The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-12-2014 Agenda_2014_5_12_Meeting(717) Planning and Community Development May 12, 2014 - 5:00 PM Annex Conference Room 2 AGENDA I.CALL TO ORDER A.Roll Call B.Announcements C.Agenda Modifications II.CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - April 28, 2014* (Tate) III.DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Draft 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Plan (Webb) B. Short Plat Thresholds* (Tate) Discuss modifying the City's short plat threshold to align with State Law. C. American Planning Association Report* (Tate) Discuss "Investing in Place". D. Director's Report (Tate) E. PCDC Status Matrix* (Tate) IV.ADJOURNMENT Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website (http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review at the City Clerk's Office. *Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet. Page 1 of 56 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Minutes - April 28, 2014 Date: May 6, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: April 28, 2014 Draft Minutes Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to approve the April 28, 2014 Planning and Community Development Committee minutes as written. Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Other: Planning Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:May 12, 2014 Item Number:CA.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.A Page 2 of 56 Planning and Community Development April 28, 2014 - 5:00 PM Annex Conference Room 2 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair John Holman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in Annex Conference Room 2 located on the second floor of One Main Professional Plaza, One East Main Street, Auburn, Washington. A. Roll Call Chair John Holman, Vice-Chair Largo Wales and Member Yolanda Trout were present. Also present were Mayor Nancy Backus, Director of Community Development and Public Works Kevin Snyder, Assistant Director of Community Development Services Jeff Tate, Economic Development Manager Doug Lein, Environmental Services Manager Chris Andersen, Environmental Services Planner Jamie Kelly, Engineering Aide Amber Mund, and Community Development Secretary Tina Kriss. Members of the Public present were: Councilmember Peloza, Russ Campbell, Jean Lix, and Robert Whale of the Auburn Reporter. B. Announcements There were no announcements. C. Agenda Modifications The order of the agenda was changed. Discussion Item III.B. will be held later in the meeting and Discussion Item III.D. will take place after the III.F. Downtown Parking Management Plan. II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - April 14, 2014 (Tate) Member Trout moved and Vice-Chair Wales seconded to approve the April 14, 2014 Planning and Community Development Committee minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. 3-0 III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Resolution No. 5062 (Mund) Page 1 of 4 CA.A Page 3 of 56 Engineering Aide Amber Mund provided the staff report on Resolution No. 5062, to set the public hearing to consider a Franchise Agreement with tw telecom of washington, llc. Ms. Mund explained Ordinance No. 6506 would allow tw telecom of washington llc a Franchise Agreement to lease facilities from other companies and in the future potentially build facilities. If they were to build facilities a review would be required through the City's permitting and engineering process. B. Theater Lease (Faber) Director Kevin Snyder, standing in for Parks, Arts and Recreation Director Daryl Faber reported that Director Faber and his team are currently working on a scope of work in preparation to work with a consultant to assist the City in looking at strategic approaches to arts and cultural opportunities. As part of this strategic approach the City would be reviewing the Auburn Avenue Theater program, the City is nearing the half-way point of the Auburn Avenue Theater lease. Staff confirmed this item will be brought back to the Committee for discussion. C. Update Briefing Regarding Auburn Environmental Park Restoration Efforts (Andersen) Environmental Planner Jamie Kelly provided a PowerPoint presentation to update the Committee on the development of the Auburn Environmental Park (AEP) restoration efforts. An overview was provided regarding the park improvements and grant funded improvements that have taken place in the park. Staff also shared various service and education opportunities the park has provided to our community. The Committee and staff discussed current and ongoing projects and future improvements and the restoration of the AEP. A discussion was held regarding future connectivity of the AEP and the availability of future parking areas. D. Floodplain Development Regulation Policy Discussion (Andersen) Environmental Services Manager Chris Andersen provided background information on the City's Flood Hazard Area regulations adopted in 2010, the new requirements of the 2013 revised Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Model Ordinance for floodplain development, and options for implementation of the revised FEMA Model Ordinance in Auburn. Staff distributed a map to review the current locations of the City’s Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), Riparian Habitat Zones (RHZs) and Channel Migration Areas (CMAs). The Committee and staff discussed the option presented by the revised Model Ordinance to potentially remove some of the RHZ and CMA areas from the City’s regulatory floodplain. The Committee and staff discussed floodplain Habitat Assessments, and Chair Holman asked staff to provide more Page 2 of 4 CA.A Page 4 of 56 information on Habitat Assessments at a future meeting, which staff indicated they would do. The Committee and staff reviewed a summary of structures and parcels located in the City of Auburn Regulatory Floodplain. A discussion was held on the options available to the City in formulating Auburn’s Flood Hazard Area regulations and the potential for making changes to the RHZ and CMA that would limit these zones to SFHA, or whether the City should maintain the current geography of these areas. A third, hybrid, option was also discussed. This option could limit the RHZ and CMA to the SFHA in heavily developed areas which tend to have less habitat value, and could maintain the current extent of these areas in more sensitive, undeveloped locations that have greater habitat value. The Committee agreed that they would like staff to recommend an option that would best balance providing development applicants with options for meeting the requirements and would not unnecessarily impose regulatory requirements on areas that are already substantially developed, while at the same time would provide for protection of more sensitive environmental areas located within the City’s floodplains. Staff indicated they will develop a recommended update of the regulations and return to present that to the Committee. E. Communal Residences (Tate) Community Development Services Assistant Director Tate updated the Committee as to the status of the City's implementation of Ordinance No. 6477, passed by City Council on September 3, 2013, establishing rules and procedures that regulate the renting of homes within residential zoning designations. Staff reviewed the approved communal residences, code enforcement priority properties, and the next steps by staff in the process of continuing to implement the communal residence program. Assistant Director Tate reported that the City will begin compliance efforts this next week with Priority 1 properties functioning as a communal residence. Staff is also updating the City’s website and the creation of more resources for tenants, property owners, and neighbors that are located near rentals. The proposed changes will be posted in May. A review of the business license renewal process for rental properties is also taking place, there may be some future adjustments in that process. The Committee and staff discussed the feedback from both tenants and the public on the program. Chair Holman invited members of the audience forward for comment. Russ Campbell, 31606 126th Ave SE, Auburn Page 3 of 4 CA.A Page 5 of 56 After the Committee and staff discussed future compliance efforts on priority properties, Mr. Campbell expressed that individuals will try and circumvent new regulations or work within the rules, he stated that he is hopeful that the two conditional use permits going before the Hearing Examiner next month will bring forth participation from the community. Mr. Campbell also stated he was told that the Homestay program at Green River Community College was advertising the allowance of three (3) students per home. Mr. Campbell expressed his gratitude for the efforts by the City and Lea Hill community members as they continue to address communal residences. F. Downtown Parking Management Plan (Tate) Assistant Director Tate explained that the City of Auburn enacted a Downtown Parking Management Plan under Resolution No. 5031 on February 3, 2014. Staff reviewed the implementation of the plan to date and the proposed long-term goals. Staff also reviewed the status of the City's parking permit program. Assistant Director Tate stated that staff will continue to implement various action items of the plan and review and evaluate the data in order to continue to plan and implement future tasks. G. Director's Report (Tate) Assistant Director Tate reported on the status of several businesses that have had enforcement actions by the Auburn Code Enforcement division recently. H. PCDC Status Matrix (Tate) After the Committee reviewed the matrix, Chair Holman asked that the date of item No. 6, Theater Lease, be changed to May 12, 2014. