other Options
Public-Private Collaborative effort between City Can reduce project City bears risks: risk of
Partnership and a private entity to construct construction costs. developer default; risk
and finance a parking facility. of inadequate revenues;
risk of
inadequate/improper
operation and
maintenance practices.
Commercial Tax on commercial parking with Allows users to pay Cannot be applied to
Parking Tax proceeds used for general for new parking publicly owned parking
transportation purposes. facilities. facilities. Could make
the commercial district
less competitive.
Fees in lieu of Business pays a set fee for each Each business pays Could create temporary
Parking required parking space instead of their fair share of parking shortage.
providing the space. expenses.
Auburn Parking Study 58 Berk and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
FUNDING MECHANISMS
Local Improvement District (LID) Formation
This mechanism has been in use in Washington State for road and utility system development
since the last century, and is used. by many municipalities to fund fixed capital improvements
that add value to surrounding properties. LIDS are a form of benefit assessment district that
allows an infrastructure improvement to be paid for by the properties which specially benefit -
- with "special benefit" defined as an increase in the fair market value accruing to the property
as a result of the improvement, (as distinct from "general benefits" which accrue more
broadly to all properties in an area).
The LID process is spelled out in statute, and requires careful adherence to a multi-step
implementation process. This process specifies notification of property owners prior to LID
formation and prior to determining final assessments, requires the jurisdiction to hold two
public hearings, and to advertise in the local journal of record. Special benefit may be
determined by various means, including formula-driven approaches and appraisal techniques.
LID-funded projects require the sale of LID bonds, which are secured by liens against the
properties in the district.
LIDs in general can be controversial and time-consuming for local governments. The use of
LID financing for a parking facility could be especially challenging, since it requires
identifying the special benefit associated with the facility to specific properties, and
quantifying that benefit may be subject to a variety of perspectives. LIDs also carry
significant administrative costs associated with formation, process implementation, legal and
accounting requirements. These costs are generally "capitalized" -- included in the total cost
of the project to be financed.
LIDs have been used in the City of Auburn to fund sidewalk improvements and for
downtown parking facilities. The assessment revenues from the LID for downtown parking
facilities are being used to finance the purchase of a vacant lot. This LID will expire in the
next few years.
Business Improvement Associations
A Business Improvement Area (BIA) is an association of businesses located within a defined
area that have agreed to pay a special assessment, for purposes of funding certain activities
within the area. The steps involved in formation of a BIA are delineated in state statute.
Assessments are typically collected annually, and the revenue from the assessments can be
used for a variety of purposes including the acquisition, construction and maintenance of
parking facilities.
To create a BIA, a petition must be circulated and signed by 60% of the businesses within a
designated area, and must be submitted to the City. After following a set of statutory
Berk and Associates, Inc. 59 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
procedures, the City can create a BIA by passing an ordinance. Once established, all
businesses located within the district are subject to the special assessment. The rate of the
special assessment can be changed or additional assessments may be levied by following
certain procedures. Also, different assessments may be applied for different purposes.
BIAs differ from LIDs in that BIAS are a "pay as you go" financing mechanism which is
typically used to fund operating expenses such as security and business revitalization efforts.
Furthermore, there no liens on the property securing the BIA assessments. In contrast, LIDs
are a debt financing mechanism which is primarily used to fund fixed capital improvements
through the issuance of LID bonds.
However, under a BIA a group of downtown businesses could decide to lease a vacant
property for surface parking and use the assessment revenues to finance the cost of lease
payments, start up, and operation and maintenance. If a parking fee is charged, these
revenues could be used to offset the rate of the assessment. The City could incur some costs
associated with administering the BIA. The City of Auburn currently has one BIA that is
administered by the Auburn Downtown Association. If the ordinance creating the BIA
specifically states that revenues can be used for parking, then the existing BIA could
potentially be used to implement a plan similar to the one described above. If this is not the
case, then the City could either amend the existing BIA's ordinance or establish a new BIA
specifically for parking purposes.
General Obligation Bonds
General obligation (G.O.) bonds are public debt instruments which are repaid out of the
property taxes and other revenues of the jurisdiction which issues the bonds. A limited
amount of G.O. bonds may be issued by the City Council ("Councilmanic" bonds) without a
vote of the people. (However, these bonds then have to be repaid through existing City
revenues.) Beyond this limit, and in order to gain new revenues with which to repay the
bonds, a vote of the people is required. In either case, the promise to repay is unconditional -
- the municipality pledges its "full faith and credit" towards debt repayment -- and the
bondholder looks to the borrowing government to take whatever actions are necessary to
assure repayment.
G.O. bonds typically provide the lowest cost form of long-term fixed rate financing due to
their low risk as full faith and credit obligations of the City. However, while they provide a
one-time infusion of funds for a major capital improvement, they do not provide funding for
on-going operation and maintenance expenses.
Most cities use this mechanism to help finance different projects. The City of Auburn has
used G.O. bonds to fund road and park improvements and Councilmanic bonds to finance the
new annex building behind City Hall.
Auburn Parking Study 60 Berk and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds are also long-term debt obligations, but unlike G.O. bonds they are not
backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing jurisdiction. Instead, they constitute a lien
against a future revenue stream generated by a facility. That is, fees and charges paid by the
customers of the facility are used to repay the bonds. Revenue bonds provide a somewhat
reduced level of security to bondholders and thus carry a slightly higher interest rate than
G.O. bonds.
In the case of a parking facility, revenue bonds would be secured by parking fees paid by the
facility users. However, as discussed above, because the revenue generating capacity of a
parking facility can be uncertain, the bond repayment plan needs to reflect the fact that
revenues generated by the facility may start at a low level. This could result in other City
revenues being used to help repay the bonds until the facility generates sufficient revenues.
Public-Private Partnership Agreements
A public-private development agreement is one approach a few jurisdictions are using to
finance and construct parking facilities. One scenario under this approach is for the city to
enter into an agreement with a developer to build the parking facility, then lease it back to the
City. The City would sell debt, probably revenue bonds, to finance the facility's construction.
The developer or private entity would operate the garage, providing for operation and
maintenance activities. The advantages of this approach are that the facility may be built
faster and less expensively than if it the construction project were publicly managed, and the
long-term financing costs are likely to be lower with the sale of municipal debt rather than
commercial loan financing.
However, it should be noted that this approach does not obviate the need for a strong and
viable market demand for parking. Since the City will be selling the debt (and is the de facto
owner of the facility), it is liable for the outstanding debt. If parking revenues do not
generate sufficient revenue to cover these costs, then other City revenues will be required to
make up the difference.
Commercial Parking Tax
In 1990 the Legislature granted cities and counties new authority to levy a tax on commercial
parking. The proceeds from this tax may be used for general transportation purposes,
including construction of new parking facilities. The tax may take the form of a tax on a
commercial parking business based on gross proceeds (like a B&O tax) or based on number
of stalls, or it may be imposed on the customer in the form of either a flat fee per vehicle or a
percent of the parking charge.
In 1991, a major state-sponsored study of the commercial parking tax was undertaken by the
University of Washington's Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC). As part of the
study, TRAC consulted with a range of legal experts and concluded that the consensus of
legal opinion is that taxing publicly owned parking (e.g. City of Auburn facilities) would not
Berk and Associates, Inc. 61 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
be legal. Therefore, only commercially-operated facilities can be considered for this taxing
approach. Furthermore, the study identified a number of implementation issues which have
prevented extensive use of this tax.
The tax is most effective in an area where there is a large and consistent need for commercial
parking, with limited alternatives available. It is ineffective in that most downtown merchants
feel that they are already competing at a disadvantage with shopping districts and malls that
offer free parking, and are therefore reluctant to discourage potential customers from coming
downtown by increasing parking fees. To date, only one jurisdiction - the City of SeaTac -
has imposed this tax. A variety of other jurisdictions, including the cities of Seattle and
Tacoma have assessed this mechanism and concluded that it was not feasible.
Fees in Lieu of Parking
Fees in lieu of parking are used in some cities as part of their parking ordinances. Under this
option, new businesses can either provide the required number of parking spaces as specified
in the parking ordinance or pay a set fee for each space they do not provide. The revenues
from these fees are placed into a special account and later used for a parking facility.
In general, one potential problem with this financing mechanism is the lag time between
paying the fee and the creation of additional parking. It may take some time to generate
sufficient revenues for a new parking facility and during this "waiting period" parking in the
area would be limited which could impact business activity.
The City of Auburn's parking ordinance used to include an up front payment in lieu of
parking. Now the City ordinance allows commercial businesses in the central business
district to sign an agreement in lieu of providing the required parking. The agreements will
later be used to establish a LID to finance a downtown parking facility. Therefore, the
commercial businesses are still making a payment in lieu of providing parking but the
payment is deferred until enough agreements have been signed.
The City of Edmonds parking ordinance also allows a payment in lieu of parking. Currently,
the City charges $32 to review a request for the in lieu fee and if approved, new construction
is required to pay $4,300 per space and business conversions are required to pay $2,100 per
space. This fee is only applicable to the downtown area and once significant revenues have
been collected, a parking structure will be built in downtown.
The City of Kirkland provides another example of the application of the fee in lieu of parking
mechanism. In Kirkland, the ordinance has been in place since the early 1980's. The fee is
currently $6,000 and the option is only available in certain zones in the Central Business
District. The City has found that retail developments tend not to use this option because they
want to have parking adjacent to the businesses.
Auburn Parking Study 62 Berk and Associates, Inc.
Final Report
10/96
The in lieu fees that have been collected by the City of Kirkland were recently used to help
finance the construction of the new Peter Kirk Municipal Garage. Development of this 240-
stall parking garage was a joint effort between the City and the King County Library. The
entire project cost approximately $5.5 million and the revenues from the fees in lieu of
parking fund contributed approximately $170,000.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
It is well established that the ability of the City to pay for the cost of directly increasing the
parking supply through the construction of new lots or a garage is limited. With the City's
financing abilities limited, financing mechanisms that include private contributions must be
considered. A survey was conducted as a part of this parking study, to asses the willingness
of downtown businesses to pay for parking. The survey was conducted by telephone of 19
businesses and property owners. Participants were distributed throughout the downtown
area with a majority located along Main Street.
Due to the small sample size and distribution, the results of this survey do not represent the
opinions of all downtown merchants, but instead provide a sense of how some merchants
would feel about paying for parking. In addition, the participants were asked about the
concept of paying for parking, but not about paying for a specific parking project.
