The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-17-2014 PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Planning and Community Development May 27, 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 - May 12, 2014* (Tate) III.ACTION A. Resolution No. 5074* (Para) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, setting the time and date for a Public Hearing before the City Council on the 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Plan. B. Resolution No. 5069* (Miller) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the Washington Service Corps to provide a full-time disaster services member to the City of Auburn, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary agreements to accept said member. C. Resolution No. 5070* (Miller) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the Washington Service Corps to provide a full-time veterans services member to the City of Auburn, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary agreements to accept said member. IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Resolution No. 5065* (Mund) Introduce and adopt Resolution No. 5065. B. ZOA14-0002 - Amendment to Zoning Code Section 18.23. Related to Warehouse and Distribution Uses* (Tate) Staff to review ZOA14-0002, amendment to Zoning Code Section 18.23. and the Planning Commission recommendations from the May 6, 2014 Public Hearing. C. AARP Report "Is This a Good Place to Live?/Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages* (Tate) D. Auburn City Code Chapter 1.25 - Civil Penalties and Code Enforcement Procedures* (Tate) Page 1 of 116 Staff to discuss Auburn City Code Chapter 1.25, Civil Penalties and Code Enforcement procedures. E. Director's Report (Tate) F. PCDC Status Matrix* (Tate) V.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 2 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Minutes - May 12, 2014 Date: May 20, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: May 12, 2014 Draft Minutes Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend City Council approve the May 12, 2014 Planning and Community Development Committee minutes as written. Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:May 27, 2014 Item Number:CA.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.A Page 3 of 116 Planning and Community Development May 12, 2014 - 5:00 PM Annex Conference Room 2 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair 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, Transportation Manager Pablo Para, Traffic Engineer James Webb, and Community Development Secretary Tina Kriss. B. Announcements There were no announcements. C. Agenda Modifications There were no agenda modifications. II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - April 28, 2014 (Tate) Member Trout moved and Vice-Chair Wales seconded to approve the April 28, 2014 Planning and Community Development Committee minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. 3-0 III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Draft 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Plan (Webb) Transportation Manager Pablo Para explained that the draft version of the 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) received today is a preliminary draft, staff will be making additional revisions before coming back to the Committee for action to go forward to a Public Hearing and proposed adoption before full City Council. Page 1 of 3 CA.A Page 4 of 116 Traffic Engineer James Webb and Transportation Planner Pablo Para distributed a 2015-2020 TIP program summary. The Committee and staff reviewed the completed projects to be removed from TIP, new projects to be added and substantial TIP updates. A brief discussion was held regarding various reports required for projects and the increase in reporting for grant funded projects. The Committee discussed numbers 64 through 66, Lea Hill improvements. Transportation Manager Pablo Para answered questions from the Committee on traffic impact fees, calculations, and exemptions. B. Short Plat Thresholds (Tate) Assistant Director Tate provided background information on the short plat thresholds, subdivisions and short subdivisions. A discussion was held between the Committee and staff as to the benefits of increasing the number permissible as a short subdivision. Staff identified a cost savings of approximately $4,660.00 for those developers able to apply for a short subdivision instead of applying for a subdivision if the number allowed in a short subdivision increased from 5 to 9 or fewer lots. Assistant Director Tate explained that the City would also save a considerable amount of staff hours by making this update. The Committee also expressed interest in understanding cost recovery of fees collected verses resources consumed when processing land divisions. The Committee and staff discussed the idea of increasing the number allowed in a short subdivision while maintaining all of the development standards of a subdivision for those short subdivisions with 5 to 9 lots. The Committee and staff discussed the process