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Approved this ______________, day of ____________, 2014. ____________________________________________ John Holman, Chairman ____________________________________________ Tina Kriss, Community Development Secretary Page 4 of 4 CA.A Page 6 of 56 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Short Plat Thresholds Date: May 6, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: See attached memorandum. Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:May 12, 2014 Item Number:DI.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 7 of 56 MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmember John Holman, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Largo Wales, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Yolanda Trout, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee CC: Mayor Nancy Backus Kevin Snyder, Community Development and Public Works Director FROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Services Manager DATE: May 6, 2014 RE: Short Plat Thresholds – City of Auburn Compared to Washington State Background Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington establishes the legal foundation and framework for subdividing land in Washington State. This statute uses the terms “subdivision” and “short subdivision” to describe the two primary types of land division. A subdivision is defined as a division or redivision of land into 5 or more lots, tracts, parcels or sites. A short subdivision is defined as a division or redivision of land into 4 or fewer lots, tracts, parcels or sites. RCW 58.17.033 requires that jurisdictions establish land division procedures within their local city code. The City of Auburn has adopted Title 17 which sets forth the City’s land division procedures. Currently, Title 17 of the Auburn City Code provides a definition for subdivision and short subdivision that is consistent with that established in Chapter 58.17 RCW. Discussion In 2002 the State Legislature modified the definition of short subdivision to allow City’s planning under the State Growth Management Act to increase the short subdivision threshold from 4 or fewer lots to 9 or fewer lots. While state law allows for this modification of the threshold the City of Auburn has not amended City Code. As a result, land divisions in Auburn are processed as short subdivisions only for proposals that are for 4 or fewer lots. The primary differences between a short subdivision and a subdivision are as follows: 1. Short subdivisions are administrative decisions that do not necessitate a public hearing. DI.B Page 8 of 56 2. Subdivisions are quasi-judicial decisions that are made by the Hearing Examiner after a public hearing. 3. Subdivisions are substantially more expensive because they incur the cost of the Hearing Examiner’s services, greater permit fees, and costs of public notice. The fee for a Preliminary Subdivision application is $3,000.00 plus $120.00 per lot while the Preliminary Short Subdivision application fee is $1,449.00 plus $60.00 per lot. The fee for a Final Subdivision application is $1,533.00 plus $52.00 per lot while the fee for a Final Short Subdivision is $750.00 plus $25.00 per lot. In addition to the permit fees, the applicant is required to pay for the public notification sign and for the Hearing Examiner’s costs to review the file, staff recommendation, conduct a hearing, and write a decision. The fee for a sign is $130.00 and the Hearing Examiner’s fees are approximately $1,500.00. The following table provides a comparison of the costs of an 8 lot land division processed under the current rules as a subdivision and the costs if it were classified as a short subdivision: 8 Lot Land Division “Subdivision” 8 Lot Land Division “Short Subdivision” Preliminary Application Fee (Base) $3,000.00 $1,449.00 Preliminary Application Fee (Per Lot) $ 960.00 $ 480.00 Final Application Fee (Base) $1,533.00 $ 750.00 Final Application Fee (Per Lot) $ 416.00 $ 200.00 Public Notice Sign $ 130.00 N/A Hearing Examiner Costs $ 1,500.00 N/A Total $7,539.00 $2,879.00 Difference +4,660.00 -4,660.00 4. A subdivision adds significant additional time to the project review timeframe. Specific expanded timeframes are set forth in city code for public notification, public comment, public hearing, issuance of a decision and appeals. At a minimum, a subdivision will add approximately 90 days to the processing timeframes. While there are a number of procedural and cost differences between subdivisions and short subdivisions, there are no differences in the development standards that must be adhered to in order to obtain approval or the manner in which land may be used once the land division is complete. Both types of land divisions are required to comply with all of the same requirements for density, provision of public improvements (e.g. sidewalks, streets, utilities, etc.), land use, building, protection of environmental features, etc. Staff is seeking the following guidance: 1. Should the City consider amending Title 17 of the Auburn City Code to increase the threshold for short subdivisions from 4 or fewer lots to 9 or fewer lots? 2. Are there additional questions, information, or data needed in order to help provide further instruction to staff? DI.B Page 9 of 56 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: American Planning Association Report Date: May 6, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Attachment A - APA Report Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: See attached memorandum. Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:May 12, 2014 Item Number:DI.C AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 10 of 56 MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmember John Holman, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Largo Wales, Vice-Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Yolanda Trout, Member, Planning and Community Development Committee CC: Mayor Nancy Backus Kevin Snyder, Community Development and Public Works Director FROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development Elizabeth Chamberlain, AICP, Planning Services Manager DATE: May 7, 2014 RE: APA Report – Investing in Place Overview Earlier this month the American Planning Association (APA) released a research report that compiled data from a survey performed in 2012 of 1,040 adults between the ages of 21 and 65. The purpose of the survey was to probe the relationship between planning in local communities and spurring of economic development by analyzing trends and community preferences related to key demographic groups for economic development. Survey results were tallied for the following three demographic groups – Millennials (aged 21 to 34), Generation X (aged 35 to 49), and Active Boomers (aged 50 to 65). The following general findings are laid out in the report: · The Millennials and Active Boomers share many of the same concerns and beliefs regarding planning outcomes, meaningful economic development strategies, prioritization of public investment, and the types of community attributes that are desirable. · There is less confidence in national solutions of economic recovery and sustainability and a stronger feeling that there are better solutions at the local level. · There should be greater emphasis on developing quality neighborhoods and amenities as a way of enhancing economic development rather than the more traditional model of business recruitment. In other words, focusing on the qualities that make a community or region attractive will have the more profound and lasting impact on developing a strong economic foundation. As stated on Page 10 of the report “By a near 2 - 1 margin, respondents believe that investing in communities, over recruiting companies, is the key to growth.” DI.C Page 11 of 56 · There is very little interest and support for traditional auto-dependent suburban living and a greater desire to live in communities with greater mobility options; walkability is particularly important. · Job prospects and economic health are less important in choosing a place to live; quality of life features such as transportation options, parks, affordability, local vitality, health, and proximity to family and friends are of equal or greater importance. The APA report includes a variety of other conclusions, statistics, descriptions, etc. Questions 1. Does PCDC agree that investing in place is of equal or greater value in an economic development strategy than business recruitment? 2. Do the principles and conclusions of the report have applicability in downtown Auburn, other commercial areas of the City, and/or hillside neighborhoods? 3. Should the information in this report be used as a guide in the City’s ongoing Comprehensive Plan update? Attachments: Attachment A - APA “Investing in Place” Report DI.C Page 12 of 56 investingin place TWO GENERATIONS’ VIEW ON THE FUTURE OF COMMUNITIES: MILLENNIALS, BOOMERS & NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTING IN PLACE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS A RESEARCH SUMMARY  MAY 2014 DI.C Page 13 of 56 WHAT DOES LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE? 21 APA OFFICES N ATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West Washington, DC 20005-1503 202.872.0611 C HICAGO OFFICE 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60601-5927 312.431.9100 www.planning.org Copyright 2014 by the American Planning Association. All rights reserved. May not be reprinted in any form or medium without permission of the American Planning Association INVESTING IN PLACE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS DI.C Page 14 of 56 WHAT DOES LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE? 32 table of contents INTRODUCTION NEW ECONOMICS OF PLACE 4 CONCLUSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY METHODOLOGY 9 KEY FINDINGS 9 KEY STATISTICS 12 DETAILED FINDINGS 15 TOP METRO AREAS 34 INVESTING IN PLACE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS DI.C Page 15 of 56 “When asked what would strengthen their local economy, two-thirds believe that investing in schools, transportation choice, walkability, and key community features is the best way.