Based on this survey, just under half of the business and property owners are willing to pay
for customer or employee parking. In general, the amount participants are willing to pay for
customer or employee parking ranges from between $5 and $30 per space per month.
Furthermore, almost all of the participants who are willing to pay for customer or employee
parking are only willing to pay if the parking is located within one or two blocks of their
business or property. Satisfying this requirement would be difficult and therefore, it can be
expected that fewer business and property owners would be willing to pay for parking.
The survey also showed that the participants are not willing to pay more for a structured
parking garage or for the beautification of a parking facility. However, the majority of
participants who -are willing to pay for customer parking are willing to pay a little more for
safety improvements.
Berk and Associates, Inc. 63 Auburn Parking Study
Final Report
10/96
APPENDIX A
COMPARISON OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Table A-1: Existing and Proposed Parking Requirement Comparison
Residential
Single Family 1 Per 2 br,
2 er 3+ 1 Per 2 br,
2 per 3+ (same) 2 Per
Dwelling 2 Per Dwelling 2 Per Dwelling
Duplex 1.5 per 2 br,
2 per 3+ br unit 1.5 per 2 br, 2
per 3+ per unit (same) 2 Per Unit 2 Per Unit 2 Per Unit
Multi-family 1.5 per 2 br,
2 per 3+ br unit 1.5 per 2 br, 2
per 3+ br unit (same) 1.7 per unit 2 Per Unit 1.5 per Unit
Guest Parkin None None (same) None None 1 per 5 units
Assisted Sr. Housing 1 per 3 units 1 per 4 units (same) case by case 1 Der 4 Units 1 Der 4 Units
Commercial
Banks 4 per 1,000` 4 per 1,000 3 per 1,000 3.3 per 1,000 5 per 1,000b 4-5 per 1,000°
Office Buildings 4 per 1,000 1 per 300 1 per 300 3.3 per 1,000 4 per 1,000 34.5 per 1,000
Shopping Centers 5 per 1,000 3.3 per 1,000 N/A 3.3 per 1,000 4.5-5 per
1,000 4-5 per 1,000
Restaurants / Bars 10 per 1,000 10 er 1,000 7.5 per 1,000 10 per 1,000 10 per 1,000 10 er 1,000
Other Retail 2 per 1,000 2 per 1,000 1.5 per 1,000 3.3 per 1,000 5 per 1,000 4-5 per 1,000
Service (Personal) 1 per 400 1 per 400 1 per 530 2 per 1,000 2 per 1,000 2 per 1,000
Drive in 10 per 1,000 10 per 1,000 7.5 per 1,000 12 per 1,000 10 per 1,000 2 per 1,000
Auto Repair 1 per 400 1 per 400 1 per 530 case b case 1 per 400 1 per 400
Manufacturing 1 per 1,000 1 er 1,000 1 per 1,330 case b case 1 per 1,000 1-1.5 per 1,000
Medical Office 5 per 1,000 5 per 1,000 5 per 1,000 5 per 1,000 5 per 1,000 5 per 1,000
Hospitals 2 per bed 2 per bed 1 per 3 beds 1 per 3 beds 1 per 3 beds, 1
per doctor, and
1 per 3 staff 1 per 3 beds, 1
per doctor, and
1 per 3 staff
Auditoriums 1 per 3 seats 1 er 3 seats 1 per 4 seats case b case 1 per 4 seats 1 per 4 seats
Bowling Alleys 5 per lane 5 per lane 4 per lane case b case 5 per lane 5 per lane
Churches 1 per 5 seats 1 per 5 seats 1.5 per 10 1 per 5 seats 1 per 5 seats 1 per 5 seats
seats
Note: Current ordinances adopted prior to adoption of King County Guidelines for Commuter Parking Policies,
approved 11/9/93.
a) Federal Way, as a new city, prepared ordinance based on City of Kirkland.
b) Recommendations from Downtown Kent Parking Study, March 2, 1994: All office and employment (except retail)
maximum 3.0 per 1,000 6/95 reducing to 1.5 per 1,000 after July, 1999.
c) Renton defines minimums and maximums.
d) Proposed requirement for downtown reflects a 25 percent reduction from existing, when reduced.
e) Gross floor area (fa)
APPENDIX B
CITY OF AUBURN
COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION ORDINANCE
MAR-16-1995 15:31 CITY OF RUBURN 20bySlJOt>J P.02/12
Title 10
VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
Chapters:
10.02 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan
10.04 Model Traffic Ordinance Adopted by Reference
10.05 Specified Sections of the 1994 Omnibus Drunk
Driving Act and RCW 46.20.730 Adopted by Reference
10.08 Traffic Violations Bureau
10.12 Traffic Regulations
10.14 Repealed
10.16 Driving When License Suspended or Revoked
10.20 Arterials
10.24 One-way Streets and Alleys
10.28 Street Use Restrictions
10.32 School Patrol
10.36 Stopping, Standing and Parking
10.40 Municipal Off-street Parking
10.44 Abandoned Vehicles on Private Property
10.48 Abandoned Vehicles on Public Property
10.52 Compression Brakes
10.56 Bicycles
10.58 Skateboard, Roller Skates and Coasters
10.60 Motorcycles
10.64 Parades
Chapter 10.02
COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION
(CTR) PLAN
Sections:
10.02.010 Definitions.
10.02.020 Commute trip reduction goals.
10.02.030 Designation of CTR zone and base year values.
10.02.040 City of Auburn CTR plan.
10.02.050 Responsible agency.
10.02.060 Applicability.
10.02.070 Requirements for employers.
10.02.080 Recordkeeping.
10.02.090 Schedule and process for CTR reports, program
review and implementation.
10.02.100 Requests for waivers/modification of CTR
requirements.
10.02.110 Credit for transportation demand management
efforts.
10.02.120 Appeals.
10.02.130 Enforcement.
10902.010 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter:
A. „Affected employee" means a full-time employee who is
(Revised 1/95)
?IFiK-lb-17?b 151.51 CHY U1 RUHUHN 206y313053 P.03/12
scheduled to begin his or her regular work day at a single
worksite between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., inclusive, on two or
more weekdays per week for at least 12 continuous months.
Shareholders, principles and associates in a corporation, general
or limited partners in a partnership and participants in a joint
venture are to be considered employees.
B. "Affected employer" means a public or private employer
that, for 12 continuous months, employs 100 or more full-time
employees at a single worksite who are scheduled to begin their
regular work day between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., inclusive, on
two or more weekdays. The individual employees may vary during
the year. Construction worksites, when the expected duration of
the construction is less than two years, are excluded from this
definition.
C. "Alternative mode" means any type of commute
transportation other than that in which the single-occupant motor
vehicle is the dominant mode, including telecommuting and
compressed work weeks, if they result in reducing commute trips.
D. "Alternative work schedules" means programs such as
compressed work weeks that eliminate work trips for affected
employees.
E. "Base year" means the period from January 1, 1992,
through December 31, 1992, on which goals for vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) per employee and proportion of single-occupant
vehicle (SOV) trips shall be based.
F. "City" means the city of Auburn.
G. "Commute trips" mean trips made from a worker's home to a
worksite with a regularly scheduled arrival time of 6:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m., inclusive, on weekdays.
H. "CTR plan" means the city's plan to regulate and
administer the CTR programs of affected employers within its
jurisdiction.
I. "CTR program" means an employer's strategies to reduce
affected employees' SOV use and VMT per employee.
J. "CTR zone" means an area, such as a census tract or
combination of census tracts •within the city characterized by
similar employment density, population density, level of transit
service, parking availability, access to high occupancy vehicle
facilities, and other factors that are determined to affect the
level of SOV commuting.
R. "Compressed work week" means an alternative work schedule
in accordance with employer policy that regularly allows a
full-time employee to eliminate at least one work day every two
weeks by working longer hours during the remaining days,
resulting in fewer commute trips by the employee. This definition
is primarily intended to include weekly and biweekly
arrangements, the most typical being four 10-hour days or 80
hours in nine days, but may also include other arrangements.
Compressed work weeks are understood to be an ongoing
arrangement.
L. "Dominant mode" means the mode of travel used for the
greatest distance of a commute trip.
M. "Employee" means anyone who receives financial or other
(Revised 1/9s)
MAR-16-1995 15:32 CITY OF AUBURN 2069313053 P.04i12
remuneration in exchange for work provided to an employer,
including owners or partners of the employer.
N. "Employer" means a sole proprietorship, partnership,
corporation, unincorporated association, cooperative, joint
venture, agency, department, district or other individual or
entity, whether public, nonprofit, or private, that employs
workers.
0. "Flex-time" is an employer policy allowing individual
employees some flexibility in choosing the time, but not the
number, of their working hours to facilitate the use of
alternative modes.
P. "Full-time employee" means a person other than an
independent contractor scheduled to be employed on a continuous
basis for 52 weeks per year for an average of at least 35 hours
per week.
Q. "Implementation" means active pursuit by an employer of
the CTR goals stated in RCW 70.94.521 through 70.94.551 and in
this chapter as evidenced by appointment of a transportation
coordinator, distribution of information to employees regarding
alternatives to SOV commuting, and commencement of other measures
according to their CTR program and schedule.
R. "Mode" means the type of transportation used by
employees, such as single-occupant motor vehicle, rideshare
vehicle (carpool/vanpool), transit, ferry, bicycle, and walking.
S. "Peak period" means the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m., inclusive, Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
T. "Peak period trip" means any employee trip that delivers
the employee to begin his or her regular workday between 6:00
a.m. and 9:00 a.m., inclusive, Monday through Friday, except
legal holidays.
U. "Proportion of single-occupant vehicle trips" or "SOV
rate" means the number of commute trips over a set period made by
affected employees in SOVs divided by the number of affected
employees working during that period.
V. "Single-occupant vehicle (SOV)" means a motor vehicle
occupied by one employee for commute purposes, including a
motorcycle.
W. "Single-occupant vehicle (SOV) trips" means trips made by
affected employees in SOVs.
X. "Single worksite" means a building or group of buildings
on physically contiguous parcels of land or on parcels separated
solely by private or public roadways or rights-of-way occupied by
one or more affected employers.
Y. "Telecommuting" means the use of telephones, computers,
or other similar technology to permit an employee to work from
home,-eliminating a commute trip, or to work from a work place
closer to home, reducing the distance traveled in a commute trip
by at least half.