to update the Auburn City Code if this change was recommended. The Committee asked staff to add this item to the PCDC Status Matrix and expressed their support of increasing the number allowed in a short subdivision while maintaining long division standards for 5 to 9 lots. In response to the request by the Committee for staff to return with a comparison matrix, Assistant Director Tate stated staff will first return to the Committee with an overview of the Plat/Subdivision process in June and follow up with a comparison matrix for short subdivisions and subdivisions with the proposed updates in July. C. American Planning Association Report (Tate) Assistant Director Tate opened the discussion on “Investing in Place” by discussing the different terms of demographics (Millennials, aged 21 to 34; Generation X, aged 35 to 49; and Active Boomers, aged 50 to 65) and explained that the Millennials and Active Boomers share Page 2 of 3 CA.A Page 5 of 116 many of the same concerns and beliefs regarding planning outcomes, meaningful economic development strategies, and the types of community attributes that are desirable. Chair Holman provided an article to the Committee on the economics of places and mentioned the book “Walkable City” and “The Economics of Place”. The Committee discussed the importance of walkability, connectivity, and providing amenities that are desirable to the community. The Committee would like to continue the discussion on investing in place and asked staff to add this item to the PCDC Status Matrix. The Committee agreed that the report and its conclusions had relevance in the Comprehensive Plan update and that it is appropriate to focus economic development strategies on investing in the amenities that make for a vibrant community. D. Director's Report (Tate) Assistant Director Tate explained that the "Imagine Auburn" Vision Open House will take place from 6:30 to 8:00 pm with an open house from 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. at the Auburn Golf Course Banquet Room, 29630 Green River Road SE, Auburn. A live webcast will be aired on the City's website. E. PCDC Status Matrix (Tate) The Committee requested that staff add "Investing in Place" and short subdivisions to the matrix. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Approved this __________________ day of ____________________, 2014. ________________________________________ John Holman, Chairman ________________________________________ Tina Kriss, Community Development Secretary Page 3 of 3 CA.A Page 6 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 5074 Date: May 20, 2014 Department: Public Works Attachments: Resolution No. 5074 Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend City Council adopt Resolution No. 5074. Background Summary: The purpose of this Resolution is for the City Council to set a time and date for a public hearing to amend the Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development, Public Works Councilmember:Osborne Staff:Para Meeting Date:May 27, 2014 Item Number:ACT.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.A Page 7 of 116 --------------------------- Resolution No. 5074 May 20, 2014 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5074 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, SETTING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE 2015-2020 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires that the City of Auburn annually prepare and adopt a comprehensive transportation improvement program for each ensuing six calendar years to ensure that the City will have available advance plans as a guide in carrying out a coordinated street construction program; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires the City Council to annually conduct a public hearing to review the work accomplished under each six-year Transportation Improvement Program, and to adopt a revised and extended comprehensive transportation improvement program. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Resolution is for the City Council to set a time and date for a public hearing on the 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Plan, to review the work accomplished under the program, and to identify capital transportation system improvement projects, and relevant transportation studies. ACT.A Page 8 of 116 --------------------------- Resolution No. 5074 May 20, 2014 Page 2 Section 2. NOTICE OF HEARING. The Council hereby directs that a notice specifying the time and place of the public hearing shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation and the notice shall also be posted in three public places. Such public notice shall precede the public hearing by at least 10 days. Section 3. DATE OF HEARING. Pursuant to the requirements of State law, a public hearing on said 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program will be held on the 16th day of June, 2014, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall at 25 West Main Street in Auburn, Washington, before the City Council. All persons interested in said 2014-2019 Transportation Improvement Program may attend and testify at said hearing. Section 4. AUTHORITY. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures hereon. ACT.A Page 9 of 116 --------------------------- Resolution No. 5074 May 20, 2014 Page 3 DATED and SIGNED this _____ day of June, 2014. CITY OF AUBURN _______________________________ NANCY BACKUS MAYOR ATTEST: ________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney ACT.A Page 10 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 5069 Date: May 15, 2014 Department: Administration Attachments: Resolution 5069 Budget Impact: $6200 Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend City Council adopt Resolution No. 5069. Background Summary: The City of Auburn has a continued need to provide disaster education to the public. Since 2006, we have utilized the AmeriCorps program to coordinate this function and deliver public education. This grant of a full-time AmeriCorps member for 2014/2015 will allow us to continue our public education programs. Reviewed by Council Committees: Municipal Services, Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Peloza Staff:Miller Meeting Date:May 27, 2014 Item Number:ACT.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.B Page 11 of 116 -------------------------------------------------- Resolution No.5069 May 27, 2014 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5 0 6 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT FROM THE WASHINGTON SERVICE CORPS TO PROVIDE A FULL-TIME DISASTER SERVICES MEMBER TO THE CITY OF AUBURN, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS TO ACCEPT SAID MEMBER WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has an office of Emergency Management, dedicated to preparing the City and its residents for disaster; and WHEREAS, the Washington Service Corps provides full-time disaster services volunteers to local programs through the AmeriCorps program; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn desires to provide comprehensive disaster education to Auburn residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has been accepted as a host site for a 2014/2015 AmeriCorps member, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose. The City Council of the City of Auburn hereby accepts a grant from the Washington Service Corps of one Disaster Services AmeriCorps member, for the 2014/2015 program year. Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor of the City of Auburn is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this resolution. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures hereon. ACT.B Page 12 of 116 -------------------------------------------------- Resolution No.5069 May 27, 2014 Page 2 SIGNED and DATED this _______ day of May 2014. CITY OF AUBURN _________________________ Nancy Backus MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________ Danielle Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney ACT.B Page 13 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 5070 Date: May 15, 2014 Department: Administration Attachments: Resolution 5070 Budget Impact: $6200 Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend City Council adopt Resolution No. 5070. Background Summary: The City of Auburn has a newly established Veteran’s Coordinator. The AmeriCorps member will assist in outreach efforts and volunteer coordinator to support this position. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development, Public Works Councilmember:Holman Staff:Miller Meeting Date:May 27, 2014 Item Number:ACT.C AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.C Page 14 of 116 -------------------------------------------------- Resolution No.5070 May 27, 2014 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5 0 7 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT FROM THE WASHINGTON SERVICE CORPS TO PROVIDE A FULL-TIME VETERANS SERVICES MEMBER TO THE CITY OF AUBURN, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS TO ACCEPT SAID MEMBER WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has a coordinator of Veterans Services, dedicated to providing services to veterans; and WHEREAS, the Washington Service Corps provides full-time veterans services volunteers to local programs through the AmeriCorps program; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn desires to provide outreach to veterans who are Auburn residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has been accepted as a host site for a 2014/2015 AmeriCorps member, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose. The City Council of the City of Auburn hereby accepts a grant from the Washington Service Corps of one Veterans Services AmeriCorps member, for the 2014/2015 program year. Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor of the City of Auburn is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this resolution. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures hereon. ACT.C Page 15 of 116 -------------------------------------------------- Resolution No.5070 May 27, 2014 Page 2 SIGNED and DATED this _______ day of May 2014. CITY OF AUBURN _________________________ Nancy Backus MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________ Danielle Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney ACT.C Page 16 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 5065 Date: May 20, 2014 Department: Public Works Attachments: Resolution No. 5065 Exhibit A Exhibit B Staff Report Vicinity Map Draft Preliminary Plat Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: PNW Home Builders North, LLC has applied to the City for vacation of the un-opened right-of- way of South 324th Street located between 46th Place South and 51st Avenue South, south of South 321st Street shown on Exhibit “B”. The Applicant is in the process of developing the adjacent parcels and is proposing to include the right-of-way in their development. The application has been reviewed by City staff and utility purveyors who have an interest in this right-of-way. Through this review City staff has determined that the right of way is no longer necessary to meet the needs of the City and that a public hearing should be set to determine if said right-of-way may be vacated. Resolution No. 5065, if adopted by City Council, sets the date of the public hearing for Vacation No. V2-14 for July 7, 2014. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development, Public Works Councilmember:Osborne Staff:Mund Meeting Date:May 27, 2014 Item Number:DI.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Page 17 of 116 ---------------------------- Resolution No. 5065 ROW Vacation V2-14 April 21, 2014 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5065 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF UN-OPENED RIGHT- OF-WAY OF SOUTH 324th STREET BETWEEN 46TH PLACE SOUTH AND 51ST AVENUE SOUTH, SOUTH OF SOUTH 321ST STREET, WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON. WHEREAS, the City of Auburn, Washington, has received a petition signed by owners of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting un-opened right-of-way at the location of South 324th Street between 46th Place South and 51st Avenue South, south of South 321st Street and adjacent to Parcel Nos. 1521049128, 1521049001, 1521049020, 9262800271, 9262800194 and 9262800201, within the City of Auburn, Washington, requesting that the same be vacated; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 35.79.010 of the Revised Code of Washington, a hearing on such vacation shall be set by Resolution, with the date of such hearing being not more than sixty (60) days nor less than twenty (20) days after the date of passage of such Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. That a hearing on the vacation of un-opened right-of-way of South 324th Street between 46th Place South and 51st Avenue South, south of South 321st Street, located within the City of Auburn, Washington, legally described as follows: DI.A Page 18 of 116 ---------------------------- Resolution No. 5065 ROW Vacation V2-14 April 21, 2014 Page 2 The north 30.00 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying easterly of the east margin of 46th Place South; EXCEPT the east 30.00 feet thereof; TOGETHER WITH that portion of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 15, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M., described as follows: COMMENCING at the northeast corner of said southeast quarter; thence N89°06’27”W, along the north line of said southeast quarter, a distance of 30.00 feet to the west line of the east 30.00 feet of said southeast quarter; thence S01°17’02”W, along said west line, 30.00 feet to the south line of the north 30.00 feet of said southeast quarter and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract of land; thence continuing S01°17’02”W 25.17 feet to a point of cusp with a 25.00-foot radius curve to the Left, the center of which bears N88°42’58”W; thence northwesterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 90°23’29”, a distance of 39.44 feet to a point of tangency with the south line of the north 30.00 feet of said southeast quarter; thence S89°06’27”E, along said south line, a distance of 25.17 feet to the POINT OF BEBINNING; Contains 33,264± Square Feet (0.7636± Acres) and as shown on the document attached hereto, marked as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby set for 7:30 p.m. on the 7th day of July, 2014, at the City Council Chambers at 25 West Main Street, Auburn, Washington, 98001, with all persons wishing to speak to the vacation at the public hearing being invited to attend. Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation, including DI.A Page 19 of 116 ---------------------------- Resolution No. 5065 ROW Vacation V2-14 April 21, 2014 Page 3 posting notice of such public hearing as required by State law and City Ordinance. Section 3. This Resolution shall be in full force in effect upon passage and signatures hereon. DATED and SIGNED this day of , 2014. CITY OF AUBURN ______________________________________ NANCY BACKUS Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk Approved as to Form: _____________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney DI.A Page 20 of 116 DI . A Pa g e 2 1 o f 1 1 6 DI . A Pa g e 2 2 o f 1 1 6 1 of 2 5/20/2014 V2-14 Staff Report RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION STAFF REPORT Right-of-Way (ROW) Vacation Number V2-14 Applicant: PNW Home Builders North, LLC Property Location: Un-opened Right-of-Way of South 324th Street located between 46th Place South and 51st Avenue South, south of South 321st Street. Description of right-of-way: This ROW proposed for vacation is un-opened ROW of South 324th Street located between 46th Place South and 51st Avenue South, south of 321st St South. The ROW is adjacent to Parcels 1521049128, 1521049001 and 1521049020 on the north side and Parcels 9262800271, 9262800194 and 9262800201on the south side. The proposed area of ROW for vacation is 33,264(+/-) square feet. The ROW was dedicated for street purposes to the public in 1907 by FM Jordan and Ada M Jordan under the plat of West Auburn Five Acre Tracts recorded in Volume 15 of plats, Page 12, in the records of King County. This area was under King County jurisdiction in 1907 and was annexed into the City of Auburn in 2008. See Exhibits “A” and “B” for legal description and survey. Proposal: The Applicant proposes that the City vacate the above described right-of-way so that they can include the area in development of the adjoining parcels under the plat know as Auburn Assemblage shown on the draft preliminary plat map. Applicable Policies & Regulations: • RCW’s applicable to this situation - meets requirements of RCW 35.79. • MUTCD standards - not affected by this proposal. • City Code or Ordinances - meets requirements of ACC 12.48. • Comprehensive Plan Policy - not affected. • City Zoning Code - not affected. Public Benefit: • The vacated area may be subject to property taxes. Discussion: The vacation application was circulated to Puget Sound Energy (PSE), Comcast, CenturyLink, Lakehaven Utility District and City staff . 1. PSE – PSE has no existing electric and gas facilities in the proposed vacation area. 2. Comcast – Comcast does not have any plan or easements in the ROW that is being vacated. We do not oppose the vacation. 3. CenturyLink – CenturyLink had the area located and does not have any existing facilities in the proposed vacation area. 4. Lakehaven Utility District – All facilities are currently located outside of the proposed area for vacation so an easement will not be required. The applicant will provide any necessary easements for new services associated with the development of their project. 5. Water – There are currently no City of Auburn water facilities in the ROW proposed for vacation. This is in the Lakehaven Utility District and they may have existing facilities. DI.A Page 23 of 116 2 of 2 5/20/2014 V2-14 Staff Report 6. Sewer – The area is within Lakehaven Utility District’s sewer service area. The City has no sewer facilities in this area and an easement is not needed. 7. Storm –There are no existing storm facilities in the proposed vacation area. An easement is not needed. 8. Transportation – The alignment of Road E, within the proposed plat by the applicant, may change slightly based on design comments provided to the applicant on 04/01/14. This will not impact the ROW vacation but may impact the ROW dedication through the platting process for the realigned roadway. Otherwise, no comments. 9. Planning – Proposed Road E must align with the centerline of the existing S 324th Street ROW to the east of 51st Avenue South. The plat exhibit provided does not show the appropriate reverse curve and tie in as specified to the Applicant. Other than that planning has no further issue with the request and will default to the expertise of the Traffic Engineer. 10. Fire – No comments 11. Police – No comments 12. Streets – No comments 13. Construction – No comments 14. Innovation and Technology – No comments 15. General Review – While the current alignment of S 324th St un-opened ROW is not necessarily needed and could be vacated, a general network connection in the area between 46th Place South and 51st Avenue South may still be needed in the future. The ROW could be vacated as long as the applicant dedicates ROW providing a network connection parallel and equivalent to the vacated corridor with the proposed plat development that is faciltiating this ROW vacation. A temporary construction easement over the area to be vacated should be approved to assist the applicant in achieving final plat prior to the vacation taking effect. Assessed Value: ACC 12.48 states “The city council may require as a condition of the ordinance that the city be compensated for the vacated right-of-way in an amount which does not exceed one-half the value of the right-of-way so vacated, except in the event the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense or have been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more, compensation may be required in an amount equal to the full value of the right-of-way being vacated. The city engineer shall estimate