… For both Millennials and Active Boomers, including those living in today’s suburbs, walkability is in high demand.” DI.C Page 16 of 56 new economics of place INTRODUCTION In 2012, APA conducted a national poll aimed at understanding public perceptions of planning. Among the key ﬁndings from that poll were the strong interest in linking planning to economic growth and job creation and common concerns among older and younger residents regarding desirable community attributes and planning outcomes. Among the 2012 ﬁndings: 67%3/4 #1 4 believe community planning is important for economic recovery. of U.S. adults agreed that engaging citizens through local planning is essential to rebuilding local economies and creating jobs. Job creation was ranked as the top priority for planning by citizens. DI.C Page 17 of 56 WHAT DOES LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE? 6 INTRODUCTION 5 PA’s 2014 research poll is designed to probe in more depth the relationship between planning in local communities and spurring of economic development. This poll attempts to better understand how two key demographic groups — Millennials (aged 21 to 34) and ‘Active Boomers’ (aged 50 to 65) with at least some college and across all communities — urban, suburban, small town and rural — perceive their economic future in terms of place and community. (The intervening Gen X cohort, aged 35 to 49, was also included.) This work builds on recent analysis of these population groups conducted by a range of other organizations, including the Pew Research Center and AARP. In addition, much has been written and speculated about the changing attitudes of these two groups and the impact they will have on planning and economic development for communities large and small. The focus on Millennials and Active Boomers is not accidental. Both groups are large in size relative to other generations and represent a majority of the U.S. workforce. Additionally, both confront signiﬁcant economic challenges arising from the Great Recession. This work aims to put specific data around the question of how planners and policy makers can make their communities more competitive and prosperous in light of the changing trends and preferences of Millennials and Active Boomers. A DI.C Page 18 of 56 WHAT DOES LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE? 7 INTRODUCTION 6 For example, the latest census data show that Millennials are signiﬁcantly worse off economically than either Gen Xers or Baby Boomers at a similar stage in life. Their poverty rate is nearly double that of other generations, more live with their parents, and the home ownership rate is nearly 10 percent lower than other groups. Boomers also have experienced higher than average unemployment, and some attribute the nation’s drop in employment participation to preretirement age Boomers leaving the employment market. Additionally, many have experienced a sharp loss in assets and savings that are particularly problematic given their proximity to retirement. Many of APA’s 2014 poll ﬁndings point to opportunities for coordination of planning and economic development strategies around workforce attraction, competitiveness, and economic recovery. Local leaders face the challenge of devising policies that boost affordability while investing more in key local assets. For communities, a major challenge is how to create real, signiﬁcant economic growth and jobs for all. This survey offers new information about planning for economic development that may lead the way to rebuilding a stronger economy and stronger communities and more reason for optimism across all generations about the future. The APA 2012 survey was conducted online by Harris Interactive in March 2012 among 1,308 U.S. residents aged 18 or older. Full details are available at www.planning.org/policy. DI.C Page 19 of 56 7 Quality neighborhoods blending access, amenities and affordability need to drive local economic development actions qualityof place EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Contrary to many conventional reviews of intergenerational relations, there is more commonality than conflict in what Millennials and Active Boomers are seeking from a community. DI.C Page 20 of 56 8 his research study reveals the potential for a new economics of place and place making. Successful economic development policies will likely need to focus strongly on the qualities that make a community or region attractive. This is no mere matter of aesthetics. Today’s economic conditions challenge planners and other local leaders to consider new models of economic development. Adults surveyed have lost conﬁdence in the national economy. Sixty-eight percent feel that the U.S. economy is fundamentally ﬂawed. Millennials and Active Boomers have serious concerns about their current personal ﬁnances. These issues of affordability, cost of living, savings, and debt loom large for them. However, despite the extended blow from the Great Recession, both Millennials and Active Boomers are critical to future growth and community competitiveness given their key characteristics, such as likely personal mobility, potential for new household formation, and their importance as a vital talent pool for the economy. Additionally, the community and lifestyle preferences for these two groups could have important implications for patterns of growth and development. Contrary to many conventional reviews of intergenerational relations, there is more commonality than conﬂict in what Millennials and Active Boomers are seeking from a community. Both groups believe supporting the local economy will do the most to strengthen the U.S. economy. Likewise, ﬁndings point to the potential for shifting market and consumer demand in certain key sectors that may have a signiﬁcant impact on the shape of communities and key industries, like housing, health, and transportation. One of the most striking ﬁndings of this survey is the sharp decline across demographic groups of interest in traditional, auto- dependent suburban living. Fewer than 10 percent of Millennials, Gen Xers, or Active Boomers see themselves in this type of community in the future despite 40 percent of them living there today. This doesn’t mean they are universally forsaking suburbs. Instead, the data indicate a desire for living in various types of communities — urban, suburban, rural and small town alike — but with greater mobility options, particularly walkability, and easy access to key amenities. Auto use, while continuing to be dominant, is plateauing. These trends will likely be accelerated by the desire of many to grow older in their existing homes and communities. Across geographies and generations, people seem to be embracing a common set of lifestyle and community goals. This will not only pose important design and planning challenges but EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T DI.C Page 21 of 56 WHAT DOES LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE? 109 also offer unique opportunities to reimagine many communities and neighborhoods. Responses to this survey strongly suggest that economic uncertainty and anxiety about the future continues to ﬁgure prominently in the American mind. At the same time, there are indications about the potential for future personal mobility and economic growth. Based on the attitudes and preferences of these key generations, communities that are successful in this economic climate are likely to be those who embrace an economic development strategy centered around issues of place, particularly access, affordability, proximity and walkability, and innovation. Methodology This poll was conducted online during March 2014 and consists of 1,040 adults 21-65 with at least two years of college. Additional oversamples in North Carolina and Georgia were also part of the study. Harris Poll, reviewed the questionnaire to ensure objectivity and ﬁelded the survey. This survey was designed to analyze trends and community preferences related to key demographic groups for economic development. The survey screened for adults over 21 years old who have completed two years of college or more. The survey aimed primarily to compare and contrast the views of Millennials (aged 21 to 34) and Active Boomers (aged 50 to 65), but also surveyed Generation X (aged 35 to 49). Other than education level, the respondent groups are broadly representative of the nation in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, income, and geography. Key Findings Economic anxiety and uncertainty continues. More than ﬁve years removed from the depths of the Great Recession, economic conﬁdence remains low and anxiety surrounding key personal economic concerns, such as savings, debt, and cost of living, is high. Local and metro strategies may provide a path for a stronger economy. While many remain skeptical of the national economic outlook, there is greater optimism about the prospects for local and personal progress over the next ﬁve years. As key demographic groups, particularly Millennials, seek economic opportunities personal mobility is poised to rise making the attributes of local economies and communities important. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DI.C Page 22 of 56 10 A new ‘economics of place’ is likely to drive economic growth and development. While economic performance is cause for many to worry, it is the shape and nature of communities and regions that will likely drive mobility and create opportunities for local economic development. Traditional business recruitment strategies are seen as less important than investing in local amenities and quality of life. Job prospects and economic health are not the overriding factors for choosing where to live. Quality of life features such as transportation options, affordability, parks, local vitality, health, and presence of friends and family are equally or often more important. By a near 2-to-1 margin, respondents believe that investing in communities, over recruiting companies, is the key to growth. New directions emerge for the nation’s neighborhoods and suburbs driven by demand for transportation options and walkability. Demand may be plummeting for traditional, auto-oriented suburbs. Fewer than 10 percent want to live in a suburban neighborhood where people have to drive most of the time. That represents an important shift considering that 40 percent live in such neighborhood currently. People continue to want to live if they can afford it in a diversity of settings from small towns to urban centers, however ,they increasingly value walkability, transportation options, and proximity to key resources and amenities regardless of the type of neighborhood they prefer. Successful economic development strategies embrace innovation and access. Signiﬁcant majorities in the poll prioritize communities’ technological infrastructure and believe that technologically enabled sharing services are at least somewhat important. Beyond the speciﬁcs of high-speed Internet service and the nascent “sharing” economy, these ﬁndings suggest that technology and a culture of innovation and connectivity are likely to be important factors in attracting new residents and businesses. Many communities may not be doing enough to address growing concerns of key economic and workforce demographic groups. Majorities of respondents expressed concerns about whether enough was being done to address some key concerns. The ability to “age in place’” is an important issue, and not simply for Boomers. Likewise, Active Boomers and Millennials both seek more and better non-car transportation options. Strong majorities want good planning for protection from natural hazards and extreme weather. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DI.C Page 23 of 56 WHAT DOES LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE? 1211 Key generations have strong commonalities on what they want from their community. This examination of the attitudes of Millennials and Active Boomers with at least some college ﬁnds the two generations largely united in pursuit of one way of life. While other studies have found differences between these generations on some issues, this study ﬁnds them similarly anxious economically and eager for communities that offer key design amenities and choices. Strikingly, both groups embrace intergenerational diversity, seek greater options for accessibility and walkability, and worry about savings and cost of living. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DI.C Page 24 of 56 12 KEY STATISTICS key statistics Communities that are successful in this climate are those who embrace an economic development strategy centered around issues of place, access, affordability, and innovation. National poll offers new look at planning for economic development DI.C Page 25 of 56 1413 OF RESPONDENTS HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY WITH THREEQUARTERS OF MILLENNIALS AND 65 PERCENT OF ACTIVE BOOMERS BELIEVING THE ECONOMY IS “FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED.” 69 % of millennials and 64% of boomers said the U.S. economy will stay the same or get worse over the next ﬁve years. of Millennials, Active Boomers and Gen Xers surveyed see too few current personal economic opportunities. During the next ﬁve years, however, 57 percent of Millennials are optimistic about personal ﬁnances and 44 percent of Active Boomers expect their local economy to improve. of all respondents and 74 PERCENT OF MILLENNIALS believe investing in schools, transportation choices, and walkable areas is a BETTER WAY TO GROW THE ECONOMY than traditional approaches of recruiting companies. More than half of Millennials and 44 percent overall are at least somewhat likely to move in the next ﬁve years. Only eight percent of Millennials and seven percent of Active Boomers prefer living if they can afford it in a suburb that requires driving to most places. KEY STATISTICS 68% 2/3 NEARLY 60% 56%46% ACTIVE BOOMERSOF MILLENNIALS WOULD PREFER TO LIVE SOMEDAY IN A WALKABLE COMMUNITY, WHETHER AN URBAN, SUBURBAN OR SMALL TOWN LOCATION. DI.C Page 26 of 56 14 Approximately 80 percent of respondents cite living expenses as important in choosing where to live and 65% list affordable housing as a priority. WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE ONE OVERRIDING FACTOR IN CHOOSING WHERE TO LIVE, RESPONDENTS OVERALL CITED QUALITY OF LIFE FEATURES ahead of local economic health and job prospects. Majorities of both Millennials and Active Boomers said there are not enough transportation alternatives where they live. of respondents say diversity in people and generations is an important component of a successful community. 60 percent of respondents want to be able to stay in their home as they age and over half don’t feel their community is doing enough to allow residents to age in place. 78 percent say that having extra space where someone could live with them is at least somewhat important in choosing where to live. KEY STATISTICS 43 PERCENT 81%77% ACTIVE BOOMERSOF MILLENNIALS say affordable and convenient transportation alternatives to the car are at least somewhat important when deciding where to live and work. 59%58% Respondents were U.S. adults aged 21 to 65 with at least 2 years of post High School education. DI.C Page 27 of 56 15 DETAILED FINDINGS Over four in ten of all respondents (44 percent) are likely to move in the next five years. For Millennials, the number likely to move is 55 percent… Facing the challenge of devising policies to attract and retain key, economic demographics by investing in key local assets while boosting affordability detailed findings DI.C Page 28 of 56 16 Economic anxiety and uncertainty continues. ore than ﬁve years removed from the depths of the Great Recession, economic conﬁdence remains low and anxiety surrounding key personal economic concerns, such as savings, debt, and affordability, is high. A signiﬁcant majority ﬁnds the U.S. economy to be ﬂawed and only about one-third are optimistic about progress on the national economy over the next ﬁve years. Milliennials are particularly concerned, with three-quarters saying the overall economy is ﬂawed and 69 percent saying it will stay the same or get worse over the next ﬁve years. That concern is echoed by Active Boomers with 42 percent predicting worsening of conditions. Urbanites are more optimistic about the future of the U.S. economy than others, with 45 percent foreseeing improvement. Nationally, nearly six in10 see too few personal economic opportunities. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the same number believes they are behind where they thought they would be in terms of personal ﬁnances. Recent economic data pointing to slow growth in wages and lingering, perhaps structural, challenges in employment undoubtedly are a factor in the public mood on macroeconomic health. M State of the U.S. Economy Some people feel the U.S. economy is fundamentally sound and other believe it is fundamentally ﬂawed. Which is closer to your belief? Flawed Sound National Millennials 68% 75% 67% 32% 25% 33% DETAILED FINDINGS All charts listed represent U.S. adults aged 21 – 65 with at least 2 years of college. Millennials are aged 21 – 34. Gen Xers are aged 35 – 49. Active Boomers are aged 50 – 65. Active Boomers DI.C Page 29 of 56 WHAT DOES LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE? 1817 DETAILED FINDINGS State of Personal Finance In terms of personal ﬁnances, are you ahead of, behind, or about where you thought you’d be at this stage of your life? Economic Opportunity When it comes to economic opportunities and ﬁnancial security for you personally, would you say your local economy offers more than enough, just enough, or too few opportunities? Too few opportunities Ahead of where I thought I’d be Behind of where I thought I’d be Just /More than enough opportunities About of where I thought I’d be National National Millennials Millennials Active Boomers Active Boomers 59%56% 54% 52% 51% 60% 41% 29% 29% 31% 15% 16% 16% 49% 40% DI.C Page 30 of 56 1918 Local and metro strategies may provide path for a stronger economy hile many remain skeptical of the national economic outlook, there is greater optimism about the prospects for local and personal progress over the next ﬁve years. There seems to be a disconnect in perceptions of the national climate and potential for progress in individual communities and regions. Overall, 39 percent see local economies improving over the next ﬁve years and almost half believe their personal ﬁnancial situation will improve. Millennials are the most optimistic about their personal, ﬁnancial future (57 percent see progress), and Active Boomers are more bullish on the local economic scene. As key demographic groups, particularly Millennials, seek economic opportunities, personal the desire to move is poised to rise. This growth in mobility will likely make the attributes of local communities important drivers of economic growth. It is potentially important that 44 percent of them plan to move. This could portend important shifts in housing market demands in the near term. DETAILED FINDINGS W National Economic Recovery In next ﬁve years, do you expect the U.S. economy to get better, get worse, or stay the same? Better Worse Same National Millennials Active Boomers 39% 34% 42% 29% 35% 22% 32% 31% 36% DI.C Page 31 of 56 2019 DETAILED FINDINGS Personal