Z. "Transportation management association (TMA)" means a
group of employers or an association representing a group of
employers in a defined geographic area. A TMA may represent
employers within specific city limits, or may have a sphere of
influence that extends beyond city limits.
(Revised 1/95)
MW-16-1995 15:32 CITY OF AUBURN
AA. "vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee"
the individual vehicle commute trip lengths in
affected employees over a set period divided by
affected employees during that period.
2066 JW53 P.05/12
means the sum of
miles made by
the number of
BB. "Waiver" means an exemption from CTR program requirements
granted to an employer by the city based on unique conditions
that apply to the employer or employment site.
CC. "Week" means a seven day calendar period, starting on Monday
and continuing through Sunday.
DD. "Weekday" means any day of the week except Saturday or
Sunday. (Ord. 4602 2, 1993.)
10.02.020 Commute trip reduction goals.
The commute trip reduction goals for employers affected by this
chapter are to achieve the following reductions in vehicle miles
traveled per employee as well as in the proportion of
single-occupant vehicles from the 1992 base year value of
Auburn's CTR zone:
A. 15 percent by January 1, 1995;
B. 25 percent by January 1, 1997;
C. 35 percent by January 1, 1999. (Ord. 4602 2, 1993.)
10.02.030 Designation of CTR zone and base year values.
Employers in the city are included within the South Ring County
CTR zone which is designated by the boundaries shown on the map
in Attachment "B" to this chapter and incorporated herein.
The base year value of this zone for proportion of SOV trips
shall be 85 percent. The base year value for vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) per employee shall be set at 9.3 miles. Commute
trip reduction goals for major employers shall be calculated from
these values. Therefore, affected employers in the city shall
establish programs designed to result in SOV rates of not more
than 72 percent in 1995, 64 percent in 1997, and 55 percent in
1999 and VMT per employee of not more than 7.9 miles in 1995, 7.0
miles in 1997, and 6.0 miles in 1999. (Ord. 4602 -2, 1993.)
10.02.040 city of Auburn CTR plan.
The 1992 city of Auburn CTR plan is set forth in Attachment "A"
to this chapter and incorporated herein. The city's CTR -plan
shall be reviewed annually by the city council and revised if
necessary to be consistent with applicable plans developed under
RCW 36.70A.070. (Ord. 4602 2, 1993.)
100020050 Responsible agency.
The city public works department shall be responsible for
implementing this chapter, the CTR plan, and the city's CTR
program for its own employees. (Ord. 4602 2, 1993.)
10.02.060 Applicability.
The provisions -of this chapter shall apply to any affected
employer at any single worksite within the corporate limits of
the city. Employees will only be counted at their primary
worksite. The following classifications of employees are excluded
(Revised 1/95)
MAR-16-1995 15:32 CITY OF HUBUKN ?bby.51.505 3 P.06/12
from the counts of employees: (1) seasonal agricultural
employees, including seasonal employees of processors of
agricultural products and (2) employees of construction worksites
when the expected duration of the construction is less than two
years.
A. Notification of Applicability.
1. Known affected employers located within the city
shall be notified in writing by certified mail that they are
subject to the provisions of this chapter:
2. Affected employers that, for whatever reason, do not
receive written notice, must identify themselves to the city upon
determining they are defined as "affected employers". Once they
identify themselves, such employers will be granted 150 days
within which to develop and submit a CTR program.
3. Any existing employer of 75 or more persons who
obtains a business license or business registration from the city
will be required to complete an employer assessment form to
determine whether or not an employer will be deemed affected or
non-affected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
8. New Affected Employers. Employers that meet the
definition of "affected employer" in this chapter must identify
themselves to the city within 180 days of either moving into the
boundaries of the city or increasing employment at a worksite to
100 or more affected employees. Once they identify themselves,
such employers shall be granted 150 days to develop and submit a
CTR program. New affected employers shall have two years to meet
the first CTR goal of a 15 percent reduction from the base year
values identified in ACC 10.02.030; four years to meet the second
CTR goal of a 25 percent reduction; and six years to meet the
third CTR goal of a 35 percent reduction from the time they begin
their CTR program.
C. Change in Status as an Affected Employer. Any of the
following changes in an employerfs status will change the
employerfs CTR program requirements:
1. If an affected employer can document that it faces
an extraordinary circumstance that will change its status as an
affected employer, it can apply for a waiver pursuant to ACC
10.02.100(A).
2. If an employer initially designated as an affected
employer no longer employs 100 or more affected employees and has
not employed 100 or more affected employees for the past 12
months, that employer is no longer an affected employer. It is
the responsibility of the employer to provide documentation to
the city that it is no longer an affected employer.
3. If the same employer returns to the level of 100 or
more affected employees 12 or more months after its change in
status to an "unaffected" employer, that employer shall be
treated as a new affected employer and will be subject to the
same program requirements as other new affected employers. (ord.
4602 2, 1993.)-
10.02.070 Requirements for employers.
An affected employer is required to develop and implement a CTR
(Revised 1/95)
MAR-16-1995 15!33 CITY OF AUBURN 2069313053 P.07/12
program that will encourage its employees to reduce VMT per
employee and SOV commute trips. The CTR program must include the
mandatory elements described herein, including submittal of a cTR
program description and annual progress report. Transportation
management associations may submit CTR program descriptions and
annual reports on behalf of employers; however, each employer
shall remain accountable for the success of its own program.
A. Description of Employer's CTR Program. Each affected
employer is required to submit a description of its CTR program
to the city on the official form available from the public works
department. At a minimum, the employer's description must
include:
1. General description of each employment site location
within the city limits, including transportation characteristics,
surrounding services, and unique conditions experienced by the
employer or its employees;
2. Number of employees affected by the CTR program;
3. Documentation of compliance with the mandatory CTR
program elements as described in subsection B.of this section;
4. Description of the additional elements included in
the CTR program; and
5. Schedule of implementation, assignment of
responsibilities, and commitment to provide appropriate resources
to carry out the CTR program.
B. Mandatory Program Elements. Each employer's CTR program
shall include the following mandatory elements:
1. Transportation Coordinator. The employer shall
designate a transportation coordinator to administer the CTR
program. The coordinator's and/or designee's name, location, and
telephone number must be displayed prominently at each affected
worksite. The coordinator shall oversee all elements of the
employer's CTR program and act as liaison between the employer
and the city. An affected employer with multiple sites may have
one transportation coordinator for all sites.
2. Information Distribution. Information about
alternatives to SOV commuting shall be provided to employees at
least once a year. This shall consist of, at.a minimum, a summary
of the employer's CTR program, including ETC name and phone
number. Employers must also provide a summary of their CTR
program to all new employees at the time of hire. Each employer's
CTR program description and annual report must describe what
information is to be distributed by the employer and the method
of distribution.
3. Annual Progress Report. The CTR program must include
an annual review of employee commuting and of progress toward
meeting the SOV reduction goals. Affected employers shall file a
progress report annually with the city. The employer should
contact the city's public works department for the format of the
report. Survey information or alternative information approved by
the public works director shall be required in the 1995, 1997 and
1999 reports.
4. Additional Program Elements. In'addition to the
specific CTR program elements described above, the employer's CTR
(Revised 1/95)
MAR-16-1995 15:33 CITY OF AUBURN 2069313053 P.08i12
program shall include a set of measures designed to meet CTR
goals. (Ord. 4602 20 1993.)
10.02.080 Recordkeeping.
Affected employers shall maintain all records as required by the
public works director. (Ord. 4602 2, 1993.)
30.02.090 schedule and process for CTR reports, program review
and implementation.
A. CTR Program. The employer shall develop a CTR program and
shall submit to the city a description of such CTR program for
review not more than six months after the effective date of this
chapter or within six months after an employer becomes subject to
the provisions of this chapter.
B. CTR Annual Reporting Date. Employers will be required to
submit an annual CTR report to the city beginning with the first
annual reporting date assigned during the initial CTR program
submittal. The annual reporting date shall be no less than 12
months from the day the initial CTR program description is
submitted. Subsequent years' reports will be due on the same date
each year.
C. Content of Annual Report. The annual progress report
shall describe each of the CTR measures that were in effect for
the previous year, the results of any commuter surveys undertaken
during the year, and the number of employees participating in CTR
programs. Survey information or alternative information approved
by the public works director must be provided in the 1995, 1997,
and 1999 reports.
D. Program Review. The city shall provide the employer with
written notification indicating whether a CTR program, was
approved or deemed unacceptable.
1. Initial CTR program descriptions will be deemed
acceptable if all required information on the program description
form is provided.
2. Annual reports will be deemed acceptable if the
annual report form is complete and contains information about
implementation of the prior year's CTR program elements and
proposed new program elements and implementation schedule. Annual
reports must also contain a review of employee commuting and
report of progress toward meeting SOV goals.
3. Beginning in 1995, the CTR programs described in the
annual reports will be deemed acceptable if either the SOV trip
or the VMT per employee goals have been net. If neither goal has
been met, the employer must propose modifications designed to
make progress toward the applicable goal in the. coming year. If
the revised program is not approved, the city shall propose
modifications to the program and direct the employer to revise
its program within 30 days to incorporate those modifications or
modifications which the jurisdiction determines to be equivalent.
E. Implementation of Employer's CTR Program. The employer
shall implement the approved CTR program not more than 180 days
after the CTR program was first submitted to the city unless
extensions allow for late implementation. Implementation of CTR
(Revised 1/95)
MAR-16-1995 15:34 CITY OF AUBURN 2069313053 P.09/12
programs that have been modified based on non-attainment of CTR
goals must occur within 30 days following city approval of such
modifications. (Ord. 4602 2, 1993.)
10.029100 Requests for waivers/modification of CTR requirements.
A. Waivers. An affected employer may request the city to
grant a waiver from CTR program requirements for a particular
worksite. A waiver may be granted if and only if the affected
employer demonstrates that it faces an extraordinary circumstance
as a result of the characteristics of its business, its work
force, or its location(s) and is unable to implement measures
that could reduce the proportion of SOV trips and VMT per
employee. Requests for waivers applying to the initial CTR
program submittal are due within three months after the employer
has been notified that it is subject to chapter and thereafter
requests can be made at any time. Requests must be made in
writing by certified mail or delivery, return receipt., The city
shall review annually all employers receiving waivers and shall
determine whether the waiver will continue to be in effect during
the following CTR program year.