Finance Recovery In next ﬁve years, do you expect your personal ﬁnance to get better, get worse, or stay the same? Local Economic Recovery In next ﬁve years, do you expect the local economy to get better, get worse, or stay the same? BetterBetter WorseWorse SameSame NationalNational MillennialsMillennials Active BoomersActive Boomers 39% 18%25% 11%21% 24%26% 35%37% 32%40% 37%30% 47% 57%40% 38%44% DI.C Page 32 of 56 2120 DETAILED FINDINGS Talent and Generational Mobility How likely is it that you will move to another part of your state or another state in the next ﬁve years? Somewhat to extremely likely Not at all likely Don’t know National Millennials Active Boomers 46% 35% 57% 9% 10% 8% 44% 55% 35% DI.C Page 33 of 56 2221 A new ‘economics of place’ is likely to drive economic growth and development. new view of economic development is emerging that emphasizes local improvements and investments and the quality of communities and neighborhoods. While economic performance is cause for many to worry, it is the shape and nature of communities that appear likely to drive personal mobility and create opportunities for local economic development. Two-thirds of those surveyed believe investing in schools and community features, such as transportation choices and walkable areas, is a better way to grow the economy than investing in recruiting companies. This is especially true of Millennials, among whom nearly three-quarters share this opinion. Growing through local investment is seen as the best economic development strategy. The top approaches to economic development among respondents are supporting existing business, improving education and job training, and encouraging start-up businesses. Job prospects and economic health are not the only factors for choosing where to live. DETAILED FINDINGS A Growing the Local Economy Some feel the best way to grow the economy is to recruit companies to the area. Others feel it is to invest in local schools, transportation choices, walkable areas and making the area as attractive as possible. Which is closer to your belief? Invest in schools and community features Recruit companies National Millennials Active Boomers 35% 26% 40% 65% 74% 60% DI.C Page 34 of 56 Quality of life features such as transportation options, affordability, parks, local vitality, health, and presence of friends and family are equally or more important than pure economic considerations. Not surprisingly, job prospects ranks tops among Millennials. However, Active Boomers are most concerned with the attributes and amenities of a community. Less than 10 percent see the overall economic health of an area as the most important relocation factor. While economic health may not be the only driver of workforce location decisions, a region’s affordability is critical. Approximately eight in 10 respondents cite living expenses 22 DETAILED FINDINGS Location Decision Factors Which of the following are MOST important to you when deciding where to live? Please select all that apply. * e.g., parks, trails, hospitals and healthy food options Percentage of priority Economic factors, such as jobs and business growth Living expenses, such as housing and transportation costs Metro features, such as schools, transit, and safe streets Health and nature* Kinds of people, such as diversity and mix of ages Community engagement Nat ABMil 54% 79% 44% 53% 43% 22% 64% 83% 57% 52% 45% 25% 42% 80% 32% 59% 44% 20% Two-thirds of respondents believe investing in schools and community features, such as transportation choices and walkable areas, is a better way to grow the economy than investing in recruiting companies. DI.C Page 35 of 56 2423 DETAILED FINDINGS Main Location Choice Factor What is the one overriding factor that you look for when choosing where you want to live? * Such as transportation, affordability, parks, entertainment Percentage of importance Job prospects Overall economic health of area Quality of life features Friends and family live there Something else All are equally important Nat ABMil 16% 8% 22% 22% 7% 25% 27% 10% 18% 21% 4% 20% 4% 7% 26% 21% 10% 31% as important in deciding where to live. When asked about high priority metro features, two- thirds listed affordable housing options. Over half are focused on the local economic climate and factors. Healthy communities may be critical to attracting and retaining workforce talent. Issues of health and nature, including access to parks, health care and healthy food, appear just as important as economic factors when considering where to live. Key metropolitan features, including educational opportunities, public transport- ation, and safe streets are particularly important to those Millennial’s surveyed. While more than four in 10 of all these adults cite these qualities as important in choosing a location, nearly six in 10 Millennials hold that view. Urbanites are more likely than the national average to value metro features and community health. The value of diversity is also noteworthy. Forty-three percent of respondents say diversity in people and generations is an important component of a successful community. Active Boomers hold this view with 44 valuing diversity. This sentiment may make planning intergenerational living an important economic development strategy. DI.C Page 36 of 56 2524 urvey respondents strongly suggested preferences for more options and accessibility in where they live. Rated last by all groups was living in a suburb where you have to drive most places, while at the same time, they favored more investment in new sidewalks and pedestrian crossings more important than new roads and second only to the maintenance of existing roads and transportation systems. Clear majorities of both Millennials (59 percent) and Active Boomers (58 percent) surveyed said that there are not enough alternatives where they live for those who can’t or don’t drive a car. Three out of four of those surveyed from rural areas expressed the same opinion, as did 59 percent of those in suburbs and 53 percent in small towns. Just under half from urban areas — 49 percent — also agreed non-car alternatives are lacking. An even larger percentage — 81 percent of Millennials and 77 percent of Active Boomers — said affordable and convenient transportation alternatives to the car were New directions emerge for boosting the competitiveness and prosperity of the nation’s neighborhoods and suburbs. Decline of the Traditional Suburb Where do you live now and where do you want to live someday if you can affoed it? A suburb with walkable amenities A suburb where most people drive to most places DETAILED FINDINGS NatNat ABABMilMil 18% 21% +3% 40% 7% -33% 19% 25% +6% 41% 8% -33% 14% 19% +5% 39% 7% -32% Now Someday Change Now Someday Change S DI.C Page 37 of 56 2625 at least somewhat important when deciding where to live and work. More than four out of every 10 Millennials (43 percent) said alternatives to the car were either very important or extremely important, as did 50 percent of respondents who live in an urban area. In the future, 31 percent of Millennials and 21 percent of Active Boomers said they want trains, light rail, buses, carpooling, car sharing, ride sharing, bicycling, bike sharing or walking to be their primary way of getting around. Also, 39 percent of those from urban areas, 29 percent from small towns, and 23 percent from suburbs and rural communities also said they wanted their primary method of transportation in the future to be something other than their own car. Overall there was a 15 percent decline when comparing use of their car as today’s primary form of transportation (86 percent) versus in the future (71 percent). Car use was the only mode projected by respondents to decline. When comparing transit, walking, and bicycling as the primary form of transportation between now and the future, transit increased 5 percentage points (from 3 to 8 percent), walking increased 5 points (from 6 to 11 percent) and bicycling increased 3 points (from 1 to 4 percent). Once-a-month use for transit doubled when comparing today (26 percent) with the future (52 percent); use of a bike at DETAILED FINDINGS Primary Transportation – National What do you plan to be your primary means of getting around? Car Bike Transit*Walk 86% 71% -15% 6% 12% +6% 1% 4% +3% 3% 8% +5% Current Future Change Monthly Transportation – National What ways to do use at least once a month to get around? * Includes bus, light rail, and rail Car Bike Transit*Walk 91% 84% -7% 46% 52% +6% 15% 26% +12% 26% 52% +26% Current Future Change Primary Millennial Transportation Car 84% 68% -16% Current Future Change Primary Active Boomers Transportation Car 87% 77% -10% Current Future Change DI.C Page 38 of 56 least once a month nearly doubled between today (14 percent) and the future (26 percent). Findings showed use of their own cars dropping 7 percentage points between today (91 percent) and the future (84 percent). Various studies show walking to be on the rise in the United States including a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found a six percent increase between 2005 and 2010 in the number of people walking 10 minutes or more per week in addition to six in 10 adults report some walking on their part. In the APA survey, more than half of Millennials (56 percent) and almost half of Active Boomers (46 percent) and Generation Xers (44 percent) report they prefer to live someday in a walkable community, whether in an urban, suburban or small town location. The least favorite preference among all three groups — eight percent of Millennials and Generation Xers and seven percent of Active Boomers— was living in a suburb requiring driving to most places. Those surveyed also said there needs to be more public spending on new sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, ranting such funding (33 percent nationally) only behind maintaining existing roads and transportation facilities (43 percent nationally). Funding for new roads was rated third at 32 percent. A majority of both Millennials (56 percent) and Active Boomers (51 percent) said in the future walking would be a primary way to get around at least once a month. A majority living in small towns (60 percent) and urban areas (58 percent) expressed the same view as did 49 percent of those who now live in the suburbs and 42 percent who currently in rural areas. There was a 19 percent difference between Active Baby Boomers’ choice of funding for the existing transportation network ﬁrst (50 percent) and funding for new sidewalks (31 percent) and new roads (30 percent). 