B. Goal Modification. Any affected employer may request a
modification of CTR program goals. Grounds for granting
modification are limited to the following:
1. An affected employer can demonstrate it requires:
a. Significant numbers of its employees to use the
vehicles they drive to work during the work day for work
purposes, that no reasonable alternative commute mode exists for
these employees, and that the vehicles cannot reasonably be used
for carpools or vanpools; and/or
b. Some employees to work variable shifts during
the year, so that these employees sometimes begin their shifts
within the 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. time period and other times
begin their shifts outside that time period; provided that, if
there are a significant number of employees who work an identical
shift rotation, such employees shall be part of the employerfs
CTR program measurement, as they form enough of a consistent pool
to maintain ridesharing arrangements.
If the employer provides documentation indicating how many
employees meet either of these conditions, the applicable goals
will not be changed, but the employees who fall into these
categories will not be included in the calculations of proportion
of SOV trips and VMT per employee used to determine the
employerfs progress toward CTR program goals.
2. An affected employer demonstrates that its worksite
is contiguous with a CTR zone boundary and that the worksite
conditions affecting alternative commute options are similar to
those for employers in the adjoining.CTR zone. Under this
condition, the employer's worksite may be made subject to the
same goals for VMT per employee and proportion of SOD 'trips as
employers in the adjoining CTR zone.
3. Employers may only request a modification based on
conditions 1 and 2 above within three months after being notified
that they are subject to this chapter.
(Revised 1/95)
MAR-16-1995 15:34 CITY OF AUBURN 20,69313053 P.10/12
4. Unanticipated conditions, such as unavailability of
alternative commute modes due to factors related to the worksite,
an employer's work force, or characteristics of the business that
are beyond the employer's control. A request for goal
modification based on this condition must be made by the
employer's assigned reporting dates in 1995 and 1997.
5. Relocation of a worksite to another CTR ;cone.
Requests for goal modification based on this condition may be
made at any time. All requests for modification of CTR program
goals must be made in writing by certified mail or delivery,
return receipt.
C. Modification of CTR Program Elements. If an employer
wants to change a particular aspect of its CTR program during the
period of time between annual reporting dates, the employer must
contact the city.
D. Extensions. An employer may request additional time to
submit a CTR program or CTR annual progress report, or to
implement or modify a program for reasonable causes.
1. Such requests shall be made in writing to the city's
public works director before the due date for which the extension
is being requested. In addition, all requests for extensions must
be made prior to the due date anytime a program submission is
going to be more than one week late.
2. Extensions shall not exceed 90 days. Employers shall
be limited to a total of 90 allowed extension days per year.
3. Extensions shall not exempt an employer from any
responsibility in meeting CTR program goals. Extensions granted
due to delays or difficulties with any program element(s) shall
not be cause for discontinuing or failing to implement other CTR
program elements.
4. An employer's annual reporting date shall not be
adjusted permanently as a result of these extensions. An
employer's annual reporting date may be extended at the
discretion of the public works director. (Ord. 4602 2„ 1993.)
10.02.110 Credit for transportation demand management offorts.
A. Credit for Programs Implemented Prior to the Base Year.
Employers with successful TDM programs implemented prior to the
1992 base year may apply to-the city for program credit:.
1. Employers whose VMT per employee and proportion of
SOV trips are already equal to or less than the goals far one or
more future goal years, and who commit in writing to continue
their current level of effort, shall be exempt from the following
year's annual report.
2. Employers applying for the program credit in their
initial 1993 program description shall be considered to have met
the 1995 CTR goals if their VMT per employee and proportion of
SOV trips are equivalent to a 12 percent or greater reduction
from the base year zone values. This three percentage point
credit applies only to the 1995 CTR goals.
3. For the initial year, employer requests for program
credit are due within three months after notification that the
employer is subject to this chapter. Requests for program credit
(Revised 1/95)
MHR-16-1yy5 15134 MY Ur HUbU10 .2Wb9.51.5Ubz P.11112
must be received by the employer's assigned reportincr dates in
1995 and 1997 for succeeding years.
4. Application for a program credit shall include an
initial program description, written commitment on an official
report form to maintain program elements, and results; from a
survey of employees, or equivalent information that establishes
the applicant's VMT per employee and proportion of SOV trips.
B. Credit for Alternative Work Schedules, Telecommuting,
Bicycling and Walking, by Affected Employees.
1. The city will count commute trips eliminated through
alternative work schedules, telecommuting options, bicycling and
walking as 1.2 vehicle trips eliminated. This assumption applies
to both the proportion of SOV trips and VMT per employee.
2. This type of credit is applied when calculating the
SOV and VMT rates of affected employers. (Ord. 4602 2, 1993.)
10.02.120 Appeals.
A. Employers may file a written appeal of final
administrative decisions regarding the following actions:
1. Rejection of an employer's proposed CTR program.
2. Denial of an employer's request for a waiver or
modification of any of the requirements under this chapter or a
modification of the employer's CTR program.
3. Denial of credits requested under ACC 10.02.110.
B. All appeals must be filed with the city's public works
department within 20 days after the final administrative decision
is issued. Appeals shall be heard by the city's hearing examiner
pursuant to Chapter 18.66 ACC. Determinations on appeals shall be
based on whether the decision being appealed was consistent with
applicable state law and the Guidelines of the State Task Force.
The hearing examiner's determination shall be final unless
appealed to the city council pursuant to Auburn City (:ode
18.66.160. (Ord. 4602 2, 1993.)
10.02.130 Enforcement.
A. Compliance. For purposes of this chapter, "compliance"
shall mean submitting required reports and documentation at
prescribed times and fully implementing all provisions, in an
accepted CTR program.
B. Violations. Any violation of this chapter shall be
enforced pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1.25 ACC. The
following actions shall constitute a violation of this chapter:
1. Failure'to implement an approved CTR program, unless
the program elements that are carried out can be shown through
quantifiable evidence to meet or exceed VMT and SOV goals as
specified in this chapter. Failure to implement a CTR ;program
includes but is not limited to:
a. Failure of any affected employer to submit a
complete CTR program within the deadlines specified in ACC
10.02.090;
b. Failure to submit required documentation for
annual reports;
c. Submission of fraudulent data.
(Revised 1/95)
MAR-16-1995 15:35 CITY OF AUBURN 2069313053 P.12112
2. Failure to modify a CTR program found to be
unacceptable by the city under ACC 10.02.090(D).
C. Penalties. Each day of failure by an employer to (a)
implement a CTR program, or (b) modify an unacceptable CTR
program shall constitute a separate violation.
D. Exemption from Civil Liability. An employer shall not be
liable for civil penalties if failure to implement an element of
a CTR program was the result of an inability to reach agreement
with a certified collective bargaining agent under applicable
laws where the issue was raised by the employer and pursued in
good faith. Unionized-employers shall be presumed to act in good
faith compliance if they: (a) Propose to a recognized union any
provision of the employer's CTR program that is subject to
bargaining as defined by the National Labor Relations Act; and
(b) Advise the union of the existence of the statute and the
mandates of the CTR program approved by the city and advise the
union that the proposal being made is necessary for compliance
with RCW 70.94.531. (Ord. 4602 2, 1993.)
(Revised 1/95)
TOTAL P.12
APPENDIX C
KING COUNTY
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUTER PARKING POLICIES
GUIDELINES FOR COMMUTER PARKING POLICIES
Proposed and endorsed by the King County Planning Directors
Approved by the Transportation Caucus: 11/9/93
Preamble:
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a framework for local jurisdictions to use
as they review and revise their parking policies. While it is recognized they may need
some tailoring to fit the needs of individual jurisdictions, they are strongly recomMended
as a means to achieve consistency among local governments in the drafting of their
parking policies.
Revision of parking codes is seen as a process requiring evaluation and modification on
an iterative basis. Local elected officials should review parking policies and codes every
few years and adjust them as transportation alternatives improve and experience with
their impacts gained. To implement these policy recommendations, jurisdictions will need
to monitor parking demand, perhaps on a biennial basis. The extent to which local
govemments constrain parking supply will ultimately depend on the availability of
alternative transportation modes.
The incremental nature of these policies should increase the willingness of developers
and lenders to consider reduced parking supply. The success of these policies will be
measured, in part, by local agencies' ability to work with the financial community to
encourage lender approval of projects with a less than traditional parking :supply.
POLICY GUIDELINES
1. It is recommended that cities and the County adopt policies in their
comprehensive plans to reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles (SOVs)
by constraining supply of commuter/employee parking as called for in the
King County Countywide Planning Policies and the State Commute Trip
Reduction Task Force Guidelines.
(Background: Research has demonstrated that strategies involving parking supply and price are
the most cost=effective of all transportation demand management program elements. Parking
policy must not stand alone but must form part of a coherent transportation policy. The
Countywide Planning Policies' land use element calls for jurisdictions to establish maximum
parking requirements that limit the use of SOVs in urban centers, and to establish a limit on the
number of parking spaces for SOVs in urban centers, manufacturinglindustrial centers, activity
areas, and businessloffice parks. The parking policy review process offers an opportunity to start
to constrain supply as altemadve transportation modes become available to meet the intent of
these Countywide Planning Policies.)
A. Encourage cities to coordinate on a subregional basis to reduce
parking requirements for office, industrial, institutional, and mixed-use
development so that the required supply better matches demand. It is
proposed that supply outside urban centers be adjusted just to fit
existing demand at this time and drop below demand only at such time
when adequate transportation alternatives are in place. It is
recommended that supply within urban centers be set below existing
demand when improvements that provide alternative modes of
transportation are in place. Reduction of supply may be accomplished
by eliminating minimum requirements altogether, reducing minimum
requirements, and/or by establishing maximum requirements..
(Background: It is recommended that parking policy changes be agreed upon at a
countywide level and that a common framework for code changes be coordinated at a
subregional level, working through already established organizations such as ETP on the
Eastside and SCATBO in the south end. It should be noted that the policy
recommendations do not deal with retail or residential land uses, only with office,
industrial, institutional, and multi-use development.)
1. Adjust minimum parking requirements outside urban centers to
fit the level of existing demand. Reduce this requirement further
as transportation options increase with development of
enhanced transit service and/or as demand drops with
achievement of CTR goals.
(Background: The CTR law mandates that employers with 100 or more employees
reduce the number of SOV trips to their worksites 15% by 1995, 25% by 1997, and
35% by 1999. Because some of these SOV trips will transfer to carpools, still
requiring a parking space, this does not mean parking demand will drop by the
same percentages. Under one set of assumptions, assuming a 2% employee
growth rate per year, the projected parking reductions resulting from
implementation of the CTR law for a suburban non-CBD area would be 4% by
1995, 7.396 by 1997, and 11.4% by 1999. It is recognized these assumptions are
based on one methodology found in the CTR Task Force Guidelines and should
be tailored to individual situations in each jurisdiction. It is not recommended that
jurisdictions require less than the demand where transit service is not frequent.)
2. Set the minimum parking requirements in urban centers and areas with
enhanced transit service below the level of existing parking demand.
A good benchmark would be to use the level of demand based on the
achievement of 1995 commute trip reduction goals.
(Background.,, -As noted above, demand for parking is expected to drop as the CTR law
is implemented. Parking supply can be tightened more in urban centers where public
transportation alternatives are already available. It should be noted that.this policy is not
intended to apply to park-and-ride lots.)
2
3. Establish a maximum parking ratio for employee parking, with
administrative flexibility to allow exceptions to the maximum if
appropriate.
(Background: Even when minimum parking requirements are reduced, a
significant percentage of developers will still provide parking above the minimum
requirement if they believe the market demand is there. The State CTR Guidelines
Parkina Policy Report recommends that maximums be set to meet actual demand,
including a cushion of 10 to 15 percent for practical capacity to guard against
spillover.)
4. Evaluate and revise parking standards on a regular basis,
starting in 1997, based on assessed impacts-arid effectiveness
at reducing reliance on SOVS.
(Background. This will enable jurisdictions to determine how the revised parking
standards are working and fine-tune requirements incrementally based on actual
experience.)
B. Make it easier to adjust parking to a ratio less than the required
minimum for office, industrial, institutional and mixed-use land uses.
1. Streamline the process for new development to provide less than
the minimum where the demand for employee parking is below
normal.
(Background. A survey sent to local planning officials of 29 Washington
jurisdictions in 1991 indicated that a significant number receive requests from
developers to supply less than the minimum parking required in the local code.
However, the need to go through a lengthy variance process discourages many
developers from providing less parking than required.)
2. Establish a process and actively encourage property owners of
major worksites to reduce their parking supply, especially where
an excess exists, to support commute trip reduction goals.
(Background: Since parking codes will apply only to new and expanding
development, they will not affect existing development impacted by the CTR law
without a provision like this.)
3. Allow parking to be provided below the minimum where there are
incentives to redevelop existing sites in centers supported by
transit and where such actions do not present a situation where
"spillover° parking negatively impacts adjacent land uses.
3
(Background. Developments in areas with good transit service should be able to
provide less than the minimum even if other characteristics of the development
would not normally indicate a lower than normal demand.)
C. In addition to the code revisions suggested above, insure the following
common elements are included in individual local parking codes:
1. Encourage shared parking. (Shared parking refers to parking
spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land
uses without conflict.)
(Background. Most jurisdictions already have provisions for shared parking in
their codes; this would merely insure that all jurisdictions encourage reduced
parking requirements through this means.)
2. Require reserved parking for high-occupancy vehicles close to
the front entrance of a building.
(Background. Requirements to reserve a certain ratio of the total parking area for
HOV parking are becoming more common. This may appear as a requirement for
all development in.?? certain land use category or as an option for developers who
wish to reduce Ar parking supply below the jurisdiction standard.)
3. Set standards for bicycle parking.
(Background. Bicycling has the potential to be a reasonable alternative to SOV
travel both in high-density areas, where there is already a significant amount of
bicycle commuting, and in low-density areas, where there is less traffic and transit
service is minimal or unavailable. Bicycle parking should be provided as a ratio
of total parking stalls, with a minimum specified. Ahigher ratio may be warranted
in dense urban areas. Bicycle parking facilities should be well-lit, secure from
theft, and located in an area that is protected from inclement weather.)
4. Set design standards for parking lots to encourage direct
pedestrian access between sidewalks and building entrances
and to ensure that parking lots are not a barrier to pedestrians.
(Background. Typically, transit patrons have had to walk through vast expanses
of parking to get from transit stops to building entrances. One way to change this
situation is to locate employee parking to the rear and sides of a building, rather
than in front of the building.)
S. Allow parking supply to exceed the maximum standard or
provide a bonus such as increased density for developments
that provide a 'portion of their site for P&R use or other public
uses. This would apply primarily to new retail projects or to
existing sites that have an excess parking supply.
4 'ter
(Background: Park-and-Ride capacity in King County is in short supply, and
construction of new parking costs approximately $20,000 per space. Providing
an incentive in off-street parking codes for the private sector to lease space to
transit agencies would help accommodate this need. The additional parking
supply could still be used by the development at night and on weekends.)
6. Review on-street short-term parking supply as a means of
accommodating cities' economic development needs.
(Background. The recommendations contained in this paper deal with long-term
commuter parking supply. Parking supply for retail uses should be addressed
separately by jurisdictions.)
7. Agree on a regionally consistent set of measures for establishing
parking ratios.
(Background. It is often difficult to compare parking standards of local
jurisdictions because different measures are used to set parking ratios. For most
land uses, this measure should be spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable
area. However, consistent measures for such uses as schools, hospitals, and
churches need to be discussed further and agreement reached.)
PARKING POLICY INITIATIVES
1. Local jurisdictions should develop workshops and other techniques to
promote a closer working relationship with the financial and development
communities.
IL Local jurisdictions and Metro should work together to identify parking pricing
techniques that should be implemented in the region and obtain legislative
authority at the state level to introduce such strategies.
(Background: The State CTR Task Force recommended that educational and incentive strategies
be pursued before regulatory strategies were sought to determine if CTR goals can be achieved
without the need to require parking charges. However, the need for regulatory strategies will be
reviewed by the Task Force in 1995. There are a number of King County Planning Directors that
believe pricing techniques are currently appropriate in urban centers.)
Techniques such as the following could be considered:
A. Provide tax incentives and other credits to employers that eliminate
employee parking subsidies.
(Background: Deciding to take advantage of tax incentives and credits would be voluntary
on the part of the employer or developer. Several cities have expressed interest in
providing such incentives.)
5
B. Charge for parking. -
(Background. There is currently no enabling legislation allowing local jurisdictions to
require a charge for parking at existing development. However, this is an option that can
be pursued through the SEPA process as a mitigation measure required of new
developments.)
C. Impose a parking tax on privately provided, non-commercial parking.
(Background: The 1990 Local Option Commercial Parking Tax is currently limited to
commercial parking businesses, which are rare outside of Seattle, and to facilities which
charge for parking. Because the Local Option Commercial Parking Taxis unable to target
free parking, it dilutes the effectiveness of the tax as a TDM tool.)
D. Encourage employers who subsidize employee parking to provide
employees the option to give up their parking space and receive a cash
amount equivalent to the parking subsidy.
(Background. This parking pricing technique already being used in California requires any
employer who subsidizes an employee's parking space to give that employee the option
of taking the market value of that parking space instead of the free or subsidized parking.
The only drawback to this idea is that parking is currently a tax-free benefit under IRS
regulations while employees would be taxed if they accepted the market value of parking.)
APPENDIX D
AUBURN PARKING ORDINANCE
WITH REVISIONS
Chapter 18.52
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
Sections:
18.52.010 General.
18.52.020 Required off-street parking - Minimum standards.
18.52.030 Reductions of the auanti . of required parking. Joint-u-,,e-of parking-
f
ili
i
18.52.040 6e
t
es.
Drive-in businesses.
18.52.050 Off-street parking area development and maintenance.
18.52.060 Development of required off-street parking spaces for single one-family-
dwellings.
18.52.070 Off-street parking lots - Location.
18.52.090 Parking space dimensional requirements.
18.52.100 Existing off-street parking reduction.
18.52.110 Fractional spaces.
18.52.120 Parking in front or side yards - Prohibited generally.
18.52.125 Stacked narking
18.52.130 Off-street loading space.
18.52.010 General.
A. Off-street parking and loading lots shall be provided in accordance with the following
provisions of this chapter for every building qr use, hereafter erected, altered, enlarged, or
relocated.
1. Any new building, use or structure shall provide the required parking to the
standards specified in this chapter._The provision of additional parking is not required for a. chan_e
of use_in_existing building s_in_the. C-2 zpniil district.
2. Whenever a new building replaces an existii building or there is an ex ansion
of an existing building within the C-2 zoning district the requirements of this section shall apply
oily if there is au increase in floor area of twenty-five (25%) percent or more (including the
cumulative increase of previous expansions after the effective date of this amending ordinance .
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
Page 14
DRAFT
3.2- Any parking lot hereafter physically altered shall comply with all of the
provisions of this chapter, except that such lot which provides five (5%) percent of its area in
landscaping shall be deemed to comply with ACC 18.50.060(1).
4. AM parcel of land that is used or is intended to be used as a parking area shall
be improved pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. This shall include all parking areas
whetlier or not .required by this chapter except as provided in section 1 R 52 060 (A) and JB
. ....................................-5. For etistin??arking lots that are resurfaced *in excess of fifty.f5Q'%9)..p
its area then at least five 5% percent of the entire parking area shall be landsca ed consistent
with Chapter 18.50.
6. If existing parking lots are re-striped then the new layout of the parking spaces
shall_he_tile-same - asthe_previous_layout or_if changed., then the.chwiaeci_lavout sliall_cenform
to the existing dimensional requirements of this cha ter.
B. These regulations shall not be retroactive to include any building or use existing at the
time of passage of this chapter, except as follows:
1. When a building is located on a different site, there shall be provided off-street
parking and loading spaces as required for new buildings.
2. When the number of units is increased by alteration or addition to a dwelling or
other structure containing sleeping rooms, there shall be provided off-street parking and loading
spaces for such additional units. When there are other alterations to a residential structure, the
requirements of this chapter shall apply whenever the value of such alterations or the cumulative
value of previous alterations after the effective date of this amendin ordinance exceeds fifty
(50%) percent of the assessed valuation of the structure.
3. When there are alterations or additions to a nonresidential building outside the
C-2 zoning district, there shall be provided off-street parking and loading spaces for any increase,
including any cumulative increase of previous additions or alterations after the effective date of
this amending ordinance in the gross floor area or number of seats, bowling lanes or classrooms
therein, except that when the aggregate number of spaces required for such alterations or additions
is five (5) or less, the off-street parking need not be provided.