2726 DETAILED FINDINGS New investments Do you favor more public investment in the following? Percentage of agreement Maintenance for existing transportation New sidewalks and pedestrian features New roads New trains and light rail New bus systems New trails for hiking or biking New bike lanes 43% 33% 32% 30% 24% 24% 23% DI.C Page 39 of 56 2827 ith the growth of e-commerce in the United States — the latest United States Census Bureau ﬁgures show Internet-generated manufacturing shipments, wholesale transac-tions, service industry revenues and retail sales totaling $4.8 trillion in 2011 or approximately 20 percent of the revenue from these four business sectors — the need for accessible and affordable broadband service is essential. When asked about high priorities for metro areas, Active Boomers cited high-speed Internet access and affordable housing equally at 65 percent each, which was second only to safe streets (79 percent). Millennials ranked internet service third with 58 percent; safe streets cited ﬁrst with 76 percent and affordable housing cited second with 71 percent. Generation Xers also ranked Internet service third with 51 percent; safe streets was ﬁrst (69 percent) and affordable housing was second (57 percent). These same three metro features also were cited in the same order by three of the four different types of communities — urban, suburban, and small town — and each of the four regions. The poll also looked at the importance of the “sharing” economy, which involves the sharing of resources and services through technology-assisted tools, like Internet-based apps. For example, Airbnb uses the Internet to enable travelers to connect with people in cities throughout the country and world who will rent out a couch or bedroom in their home or apartment to the traveler just W The ‘Sharing Economy’ Some people believe that Internet-based apps for sharing cars, rides, houses, or specialized equipment is a new or more common element to the economy that gives people more ﬂexibility than having to buy everything for themselves. How important is this “sharing economy” to you? DETAILED FINDINGS Not at all important Somewhat to extremely important National Millennials 41%27% 59%73% Successful economic development strategies embrace innovation and access DI.C Page 40 of 56 2928 as he or she would reserve lodging in a hotel. Forbes estimated that revenues for the sharing economy, which involves not only person-to- person sharing of apartments and houses but also cars, bikes, tools, or almost anything people already own but could share with others, were on pace to exceed $3.5 billion in 2013. The emerging “sharing” economy is particularly of interest to Millennials but attracts important support from other groups as well. Nearly three-fourths of Millennials in the APA poll (73 DETAILED FINDINGS percent) said the sharing economy was at least somewhat important to them compared with 57 percent of Generation Xers and 46 percent of Active Boomers. One in ﬁve Millennials (21 percent) said the sharing economy was very important or extremely important. Also, the number living in urban areas who said the sharing economy as at least somewhat important was 67 percent — 20 points higher than its rank by those living in a small town (47 percent). Fifty-nine percent from suburbs said it was at least somewhat important. High Priority Community Preferences: Metro Features (National) Access to clean energy, renewables, and energy conservation Great school system (K–12, colleges and continuing education) Affordable and convenient transportation choices Safe streets Affordable housing options Sidewalks, bike lanes, hiking trails, and ﬁtness choices Mix of housing choices High-speed Internet access Vibrant centers of entertainment and culture Major professional or college sports teams 30% 41% 33% 75% 65% 46% 30% 58% 36% 12% DI.C Page 41 of 56 3029 his poll offers important insights for local community leaders on several issues where more work or improved policy may be needed. In addition to demand for transportation options and overall walkability of neighborhoods, majorities also say it is important to be able to grow older in the place where they currently live. Additionally, many have or expect extreme weather and wide majorities believe communities must plan well to protect people and property from these natural hazards. All three age groups cited affordable housing as their second-highest priority behind safe streets when considering metro features. Millennials gave it 71 percent, followed by Active Boomers with 65 percent and Generation Xers 57 percent. Those surveyed from urban, suburban, and small towns also cited affordable housing second only to safe streets, while persons in rural areas cited housing affordability ﬁrst with 67 percent, three points higher than the second choice, safe streets. Large majorities across all age groups, types of communities and regions of the country that wherever they lived, it was at least somewhat T DETAILED FINDINGS important that their housing be able to accommodate a roommate, grown children, or aging parents. Eight out of 10 Generation Xers expressed this view, as did 79 percent of Millennials and 76 percent of Active Boomers. A clear majority also said that being able to stay in their current home as they got older was at least somewhat important. Sixty-nine percent of Active Boomers agreed with this choice, as did 60 percent of Generation Xers and 52 percent of Millennials. Majorities across all types of communities and regions noted the importance of what is sometimes referred to as “aging in place.” Almost half of all respondents do not feel their community is doing enough to support “aging in place” as a viable option. Changing and intensifying weather hazards are seen as an important issue. Fifty-nine percent of respondents say their area is now or soon will experience more extreme weather. Three-quarters feel that having a good plan for changing weather conditions and emergencies is important. Many communities are not doing enough to address growing concerns of key economic and workforce demographic groups. DI.C Page 42 of 56 3130 DETAILED FINDINGS This work aims to put specific data around the question of how planners and policy makers can make their communities more competitive and prosperous in light of the trends and preferences of Millennials and Active Boomers. Aging In Place How important is it to you to stay in your current home as you get older? Aging In Place – Community Response Do you feel your community is doing enough to help people who want to stay in their own homes as they get older? Somewhat, Very, or Extremely Important No Not at all important Yes Don’t know National National Millennials Active Boomers 36%49% 43% 27% 4% 3% 60%51% 50% 69% 7% DI.C Page 43 of 56 3231 DETAILED FINDINGS Enough Transportation Options Do you feel that there are enough non-car transportation options available in your area? Planning for Hazards Do you think your community currently or will soon experience more intense or extreme weather? Is it important to you that your area have a plan for these changing conditions and emergencies? No No No Don’t know Yes Yes Yes National Millennials Active Boomers 42% 42% 59% 75% 41% 58% 58% 41% 8% 14% 59% High-Priority Community Preferences: Expenses Taxes Housing costs Energy bills Transportation costs 67% 66% 56% 36% DI.C Page 44 of 56 32 hile much has been written about potential competition between Millennials and Boomers, the results of this survey suggest a more uniﬁed view of the economy and more alignment about investment in community that may form the basis of a new strategy for jump-starting economic growth and more effective competition for talent attraction. Vast majorities of both groups see the U.S . economy in similar ways. For example, 75 percent of Millennials and 67 percent of Active Boomers expressed the feeling that the economy is “fundamentally ﬂawed.” At least 80 percent of both generations believe living expenses to be a main factor in making relocation decisions. As one might expect, Boomers and Millennials’ top concern is about savings. Both express anxiety about their economic position and opportunities. Active Boomers and Millennials’ top concern is about savings, and both express anxiety about their economic position and opportunities. Both groups believe that investing in local schools and community features— such as transportation choices, walkable areas and making the area as attractive as possible — is W DETAILED FINDINGS Key generations have strong commonalities on what they want from their community Believe that investing in local schools and community features such as transportation choices, walkable areas, and making the area as attractive as possible is the best way to grow the economy rather than investing in recruiting companies to move to their area.Selected “investing in local schools and community features” Percent who selected they’d like to someday “live in a suburb where most people drive to most places” Percent selecting “not enough options” Both groups show a strong preferences toward more walkable suburbs when think- ing about