4. Whenever any existing, nonresidential use in a building outside of the CC=2
zoning district is changed to another use in the same building, the requirements of this section shall
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions DRAFT
revord.doc
Page 29
apply in full to the new use if and only if the change in parking requirements between the old and
new uses is greater than five (5) spaces.
5. Whenever there is a change from a residential use to a nonresidential use in an
existing building, the requirements of this title shall apply in full to the new use; except that the
hearing examiner by means of a special exception, may determine that a portion of the residential
structure cannot be effectively utilized by the proposed commercial use and such area then may be
excluded from the gross floor area used to compute the parking requirement.
C. The required parking and/or loading shall have reasonable access to a pt&liu-street or
alley and a capacity according to the use of the building listed in the following sections.
D. Where a use is not listed, the planning director shall determine the number of required
parking and/or loading spaces based upon similar uses for which the requirements are specified.
E. Removal of required parking and/or loading spaces from practical use by obstruction,
erection of buildings, or other actions as to reduce the parking and/or loading capacity or
usefulness thereof below the minimum requirements established in this chapter is prohibited.
F. "Gross floor area" includes all floor area within the exterior walls of the building
including area in halls, storage, and partitions, but excluding furnace and similar utility space used
solely to maintain the building for occupancy.
G. "Parking Area" includes the parking spaces together with driveways and the access to a
pWAis-street.
H. "Gross leasable area" is the oss floor area reduced b the area of public lobbies,
common mall areas, permanently designated corridors and atriums or courtyards provided solely
for pedestrian or merchandise access to the building fr
om the exterior, and/or for aesthetic
enhancement or natural lightin&purposes,.
18.52.020 Required off-street parking - Minimum standards.
The number of off-street parking spaces shall be determined for each principal use of the land,
building, or structure. For ancillary uses to the principal use, required parking shall be calculated
the same as for the principal use, or as otherwise provided for in this chapter. Parking
requirements in downtown are eligible for a reduction pursuant to 18 5 030(A)
A. Residential.
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions DRAFT
revord.doc
Page 3,9
1. Single-family: one (1) parking space per two-bedroom dwelling, two (2) parking
spaces per three (3) or more bedroom dwelling;
2. Two-family (duplex): one and one-half (1-1/2) parking spaces per one bedroom
and two bedroom living units, two (2) parking spaces per three (3) or more bedroom living units;
3. Multifamily: one and one-half (1-1/2) parking spaces per one-bedroom and two-
bedroom units, two (2) parking spaces per three (3) or more bedroom units, for developments in
excess of fifty (50) dwelling units, one (1) screened space for each ten (10) dwelling units shall be
provided for recreational vehicles;
4. Mobile homes: one (1) parking space per one-bedroom and two-bedroom units;
two (2) parking spaces per three (3) or more bedroom units. Within mobile home parks, parking
space shall not be allowed within required setbacks; recreation and laundry areas shall provide off-
street parking spaces equal to one per each ten (10) mobile home sites within the development;
5. Boardinghouses and lodginghouses: one (1) parking space for the proprietor
plus one (1) space per sleeping room for boarders and/or lodging use plus one (1) additional space
for each four (4) persons employed on the premises;
6. Fraternities, sororities, and dormitories: one (1) parking space for each four
beds;
7. MultifamiKple dwellings, for the 4&w-mi emw elderly,. operated under contract
with-a.ul?lic-agency-gr subsidizedunder_a-state,_l_clcal or-federal_pjLggram of ;ted
heasing: one (1) parking space for each four dwee- 4 dwelling units, a minimum of four (4)
spaces shall be provided.A binding legal agreement must be executed guaranteeing that the
dwellings will be used exclusively for this use. The agreement shall be u proved by the cif
altnrnpy and-recorded at King County.
B. Commercial Activities.
1. Auto, boat, or recreational vehicle sales or leasing, new or used: one (1) space
per 5,000 square feet of outdoor sales area, one (1) space per one thousand (1000) square feet of
showroom and services facilities, and one (1) space per each two hundred-fifty (250) square feet of
office area, but in no case shall there be less than six (6) spaces provided. The outdoor sales area
shall be paved in accordance with ACC 18.52.050(A) and landscaped in accordance with ACC
18.50.060 (H)(1);
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page 49
2. Drive-in businesses: one (1) parking space for each one hundred (100) square
feet of gross floor area;
3. Food retail stores and markets: one (1) parking space per two hundred (200)
square feet of gross floor area, a minimum of six (6) parking spaces shall be provided;
4. Mini-marts and self-service gas stations: one (1) parking space per t?vo hundred
(200) square feet of gross floor area in addition to pump island spaces
4. Health and physical fitness clubs: one (1) space per 100 square feet of gross
floor area;
64. Laundry, self-service: one (1) parking space per four (4) washing machines, a
minimum of five (5) parking spaces shall be provided;
7.6. Manufactured home sales lots: one (1) space per five thousand (5,000) square
feet of outdoor sales area, and one (1) space per two hundred-fifty (250) square feet of office area;
8-7. Mortuaries or funeral homes: one (1) parking space per four (4) seats in the
assembly area, computed as seven (7) square feet of floor area per seat;
8. Motels, motor hotels and hotels: one and one-quarter (1.25) parking spaces per
sleeping unit;
10-9. Motorcycle and other small engine vehicle sales and service: one (1) space
for each four hundred (400) square feet of gross floor area of the building and one (1) space for
each one thousand (1000) square feet of outdoor sales area. The outdoor sales area shall be paved
in accordance with ACC 18.52.050(A) and landscaped in accordance with ACC 18.50.060(H)(1);
1144. Motor vehicle repair and services: one (1) parking space per four hundred
(400) square feet of gross floor area, a minimum of three (3) spaces shall be provided;
1244. Offices, including professional and business, banks and related activities:
one space per three hundred (300) two madfod fifty r25" square feet of gross floor area. Parkin
reductions for the downtown (section 18..52.020 (A)(1)) shall not be deducted from this parking
requirement. Up to four hundred (400) square feet of unfinished basement floor area used
exclusively for storage, may be excluded from the parking requirement. Unfinished basement floor
area is defined as any floor level, below the first story of a building, which floor level is not
provided sufficient light, ventilation, exit facilities, or sanitary facilities, as required for any legal
occupancy classification. (See subsection (D) of this section for doctor's offices, and clinics, etc.);
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page 54
1344. Personal service shops: one (1) parking space per four hundred (400) square
feet of gross floor area, a minimum of two (2) shall be provided;
.1.444. Restaurants, nightclubs, taverns and lounges: one (1) space per one
hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area;
1344. Shopping centers: one (1) parking space per two hundred and fifty (250)
290-square feet of gross leasable floor area;
154-5. Video arcades: within a range of one (1) space per three (3) video machines
and one (1) space per one (1) machine as may be determined appropriate in the eenditi
perms by the Planning Director, considering availability of existing parking, the nature of related
business, and expected clientele of the arcade;
174-6. Other retail establishments, including but not limited to appliances,
bakeries, dry-cleaning, furniture stores, hardware stores, household equipment service shops,
clothing or shoe repair shops: one (1) parking space per five hundred (500) square feet of gross
floor area;
1844. Private lodges, with no overnight boarding facilities: one (1) parking space
per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area.
C. Industrial and Manufacturing Activities.
1. Manufacturing, research and testing laboratories, creameries, bottling
establishments, bakeries, canneries, printing, and engraving shops: one (1) parking space per one
thousand (1000) square feet of gross floor area;
2. Warehouse and storage:
Building Size Parking Requirements
Up to 20,000 sq. ft. 1 per 2,000 sq. ft. (3 minimum)
20,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. 1 per 2,500 sq. ft. (10 minimum)
100,000 sq. ft. and up 1 per 3,000 sq. Ft. (40 minimum)
3. Uncovered outdoor storage areas, which are incidental and subordinate to a
principal use that otherwise meets the parking requirements, need not provide additional parking;
4. Office space shall provide parking as required for offices.
D. Medical Facilities.
1. Convalescent, nursing and health institutions: one (1) parking space fir each
two (2) employees, plus one (1) space for each three (3) beds;
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions DRAFT
reword. doc
Page 68.
2. Hospitals: two (2) parking spaces for each bed;
3. Medical, dental, and other doctors offices: one (1) space per two hundred (200)
square feet of gross floor area.
E. Public Assembly and Recreation.
1. Assembly halls, auditoriums, stadiums, sports arenas, and community clubs:
one (1) parking space per three (3) fixed seats, where fixed seats consist of pews or benches, the
seating capacity shall be computed upon not less than eighteen (18) linear inches of pew or bench
length per seat. Where movable chairs are provided, each seven (7) square feet of the floor area to
be occupied by such chairs shall be considered as a seat;
2. Bowling alleys: five (5) spaces per bowling lane, additional parking for food
and beverage on same premises shall be required as per Section 18.52.020 (B) (13)and for
spectator or assembly seating as per Section 18.52.020 (E) (1);
3. Churches: one (1) parking space per five (5) seats, in computing seating
capacity and requirements for assembly area without seats, use requirements as set forth. for
assembly halls per Section 18.52.020 (E) (1);
4. Dance halls -wid-skalift i : one (1) parking space per one hundred (100)
square feet of gross floor area;
5. Libraries and museums: one (1) parking space per two hundred fifty (250)
square feet of gross floor area;
6. Miniature and/or indoor golf. one (1) parking space per hole;
7. Parks: as determined by the planning director and/or hearing examiner on an
individual basis.
-$----------------Skating rinks;--_?ne_(1 parkinspace?er_four hundred
_(40d}.square. feet
of gross floor area.
F. Educational Activities.
1. Elementary and junior high schools: one and one-half (1-1/2) parking spaces for
each classroom or teaching station;
2. High schools: one (1) parking space for each employee, plus one (1) parking
space for each eighth students;
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
reword. doc
DRAFT
Page 79
3. School auditoriums, stadiums and sports arenas: see requirements as set forth in
Section 18.52.020 (E) (1);
4. Colleges and universities: upon review by Planning Director and Hearing
Examiner;
5. Nursery schools and daycare centers: one (1) parking space for each employee
plus loading and unloading areas;
6. Business and/or beauty schools: one (1) parking space per two hundred (200)
square feet of gross floor area.
G. Other Uses.
For uses not specifically identified in this chapter, parking shall be provided as specified) for the use
which, in the opinion of the Planning Director, is most similar to the use under consideration.
1 - in the ease of two (2) or mefe pfiReipal uses in *@ same building, th 3 taa-4
rt?gair-e?-?r?ts--fay-off.--street-}??rl?i??g-fa?:ili#?is--shall--b®-tl?a-s???-?f tho-?ecl?i-rd?nonte--f? tlio-l?rincip?l
e€
-Miir.4-yleafly sets
t1it?-l?ri?ci}?al ?3-ses--amt-as--s®per-a?,ht?i?tc?esr-or--ol?e??tio?:---??ri?s-??ttviti?s-?siul?d-with
pfev4ding r-equifed pa-r-kiftg fheilit4es gar- any ethef- use, unless joint use pafking is appr-o"
pursut? tci-AL; 123:2:34: (Or?#: ?I34? -----------------------------•-----------------------------------..-------------------•---------
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page 89
18.52.030 Reductions of the quantity of required parking Joi,}ti f--I% fkin --f -4iti :.
Reductions of the uanti of re uired parking may be allowed based upon the following
provisionsand the ro'ect location as shown in the following table:
A. Downtown
1. The parking re uirements of section 18.52.020 are reduced by twenty-five
percent (25%) for all uses within the Downtown as defined by Comprehensive Plan Map 3.3,
except for medical facilities (Section 18 52 020 (D)) residential uses and parcels abutting Auburn
W L
2. The Planning Director shall determine if a to ten h V/0) percent of the parking
spaces required in this chapter within the Downtown for non-residential uses may be satisfied
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions DRAFT
revord.doc
Page 29
through the signing of a binding non-remonstrance (no-protest) agreement with the City. The
agreement will ultimatelv be utilized by the City to support the construction of new public parking
facilities that are required to meet the parking demand within the Central Business District.
Factors to be considered include: l) the possibility_of joint_use_parking, 2j. relaticxiship 1x? etistin.
and proposed future public lots and on-street arldng 3 impacts tit on adjoining uses and 4 the
physical characteristics of the site. 'llie Planning Director's decision is appealable to the Hearing
Examiner.
_Doxkmtown uses_which aualifil for the_reduction in ACC 18.52.030
this section shall not receive additional reductions through the provisions of ACC 18.52.030 B
and (C).
................... B. Joint use of parking facilities
o
A. 44w applioant shaI4 show that there is no eefifiie4 in 4he pr4neipal ' t 5-hv?s ears m
i-
theb ik#i3 gso ???es f ?vl}icl3-the i??t-t €-offAf l? rki #a.?iliti?s ts-pressed: 1{03-tl
pufpeses of this _ Ppieal
es- rail
> shops, manufaetur-ing aRd wholesale uses. T"ieal b =s-n3a-y
ln?la3?e-tl3eater?; b?vli?tg-?lle?ys;•leer-s;-?nel-rusts?3?er?te:---El?t?r?l?a5-a???-slior-a--parkking-wltln--altl?e? ??
1. A reduction in the total number of required parking s aces may be allowed
when two or more uses with different peak parking demands will share a parking facil
2. Calculation of Shared Parking Requirements When joint use of-park:ing
facilities_is_pryy?oseci,thenumber of required_parkin spaces shall_be determineci_bv the follow' lmg
procedure:
a Multiply the minimum parking requirement for each individual use as
provided in 1.8.52.020 by the appropriate percentage listed in the table below for each of the five
designated time-periods;.
b. Sum each of the five vertical columns for the table
C. The minimum parking requirement is given by the highest sum
resulting from Step (2)(b).
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
DRAFT
revord.doc
Page 109
CALCULATION OF SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENTS
WEEKDAYS WEEK END
Night Dav Evening Pa a Evening
USES midnight
6 a.m.
4 p.rn. 6_p,m__
Midnight 9 a_ m,.
6 Qtr?. G p m
4 a.m.
Residential 100% 60% 90% 80% 90%
Office/Industrial 5% 100% 10% 10;0 5`ro
Comm./Retail (Non-office) S°io 70% 90% 100% 70%
Hotel/Motel 80% 80° 0 100% 80% 100%
Restaurant (non-fast food) 10% 50% 100% 50% 100`;'0
Ent./Recr. theaters bowling all s etc. 10% 40% 100% 80'Nb 100%
Churches 5% 10% 30% 100% 80%
All others 100% 100% 100% 100% 100`%0
...................................... _?.,_.-The_prcwisiens.in this section (18.5 2.030 (B))_sha]1 net result in a reduction of
more than twenty-five 25% percent from the requirements which would apply in the absence of
this section. These provisions shall not be applied in addition to the parking reduction 'tor
doyo-itown (section 18.52.030,(A)(1)).
_. This provision shall unlx_ apply to e €er residential uses ecept &F flIeSe
fesideFAial-use within the commercial eent+al business-zoning districts. as define}
eefflPfAen
5.G. The off-street parking facilities to be used jointly shall be located within a.
ywalkdistanee_of five-hundred (500) feet of the use which they are to serve.
6. Reductions for the joint use of existing parking facilities may be allowed where
there has been a change in use of the existing building that reduced the narking requirements.
Documentation of the change in use the reduced narking re uirement the number of excess spaces
anci.the.analysis of sect.... f l).and..(2)_above_must_be submitted _to.tlie_planning director for
approval.
713. The concerned parties shall execute a binding legal agreement for as long as
the joint use of parking is proposed. The agreement shall be nonrevocable, and written such that if
the joint use parking becomes unavailable, then substitute.parkipe meeting all_of the_rzgrdrements
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page 119
of this chapter must be provided or the use must be discontinued. The agreement shall be approved
by the city attorney and recorded at King County.
C. Mixed Occupancies and Shared Uses
1. In the case of two (2) or more principal uses in the same building; the total
requirements for off-street parking; facilities shall be seventy-five (75%) percent of the slam of the
Iggl1irements for_t11e_)rincipal-uses-computed.se?7arately,_ -Parking reductions for-the downtmyn
section 18.52.030 A) shall not be added to this rovision for a reduction in parking requirements.
2. In order for a use to be considered a separate principal use under the terms of
this section, the uses must be physically and managerially separated in a manner which clearly sets
the principal use4_upart as serjarate.businesses.c?r aperatigns__ -Various-activ-itiesassocial_edwith
single businesses shall not be considered separate uses.
3. Required off-street parking facilities for one use shall not be considered as
providing re aired parking facilities for -M other use unless Joint use parking is a proved.
pursuant to ACC_18.52.030_(B)__
D. Reduced Parkin Demand Stud
1. An applicant may be allowed to provide less than the required parkinp spaces
by submitting a narking study that descri bes bow parking demand can be met with a reduced
parking requirement,._-Reasons_for reducing e.parkin requirement.under-tllr's_secticln mav_include,,
but is not limited to: 1 unique characteristics of the use 2). location adjacent to transit facilities or
3). adoption of an approved transportation demand management plan
2. The applicant shall provide a proof of future parking plan which shows the
location for all minimum-required parking spaces. in_confon-trance with a11_ap_plicable regairements,
These areas shall be set aside and landsca ed or treated in such a manner so that the y ma • not be
used for parkin:. The City may require installation of some or all of the additional spaces
whenever a. need arises. If the owner fails to comph the City may undertake the installation. A
bond shall be secured for_a-5 year period to cover the costs of converting those-spaces to harking,.
The value of the bond shall be determined by the Planning Director based upon the cost of
installing the initial parking area.
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions DRAFT
revord.doc
Page 119
3. The parking studv and the proof of future parking plan must be approved by the
Planning Director. A binding legal agreement guaranteeing the provisions of this section shall be
ap.EqK by the citX attorney. and executed andrecorded at-Kind Count
E. Valet Service
1. For public assembly and recreational uses restaurants funeral homes and other
uses requiring more than five hundred (500) parking spaces an applicant may be allowed to
provide less than the number of required spaces if valet parking is to be used A reduction in the
amount of required arkin per section 18.52.020 of as high as twenty-five Percent i'25% mal
be permitted depending on the size and type of the use if approved by the planning director.
....................................-2__ be.Applicant mad-he_requiredaU_proyide-aproof <tf future. ar ing plan ;hich
shows the location for all minimum re uired parking spaces in conformance ,?tiith a licable
setback requirements. The City may require installation of some or all of the additional spaces
whenever a need arises. The parking study and the proof of future parking plan must be approved
l? the-Planning Director:._A-binding legal a reeinent_ uaranteeiii the_prtlvisions-Uf lhis. sectit.n
shall be approved by the city attorney and executed and recorded at Kin County.
18.52.040 Drive-in businesses.
All banks, savings and loan associations, food dispensing establishments, and other businesses
which maintain drive-in facilities which are intended to serve customers who remain their motor
vehicles during business transactions, or are designed in such a manner that customers must leave
their automobiles temporarily in a driving lane located adjacent to the facility, shall provide
stacking space for the stacking of motor vehicles as follows:
A. Stacking Space. The drive-in facility shall be so located that sufficient stacking space is
provided for the handling of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours of such
a facility.
B. Driveway Location. The location of entrances and exits shall be determined by the city
engineer.
C. Shopping Centers. When located in a shopping center, drive-in facilities shall provide
sufficient stacking space to handle peak business demands and shall not in any way obstruct the
normal circulation pattern of the shopping center.
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
reword. doc
DRAFT
Page 139
18.52.050 Off-street parking area development and maintenance.
Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private off-street parking area shall be developed
and maintained as follows:
A. The parking areas on private property, including interior driveways and access to a
public street shall be paved with asphalt concrete or, cement concrete pavement and shall have
appropriate bumper guards where needed. Where a driveway crosses an improved public right-of-
way, it shall be constructed with cement concrete. ;
3
i?tchos-o€--pave-ei tl}s-inc13-{5{&")-??inos--e?sliod--r?lc; -and-?i?-{F,-)--i3?te=liew-o€?;Ia?--'-'-t1='--b;-tip--gin
...All eenofete-pavement sections of any a6mative asphalt ;
seetiens-shall be designed to support the post-development traffic loads anticipated due to the
intended use as approved by the City Engineer.
B. Parking areas shall be used for automobi&- vehicle parking only, with no sales, unless
permitted elsewhere by this title, dead storage, repair work, or dismantling of any kind.
C. If lighting is provided, it shall be hooded shielded directed dowrnvard and not exceed
1/2 foot-candles at the property line. it :'?^17 r?° ^__ a to __+7_ away ffem he resi4
alao-4?o3n--a??=-public-etr-eF3? ?rt-l?igl??