where they would like to live if affordable: Both groups believe there are not enough non-car transportation options available in their area. 8%59% 74% 7%58% 60% MILLENNIALS MILLENNIALS MILLENNIALS ACTIVE BOOMERS ACTIVE BOOMERS ACTIVE BOOMERS DI.C Page 45 of 56 3433 the best way to grow the economy rather than investing in recruiting companies to move to their area. More than one-third of each group reports it is at least somewhat likely that they will move to another part of their state or to another state in the next ﬁve years. Millennials are more likely to move but both groups contain a signiﬁcant number who are at least at least somewhat likely to move. This potential for near term mobility brings with it important economic implications. Expanded mobility would boost household formation. Additionally, it makes the preferences for location and community particularly important as large numbers of key economic actors are potentially on the move. When asked to list preferences in potential locations, the two groups agreed on ﬁve of their respective top10 locales: New York City, Boston, San Diego, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon. DETAILED FINDINGS High Priority Community Preferences: Diversity Mix of ages and generations Very multicultural Good professional networking 49% 33% 20% DI.C Page 46 of 56 3534 DETAILED FINDINGS Top Metro Areas By Audience Respondents were asked which three metro areas in the United States most interest them as a potential location. ALL San Diego, CA New York, NY Boston, MA Denver / Boulder, CO San Francisco, CA Seattle, WA Chicago, IL Los Angeles, CA Portland, OR Washington, DC Austin, TX Phoenix, AZ Charlotte, NC Atlanta, GA Miami, FL Millennials New York, NY Los Angeles, CA San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA Chicago, IL Seattle, WA Boston, MA Portland, OR Washington, DC Atlanta, GA, Charlotte, NC (tie) Active Boomers San Diego, CA Boston, MA San Francisco, CA Denver, CO Seattle, WA Phoenix, AZ Portland, OR Austin, TX New York, NY Orlando, FL 2 2 2 5 5 5 8 8 8 11 14 3 3 3 6 6 6 9 9 10 9 12 15 1 1 1 4 4 4 7 7 7 10 10 13 2 5 8 3 6 9 10 10 1 4 7 2 5 8 3 6 9 1 4 7 10 2 5 8 11 14 3 6 9 12 15 1 4 7 10 13 2 5 8 3 6 9 10 10 1 4 7 2 5 8 3 6 9 10 1 4 7 DI.C Page 47 of 56 CONCLUSION Taken together, these economic and community planning trends — lack of conﬁdence in the existing economy, high degree of potential for moving, a focus on community features and not just jobs, the importance of cost of living factors, decline in drive-only suburban living, exploding demand for increased walkability, and concern over lack of non-car transportation choices — present a new urgency toward development patterns that transcend the old “sprawl versus downtown” living paradigm and that recognize the importance of walkability, of providing lower cost of living expenses, increasing family savings, and strengthening our economy. 35 DI.C Page 48 of 56 WHAT DOES LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE? 37 CONCLUSION 36 Why is there such a widespread belief that the U.S. economy is “fundamentally ﬂawed”? Wages have been stagnant for decades — but has something more systemic happened since the Great Recession that leaves people unconvinced that the U.S. economy is on solid ground? And what are the consequences of such a widespread negative belief? What are the implications of moving toward a much greater degree of emphasis on investing in place, particularly in terms of walkability, as the respondents suggest? What kinds of plans and community investment can be created to minimize — or even lower — the cost of living and boost savings? Why is it that transportation expenses are not seen as much of a high priority and what should be done to increase awareness? How can communities work toward better transportation options, tools for staying in place, and planning for weather-related changing conditions and emergencies? The research suggests a need for a new and more dynamic dialog among planners, economic developers, and community leaders that responds to the following questions and challenges: Our hope is that this research will add to the growing body of work that leads the way to rebuilding a stronger economy, stronger communities, and more reason for optimism across all generations about the future. For more information, visit APA online at www.planning.org. DI.C Page 49 of 56 INVESTING IN PLACE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS A RESEARCH SUMMARY  MAY 2014 DI.C Page 50 of 56 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: PCDC Status Matrix Date: May 6, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: PCDC Status Matrix Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:May 12, 2014 Item Number:DI.E AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.E Page 51 of 56 PC D C W o r k P l a n M a t r i x – M a y 1 2 , 2 0 1 4 Pl e a s e N o t e : N e w a d d i t i o n s u n d e r l i n e d , d e l e t i o n s r e mo v e d . Ma y 1 2 , 2 0 1 4 LA N D U S E C O D E S / P O L I C I E S To p i c / I s s u e Ne x t o n P C D St a f f / C o u n c i l Le a d Co m m e n t s 1 Co d e A m e n d m e n t s · M a r i j u a n a / C a n n a b i s Ju l y 2 0 1 4 J o n e s Pl a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t s t a f f w e n t b e f o r e t h e P l a n n i n g Commission on 1-22-14 an d 3 - 4 - 1 4 . T h e c o d e a m e n d m e n t p r o c e s s i s o n - g o i n g . Once Planning Co m m i s s i o n h a s m a d e t h e i r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t w i l l be presented to PCDC an d s t a f f a n t i c i p a t e s t h a t t a k i n g p l a c e J u l y 2 0 1 4 , most likely at the 2nd meeting. · W a r e h o u s e a n d D i s t r i b u t i o n Ce n t e r s Ju n e 2 0 1 4 D i x o n St a f f p r o v i d e d a b r i e f i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n t o P C D C o n M arch 7th and PCDC pr o v i d e d g e n e r a l s u p p o r t f o r a d v a n c i n g c o d e a m e n d m e nts that implement the po l i c y a m e n d m e n t s a d o p t e d i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 3 . T h i s i tem will be back before PC D C a f t e r t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n h a s d e v e l o p e d a recommendation. Pu b l i c h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n w a s M ay 6, 2014. · H e a l t h c a r e D i s t r i c t O v e r l a y 20 1 4 Ch a m b e r l a i n S t a f f t o d e v e l o p a w o r k p l a n a s p a r t o f t h e o v e r a l l c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n u p d a t e s . · F A R ( F l o o r A r e a R a t i o ) w i t h DU C z o n e Ju l y 2 0 1 4 Ch a m b e r l a i n St a f f w i l l b e m o v i n g f o r w a r d w i t h a p r o p o s e d c o d e a mendment related to floor ar e a r a t i o n w i t h i n t h e D o w n t o w n U r b a n C e n t e r ( D U C ) zone to the Planning Co m m i s s i o n i n J u n e . 2 H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n S t r a t e g i e s 20 1 4 Ch a m b e r l a i n St a f f w i l l f o r m u l a t e a s t r a t e g y a c t i o n p l a n a n d b r i ng back to Committee as part of th e o v e r a l l c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n u p d a t e . 3 St r a t e g y A r e a s f o r Po p u l a t i o n / B u s i n e s s / E m p l o y m e n t 20 1 4 Ch a m b e r l a i n Co d e c o n c e p t s a n d i d e a s t o b e d e v e l o p e d b a s e d o n C o uncil retreat direction an d l i n k e d t o t h e o v e r a l l c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n u p d a t e . 4 P e d e s t r i a n K i o s k s T B D C h a m b e r l a i n Fu n d i n g o p t i o n s a n d i d e a s t o c o n s t r u c t a n d i n s t a l l the remaining 6 pedestrian ki o s k s d o w n t o w n . S t a f f i s m o v i n g f o r w a r d w i t h t h e project ideas presented at th e 3 - 7 - 1 4 P C D C m e e t i n g a n d w i l l l o o k f o r o t h e r f u n ding opportunities with the Ci t y C o u n c i l f o r t h e u p c o m i n g 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 1 6 t w o y e a r b u dget cycle. EN V I R O N M E N T A L 5 A u b u r n E n v i r o n m e n t a l P a r k A p r i l 2 8 A n d e r s e n St r e a m a n d w e t l a n d r e s t o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s a r e o n g o i ng. Staff to provide a re s t o r a t i o n p r o g r e s s u p d a t e t o t h e C o m m i t t e e o n A p r il 28, 2014. DI . E Pa g e 5 2 o f 5 6 Ma y 1 2 , 2 0 1 4 Page 2 To p i c / I s s u e Ne x t o n P C D St a f f / C o u n c i l Le a d Co m m e n t s PA R K S , A R T S & R E C R E A T I O N 6 T h e a t e r L e a s e S p r i n g F a b e r D i s c u s s i o n o f t h e A u b u rn A v e n u e T h e a t e r . CO M M U N I T Y S E R V I C E S D I V I S I O N 7 Bu i l d i n g C o m m u n i t y TB D Hu r s h PC D C r e q u e s t e d a n u p d a t e a t a f u t u r e m e e t i n g ; b r i e f ing to be scheduled. 8 H u m a n S e r v i c e s C e n t e r O n g o i n g H u r s h U p d a t e s p r o v i de d a s n e e d e d o r r e q u e s t e d . 9 Un i f y c o m m u n i t i e s t h r o u g h ce n t r a l i z e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d ou t r e a c h TB D H u r s h C o m m u n i t y S e r v i c e s t o g i v e a n n u a l u p d a t e s . BO A R D S , C O M M I S S I O N S & H E A R I N G E X A M I N E R 10 A r t s C o m m i s s i o n De c e m b e r 20 1 4 Fa b e r On 1 2 / 0 9 / 1 3 t h e A r t s C o m m i s s i o n p r o v i d e d a p r e s e n t a tion updating PCDC of th e i r 2 0 1 3 p l a n s a n d a c t i v i t i e s a n d w i l l r e t u r n f o r an update in 2014. 11 H u m a n S e r v i c e s C o m m i t t e e De c e m b e r 20 1 4 Hu r s h Th e H u m a n S e r v i c e s C o m m i t t e e p r o v i d e d a 2 0 1 3 u p d a t e before PCDC on 01 - 2 7 - 1 4 . T h e H u m a n S e r v i c e s C o m m i t t e e i s s c h e d u l e d to present a 2014 up d a t e i n 1 2 - 2 0 1 4 . 12 H e a r i n g E x a m i n e r F a l l 2 0 1 4 D i x o n Th e H e a r i n g E x a m i n e r a t t e n d e d P C D C t o p r e s e n t a n a n nual briefing on 11 / 1 2 / 1 3 . T h e n e x t b r i e f i n g i s s c h e d u l e d f o r f a l l o f 2014. 13 P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n B o a r d J u l y 2 0 1 4 F a b e r An n u a l u p d a t e o c c u r r e d 7 - 2 2 - 1 3 w i t h P C D C ; t h e n e x t update will take place 7/ 2 0 1 4 . 14 P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n Se p t e m b e r 20 1 4 Ch a m b e r l a i n Th e C o m m i t t e e h e l d a J o i n t M e e t i n g w i t h t h e P l a n n i n g Commission on 3/18/14. Th e n e x t j o i n t m e e t i n g w i l l b e i n S e p t e m b e r , 2 0 1 4 . 15 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , T r a n s i t , a n d T r a i l s S p r i n g 2 0 1 4 Th o r d a r s o n A n n u a l u p d a t e o c c u r r e d o n 5 - 2 8 - 1 3 w i t h P CD C . 16 U r b a n T r e e B o a r d F a l l 2 0 1 4 F a b e r A n n u a l u p d a t e o cc u r r e d 1 0 - 2 8 - 1 3 w i t h P C D C . DI . E Pa g e 5 3 o f 5 6 Ma y 1 2 , 2 0 1 4 Page 3 To p i c / I s s u e Ne x t o n P C D St a f f / C o u n c i l Le a d Co m m e n t s CO M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N / C A P I T A L F A C I L I T I E S P L A N N I N G ( L o n g R a n g e P l a n n i n g ) 17 Ma j o r C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n Up d a t e TB D C h a m b e r l a i n M a j o r u p d a t e o f t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e p la n f o r t h e n e x t 2 0 y e a r s + ; · V i s i o n i n g f o r t h e m a j o r u p d a t e On - g o i n g C h a m b e r l a i n Th e c o n s u l t a n t M I G , I n c . w a s s e l e c t e d t o a s s i s t w i t h the visioning for the up d a t e . S t a k e h o l d e r i n t e r v i e w s h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d and the website launched fo r I m a g i n e A u b u r n . C o m m u n i t y v i s i o n i n g m e e t i n g s w ere held the week of Ma r c h 1 1 - 1 3 a n d M a r c h 1 8 - 2 0 w i t h g r o c e r y s t o r e i n t e rcept events held April 7-9. Re p o r t b a c k t o t h e c o m m u n i t y o f t h e v i s i o n t h e m e s , meeting set May 21st. · W a t e r , S e w e r , S t o r m Sc o p e : U p d a t e t o t h e W a t e r , Se w e r , a n d S t o r m Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n s i n c o n c e r t wi t h t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n Up d a t e p r o j e c t . On - g o i n g P u b l i c W o r k s Up d a t e t o t h e t h r e e u t i l i t y c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n s a s the City updates its co m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n . T h e s c o p e o f w o r k f o r e a c h u t i lity plan was reviewed at th e 1 1 - 1 2 - 1 3 P C D C m e e t i n g . · T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g Sc o p e : L o n g - t e r m p l a n n i n g f o r th e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n la n d u s e a n d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n in f r a s t r u c t u r e . On - g o i n g P a r a Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e i n c o n c e r t with the comprehensive pl a n u p d a t e p r o j e c t . 18 Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t Pr o g r a m ( T I P ) Sc o p e : 6 - y e a r T I P t h a t i s up d a t e d a n n u a l l y i d e n t i f y i n g tr a n s p o r t a t i o n r e l a t e d c a p i t a l pr o j e c t s Ma y 1 2 Pa r a Re s o l u t i o n N o . 4 9 3 7 , t h e 2 0 1 4 - 2 0 1 9 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I mprovement Program (T I P ) w a s a p p r o v e d o n 6 - 1 7 - 1 3 b y C i t y C o u n c i l . P u b lic Works staff will begin re v i e w i n g t h e d r a f t 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v ement Program (TIP) in Ma y . 19 Ca p i t a l F a c i l i t i e s P l a n Sc o p e : 6 - y e a r c a p i t a l f a c i l i t i e s pl a n f o r t h e C i t y ’ s p u b l i c fa c i l i t i e s / u t i l i t i e s On - g o i n g F i n a n c e Up d a t e a n n u a l l y a s n e e d e d a s p a r t o f t h e c o m p r e h e n s ive plan update process. Ci t y C o u n c i l a d o p t e d O r d i n a n c e n o . 6 4 8 9 , t h e 2 0 1 3 C omprehensive Plan Am e n d m e n t s a t t h e 1 2 - 2 - 1 3 C i t y C o u n c i l m e e t i n g . 20 F e e d i s c u s s i o n s T B D Ta t e / Ch a m b e r l a i n Co m m i t t e e d i s c u s s i o n o n i m p a c t f e e s a n d c a l c u l a t i o n s. DI . E Pa g e 5 4 o f 5 6 Ma y 1 2 , 2 0 1 4 Page 4 To p i c / I s s u e Ne x t o n P C D St a f f / C o u n c i l Le a d Co m m e n t s UP D A T E S A N D B R I E F I N G S 21 E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t U p d a t e s T B D M a y o r An E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t u p d a t e w a s p r o v i d e d t o t h e Committee on 4-14-14, fu t u r e b r i e f i n g s w i l l b e p r o v i d e d a s n e e d e d . 22 Mu c k l e s h o o t T r i b e TB D T a t e St a f f t o s t a y i n t o u c h w i t h P l a n n i n g D e p t . a n d k e e p coordination & co m m u n i c a t i o n o p e n w i t h T r i b e . T h e C i t y m e t w i t h t he Muckleshoot Tribe on 11 - 1 9 - 1 3 . 23 T h e A D A Sp r i n g 20 1 5 Ch a m b e r l a i n Th e A u b u r n D o w n t o w n A s s o c i a t i o n p r o v i d e d a n u p d a t e at the 04-14-14 meeting an d w i l l r e t u r n i n t h e s p r i n g o f 2 0 1 5 f o r t h e i r a n n ual update. 24 A m t r a k T B D M a y o r B a c k u s Ci t y t r a c k i n g p o t e n t i a l s t a t i o n s t o p s e x p a n s i o n s t u dy by Amtrak. Public Works st a f f p r o v i d e d a n u p d a t e a t t h e C o m m i t t e e ’ s 3 - 2 5 - 1 3 meeting, the WSDOT st a t i o n s t o p e x p a n s i o n f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y i s e x p e c t e d to be complete in June, 20 1 3 . C o u n c i l p a s s e d R e s o l u t i o n N o . 4 9 4 9 s u p p o r t i n g an Amtrak stop in Au b u r n . 25 L e s G o v e C o m m u n i t y C a m p u s T B D W a g n e r L G C C t o p r o vi d e a b r i e f i n g a s n e e d e d . 26 Fl o o d p l a i n p r o g r a m s – N F I P a n d CR S TB D A n d e r s e n On 2 - 2 4 - 1 4 s t a f f p r o v i d e d a n u p d a t e o n t h e C i t y ’ s F loodplain Development Re g u l a t i o n s a n d w i l l r e t u r n o n 4 - 2 8 - 1 4 f o r a n u p d a t e. CR S : S t a f f i s e v a l u a t i n g t h e 2 0 1 3 c h a n g e s t o t h e C R S p r ogram requirements an d d e v e l o p i n g p o l i c y o p t i o n s f o r t h e C o m m i t t e e t o consider for City’s future ap p r o a c h t o C R S p a r t i c i p a t i o n . NF I P - E S A : C i t y h a s r e c e i v e d n o t i c e t h a t F E M A ’ s m o d e l f l o o d p lain ordinance ha s b e e n r e v i s e d a n d n e w C i t y r e g u l a t i o n s m u s t b e a dopted and submitted to FE M A . S t a f f i s p r e p a r i n g a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e C i t y ’ s r egulations to meet this re q u i r e m e n t . DI . E Pa g e 5 5 o f 5 6 Ma y 1 2 , 2 0 1 4 Page 5 To p i c / I s s u e Ne x t o n P C D St a f f / C o u n c i l Le a d Co m m e n t s 27 En v i r o n m e n t a l R e s t o r a t i o n Pr o j e c t s Sp r i n g 20 1 5 An d e r s e n On 4 - 1 4 - 2 0 1 4 s t a f f p r o v i d e d a n u p d a t e o f C i t y e n v i r onmental restoration pr o j e c t s p l a n n e d a n d i n p r o g r e s s f o r 2 0 1 4 , a n d w i l l return in the Spring of 2015 fo r a n u p d a t e . CP 1 0 1 6 : F e n s t e r P h a s e 2 L e v e e S e t b a c k - R e v i s e d p r e l i m i n a r y design has be e n a p p r o v e d b y t h e W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e S a l m o n R e c o v e ry Funding Board (S R F B ) . P r o j e c t p r o c e e d i n g t o f i n a l d e s i g n a n d c o n s truction. CP 0 7 4 6 : M i l l C r e e k W e t l a n d 5 K R e s t o r a t i o n - S t a f f i s w o r k i ng with Army Corps to c o m p l e t e 9 5 % - d e s i g n a n d p r e p a r e d r a f t P r o j e c t P a rtnership Agreement (P P A ) f o r C o m m i t t e e r e v i e w . O n A p r i l 7 , 2 0 1 4 , t h e City was notified that it has be e n s e l e c t e d t o r e c e i v e a n a d d i t i o n a l $ 5 3 2 , 0 0 0 i n state floodplain management gr a n t f u n d s f o r t h i s p r o j e c t . CP 1 3 1 5 : C i t y W e t l a n d M i t i g a t i o n – D e s i g n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n of compensatory we t l a n d m i t i g a t i o n i n t h e A u b u r n E n v i r o n m e n t a l P a r k is ongoing. 28 Do w n t o w n P a r k i n g Ma n a g e m e n t P l a n Ju n e 2 0 1 4 Ch a m b e r l a i n / Ya o Re s o l u t i o n N o . 5 0 3 1 , t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e D o w n t o w n P a r king Management Plan wa s a d o p t e d b y C i t y C o u n c i l o n 2 - 3 - 1 4 . T h e p a r k i n g permit program will be bl e n d e d i n t o t h e C D P M P . S t a f f w i l l p r o v i d e m o n t h l y briefings on the de v e l o p m e n t a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f p a r k i n g m a n a g e m e n t strategies. 29 C o m m u n a l R e s i d e n c e s A u g u s t 2 0 1 4 Ch a m b e r l a i n / Ta t e Or d i n a n c e N o . 6 4 7 7 w a s a d o p t e d b y C i t y c o u n c i l o n 9 -3-13. A website posting th e r e n t a l h o u s i n g c o d e s w e n t l i v e o n t h e C i t y w e b s ite 9-10-13 and notification ma i l i n g s w e r e s e n t t o L e a H i l l r e s i d e n t s . C i t y d o c uments continue to be up d a t e d a s n e e d e d . S t a f f p r o v i d e d a n u p d a t e a t t h e 4-28-14 meeting. DI . E Pa g e 5 6 o f 5 6