D. Drainage facilities for stormwater are required anti-shall- 1l1all- he??ie f.:b a
F l-be
approved by the pPublic Wworks Ddepartment.
E. Ingress and egress shall be approved as to location and design by the public works
department.
F. A six (6) inch extruded- concrete curb_shall_be-provided around landscaped-islands
eninsulas or similar features.
GF. Driveways and parking stalls shall be clearly marked. Driveways or aisles that serve
ernergenev access shall have a 20-foot min' in width an unobstructed vertical clearance of at
least-l3-feet-and 6 inches.. (See-LrC 902.2.-2. )-and beclearlv_marked..
HG. Landscaping: see Chapter 18.50 ACC.
1.14. Sidewalks or pedestrian walkways shall be visibly marked with striping or
di.ff. erentiated. pavement..
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page 149
114. For parking lots in excess of fifty 56 - hundf a ( )t spaces, the design shall be
approved by the city engineer and the planning director._ Designs shall be reviewed for dimensional
and landscaping_requirements,_ciraina,e,avement,-pedestrian .amenities, circulation, arterial
------------------- ----- ... . .----------
access and queuin and drive?aa locations bic cle arkin location li htin and si ate.
K. The maximum Made of driveways shouldsll be no more than twelve 12% )ercent.
Grades of up to 15% nay be allowed goon approval by the city engineer and the
planning director. A landing approach area shall be provided with a grade not exceeding
eight (8%) percent,
18.52.060 Development of required off-street parking spaces for sipigle-(I} one-family
dwellings.
For parking areas serving single-family dwellings, this section shall apply in lieu of ACC
18.52.050.
A. Rem-eOff-street parking spaces for sib-(-1-}-ensfamily dwellings on sETefa?e-lots
located in all zones except the RR zone °m°"°r di-an 15,000 Squaf° "-- i shall be paved with
asphalt concrete or cement concrete. Each re"ir-ed-off=street parking space shall be connected to
an improved pie erprivete-street or-alley-by a driveway a minimum_of eleven_01) feet in. width
which shall be paved with asphalt concrete or cement concrete.
B. Regein@4-eOff-street parking spaces for single-family dwellings on separate lots in the RR
zone o1 1-;40 e Morecfte fec3t inn erea shall-ma?have an all weather surface. Each
regei ec off street parking space shall be connected to an improved public ear-i tE?-street by
a driveway which shag-may have an all weather surface. The construction of the all weather
surface shall be determined by the City Engineer. (I'he driveway approach, to a paved street-
shall be paved and be at least eleven (11) feet wide and thirty (30) feet in length
C. The_payement_width _of a driveway to serve a_singlefamily parking. area shall be-(.minimum.
of eleven 11 feet. If the driveway is a designated firela.ne the pavement width shalt be at
least twenty (20) feet and have an unobstructed vertical clearance of at least 13 feet and 6
inches (UFC 902.2.2.1.
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page 15,9
18.52.070 Off-street parking lots - Location.
A. Single-family dwellings: required parking shall be located on the same lot as the
building it is to serve.
B. Multifamily dwellings: required parking may be on a contiguous lot in the same zone if
located within a walking distance of five hundred (500) feet of dwelling units. The lot shall be
legally encumbered by an easement or other appropriate means to ensure continuous use of the
parking facilities. Documentation shall require review and approval of the City Attorney.
C. Other uses: may be in areas other than on the premises if the required amount of
parking area is set aside for a particular use in such a lot, and such area is net-located mom than
within a walking distance of five hundred (500) feet from the premises and is in the same zone as
the use. The lot or area to be utilized shall be legally encumbered by an easement or other
appropriate means to ensure continuous use of the parking facilities. Documentation shall require
review and approval of the City Attorney.
D. Whenever required parking facilities are located off-site, sidewalks, or an au»roved
pedestrian facilityies shall be provided connecting the satellite parking facility to the development
being served. If lihti
g is
provided, it shall be hooded, shielded directed downward and not exceed 1/2 foot-candles at the
property line.
E. A permit may be issued by the hearing examiner pursuant to the hearing requirements
of ACC 18.70.040 whenever parking is to be located at a walking distance greater than five
hundred (500) feet from the use, or whenever parking for a use in a commercial or industrial zone
is to be located in a residential zone if it is found that:
1. The required parking cannot be provided as required in subsections (13) and (C)
of this section;
2. There is adequate access provided between the parking area and the utse;
3. The character of the adjoining land uses would not be disrupted by the increased
pedestrian and vehicular traffic;
4. The design and configuration of the parking area is compatible with adjacent
uses.
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page 169
F. The Planning Director may authorize parking for a use to be located in a different zone
(except as provided for in ACC 18.52.070(E)) if the Director makes the same findings as listed in
ACC 18.52.070(E).
V4?it1}i33•tke-?C;?nt?al--l??i?-?tesrc-?-is#r-ict ??-??t?f-?e?--i?t-tl?o--Gmn?pr?l?3?si-v?-Pl<?;-tl?-p?r?{i??-spaces
g, mm
Femonstranee agfeefneat with the City. :Pie agfoement will Wtifflately be t4ilized by die-Cit,
to
44ag
de??uan?--u?tl}i?t-t??--Cc?»rtrul--ly3t?irte?-1?istr?ct:
18.52.090 Parking space dimensional requirements.
A. Standard Sized Parking Spaces.
1. Standard sized parking spaces parallel to the driveway or aisle serving them
shall be a minimum of nine (9) feet wide and .twenty-iwa,(22) 0A,eatroe (2--3)-feet long.
Driveways or aisles serving standard sized parallel spaces shall be a minimum of twelve 12 feet
wide.
2. Standard sized parking spaces oriented at an angle to the driveway or aisle
serving them shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional requirements set forth by the
following table, and further defined by subsection C of this section; provided that aisle widths shall
not be less than ten 101 feet.
ONE WAY TWO WAY
A B C D D
30 9.0' 17.3' 12.0' 20.0'
45 9.0' 19.8' 15.0' 20.0'
60 9.0' 21.0' 18.0' 20.0'
90 9.0' 19.0' 24.0' 24.0'
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page 179
B. Compact Sized Parking Spaces.
1. In any off-street parking lot up to thirty (30%) percent of the spaces may be
designated as "compact" spaces and be developed according to the minimum dimensional
requirements for compact spaces established under this section.
2. Compact sized parking spaces oriented parallel to the driveway or aisle serving
them shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide and twenty (20) feet long. Driveways or aisles
serving compact sized parallel parking spaces shall be a minimum of eleven (11) feet wide.
3. Compact sized parking spaces oriented at an angle to the driveway or aisle
serving them shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional requirements set forth by the
following table and further defined by subsection C of this section; provided that aisle widths shall
not be less than ten (10). feet.
ONE WAY TWO WAY
A B C D D
30 8.0' 14.9' 10.0' 20,0'
45 8.0' 17.0' 13.0' 20.0'
60 8.0' 17.9' 16.0' 20.0'
90 8.0' 16.0' 22.0' 22.0'
4. Every compact parking space created pursuant to this section shall be clearly
identified as such by painting the word "COMPACT" in upper case block letters, using white
paint, on the pavement within the space. The additional use of signs to identify any large blocks of
compact parking spaces is encouraged. The random distribution of compact spaces or blocks of
compact spaces throughout a parking lot is also encouraged.
5. Existing parking lots may provide for compact parking spaces under -the
provisions of this section; provided, that the parking lot shall comply with all provisions of this
chapter except that any parking lot which provides five (5%) percent of its area in landscaping
shall be deemed to comply with all landscaping requirements.
C. When determining the minimum dimensional requirements for standard and compact
parking spaces oriented at an angle to the driveway or aisle serving them, the following figure shall
be consulted.
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page Mg
D. Off-street parking lots shall comply with the handicapped parking space requirements,
and any other applicable requirements of Chapter 15.44 ACC.
E.-Overhangparkiny be permitted.
....................................... .._._The.gYerhang;_area neeti_net be Xpayed.hut_must_belandsca-ped with.... eciduous
trees planted tliirt r 30 feet on center and roundcover or sodded lawn provided. The
trees shall be planted to avoid conflict with the vehicles. No overhang landscape areas,
created exclusively for overhang parkin. shall be considered to meet the landscape
requirements.efthis _title. The_overhang landscape_area.must be a mini mum.wiclth.pf five
5 feet however, the maximum overhang allowed into the landscaped area shalt be two
(2) feet. Overhangs into otherwise required landscaped areas are not permitted unless the
width of the landscaped area is increased by at least two (2) feet and the plant material
increased accordingly.
2 All parking spaces with overhangs shall have appropriate wheel stops
provided.
18.52.100 Existing off-street parking reduction.
Existing off-street parking facilities shall not be eliminated nor reduced to an amount less than that
required for new buildings unless the facility or the associated use meets the requirements of any of
the_pLcj? sions.of section 18:52.030,
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord. doc
DRAFT
Page 199
18.52.110 Fractional spaces.
When units or measurements determining the number of required parking spaces result in
requirements of a fractional space, any fraction up to one-half shall be disregarded, and fractions
of one-half (1/2) or over shall require one (1) parking space.
18.52.120 Parking in front or side yards - Prohibited generally.
On any lot in any R-R, R-S, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 district, the off-street parking and loading
space required by this chapter shall not be provided in the required front or side yard area except as
otherwise specified in this chapter.
18.52.125 -Stacked_parkigy
Stacked arkjgg 1. E. arkix 7 one car behind another, is permitted for funeral homes and single
family homes, only, unless the use has complied with the requirements of section 18 52.03 0 (E).
18.52.130 Off-street loading space.
Buildings devoted to retail trade, retail and wholesale food markets, warehouses, supply houses,
wholesale and manufacturing trade, hotels, hospitals, laundry, dry cleaning establishments or other
buildings where large amounts of goods are received or shipped, shall provide loading and
unloading space on the same premises as the building as follows:
A. Buildings of six thousand (6,000) square feet or more of floor area, one (1) off-street
loading and unloading space plus one (1) additional off-street loading space for each twenty
thousand (20,000) square feet of floor area;
B. Each loading space shall be not less than ten (10) feet in width, twenty-five (25) feet in
length and fourteen (14) feet in height;
C. Loading space, exclusive of driveways and/or corridors leading thereto, shall not be
considered as providing off-street parking space.
(Revised 02/13/97)
Auburn Parking Ordinance - Recommended Revisions
revord.doc
DRAFT
Page 209