the value of the right-of-way to be vacated based on the assessed values of comparable properties in the vicinity. If the value of the right-of-way is determined by the city engineer to be greater than $2,000, the applicant will be required to provide the city with an appraisal by an MAI appraiser approved by the city engineer, at the expense of the applicant. The city reserves the right to have a second appraisal performed at the city’s expense.” Note: The city engineer has not required an appraisal for the value of this right-of-way since the right-of-way was originally acquired through dedication of a Plat and subsequent annexation at no cost to the City. RCW 35.79.030 states the vacation “shall not become effective until the owners of property abutting upon the street or alley, or part thereof so vacated, shall compensate such city or town in an amount which does not exceed one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated. If the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more, or if the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense, the city or town may require the owners of the property abutting the street or alley to compensate the city or town in an amount that does not exceed the full appraised value of the area vacated.” The right-of-way was acquired through dedication of a Plat on March 28, 1907 under the jurisdiction of King County at no cost and was annexed to the City of Auburn in 2008. Recommendation: 1. Staff recommends that the street vacation be granted with the condition that the effective date of the vacation be upon approval and recordation of the Final Plat associated with Preliminary Plat No. PLT13- 0006 (Auburn Assemblage) in accordance with ACC Title 17, as long as the final plat contains a dedication of right-of-way providing a network connection parallel and equivalent to the vacated corridor. 2. Staff recommends that a temporary construction easement over the area to be vacated be granted to assist the applicant in achieving final plat prior to the vacation taking effect. DI.A Page 24 of 116 PNW Home Builders North LLC - Auburn Assemblage - S 324th St between 46th Pl S and 51st Ave S Legend Printed On:2/28/2014 Created by City of Auburn eGIS Information shown is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Addresses* Street Centerlines* Private Streets Public Streets Parcels* Power Vault* Utility Poles* Junction Boxes* Street Lights* COA Other PSE Electrical Service* Gas Lines* Commercial Fiber* COA Fiber* COA Fiber INET Fiber ITS Fiber Traffic Signals Fire Station Signal Pedestrian Signal Traffic Signal Traffic Flashers Pedestrian Flasher School Zone Flasher Railroad Signals Traffic Signal Cabinets* Power Service Cabinets* Traffic Signal Heads* Traffic Signal Mast Arms* Street Painted Lines* Airport Bike Lane Bike Lane Symbol Crosswalk Dashed Dividng Line Directional Symbols Fog Line Parking HOV Lane HOV Symbol On Street Parking Painted Road Line Railroad Crossing Solid Dividing Line Stop Line Copper Innerconnects Conduit Illumination Conduit Communication Conduit Traffic Conduit Spare Conduit Storm Drainage Caps* COA Storm Caps Other Storm Caps Storm Drainage Catch Basins* COA Storm Catch Basins Other Storm Catch Basins Storm Drainage Cleanouts* COA Storm Cleanouts Other Storm Cleanouts Storm Drainage Pump Stations* Storm Drainage Separators COA Storm Separator Other Storm Separator Storm Drainage Infalls COA Storm Infalls Other Storm Infalls Storm Drainage Manholes* COA Storm Manholes Other Storm Manholes Storm Drainage Outfalls COA Storm Outfalls Other Storm Outfalls Storm Drainage Channels* COA Storm Channels Other Storm Channels Storm Drainage Culverts* COA Storm Culverts Other Storm Culverts Storm Drainage Pipes* COA Storm Gravity Mains Other Storm Gravity Mains Storm Drainage Detention Sites Basic Biofiltration Swale CP Oil Water Separator Detention Detention and Wet Pond Detention Pond Detention Tank Detention Vault Flood Storage Infiltration Infiltration and Swale Infiltration Pond Oil Separator Pond Pond and Swale Stormfilter Stormfilter Vault Swale UIC Vault Vault and Swale Vortechnic Wet Biofiltration Swale Wet Pond Wet Vault Water Blowoffs* COA Blowoffs Other Blowoffs Water Caps* COA Water Caps Other Water Caps Water Interties COA Water Interties Other Water Interties Water Pump Stations* COA Water Pumps Other Water Pumps Water Springs Water Wells Water Reservoirs COA Water Reservoirs Other Water Reservoirs Water Hydrants* COA Water Hydrants Other Water Hydrants Water Meters* COA Water Meters Other Water Meters Large Water Meters* Water PRVs* COA Water PRVs Other Water PRVs Water Valves* COA Water Valves Other Water Valves Water Laterals* COA Water Laterals Other Water Laterals Water Lines* COA Water Lines Other Water Lines Sanitary Sewer Caps* Sanitary Sewer Cleanouts* Sanitary Sewer Pump Stations* Sanitary Sewer Separators Sanitary Sewer Siphons Sanitary Sewer Wet Well Sanitary Sewer Manholes* Sanitary Sewer Blood Borne Manholes Sanitary Sewer Manholes Sanitary Sewer Laterals* Sanitary Sewer Mains* 2012 Aerial North Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 2012 Aerial South Red: Band_1 Green: Band_2 Blue: Band_3 DI.A Page 25 of 116 Ro a d B Ro a d B Ro a d B Road B Road B Road C Road D Ro a d D Ro a d E R o a d E Pr o p o s e d R O W V a c a t i o n DI.APage 26 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: ZOA14-0002 - Amendment to Zoning Code Section 18.23. Related to Warehouse and Distribution Uses Date: May 21, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Agenda Bill Exhibit A - Ordinance No. 6508 Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: See attached memorandum. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:May 27, 2014 Item Number:DI.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 27 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6508; Amendment to zoning code Section 18.23.030, to change the use regulations applicable to warehousing and distribution facility uses in the EP, Environmental Park zoning district and the M1, Light Industrial zoning distinct. (File No. ZOA14-0002). Date: May 21, 2014 Department: Community Development and Public Works Attachments: See exhibit list (at the end of report) Budget Impact: N/A Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to review Ordinance No. 6508 amending Auburn City Zoning Code Section 18.23.030 Summary: The City proposes to amend zoning code Section 18.23.030, “Uses (of the Commercial and Industrial Zones)” of the zoning code to change the use regulations applicable to warehousing and distribution facility uses in the EP, Environmental Park zoning district and the M1, Light Industrial zoning distinct. The current language of the code prohibits warehousing and distribution uses in the EP zone and requires a Conditional Use Permit in the M1, Light Industrial zone. The City seeks to revise the regulations to allow the use outright in the M1, Light Industrial zone and outright, if legally established prior to the zoning change in the EP zone. Similarly, it would also allow a manufacturing facility in the EP zone, if legally established prior to the zoning change in the EP zone to convert to warehouse and distribution uses. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv. Finance Parks Human Services Planning & CD Fire Planning Park Board Public Works Legal Police Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources Information Services Action: Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____ Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____ Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____ Councilmember: Holman Staff: Tate Meeting Date: May 27, 2014 Item Number: DI.B Page 28 of 116 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: May 21, 2014 Page 2 of 10 Background Since the zoning code dating back to at least the year 1987, the “warehousing and distribution” land use has historically been allowed in the City’s Industrial zoning districts. Specifically, this use was allowed outright in the two main industrial zoning districts that existed at the time; the M1, Light Industrial, and the M2, Heavy Industrial zoning districts. These districts make up a large part of the western, (Region-Serving Area) valley floor portion of the City. In Title 18.23, ‘Commercial and Industrial Zones’, and specifically, Table 18.23.030, ‘Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone’ this use is listed as: “warehousing and distribution”. Since, warehousing and distribution uses are prominent locally, and the nature of this use is self-explanatory, the zoning code does not contain a specific definition for this use. This proposed change affects two industrial zones in the city. A discussion of the historical changes affecting each zone leading to the current circumstances and proposed revision follows. Relation of Streamlined Sales Tax Changes to the M1, Light Industrial Zoning District In 2005 the State of Washington adopted streamlined sales tax (SST) legislation. Prior to SST legislation, sales tax collection in Washington State was based on the site of origin, rather than on the site of destination. Under the SST tax structure, sales tax is collected at the site of delivery rather than from those areas from which they were shipped. This change in tax structure puts the City of Auburn at a disadvantage and negatively impacts its tax revenue. Specifically, Auburn and similar cities have historically invested in infrastructure to support businesses engaged in warehouse and distribution activities that ship goods to other destinations. Another concern for Auburn and similar cities that have invested in infrastructure include how the debt that has already been extended for such infrastructure will be paid and how the loss of a significant source of revenue will affect bond ratings. In November 2004 based on the then potential passage of SST, the Auburn City Council approved Resolution No. 3782. Resolution No. 3782 outlines an approach and actions the City will take related to land use planning, zoning and other matters in the event a streamlined sales tax proposal or other similar proposals that change the tax structure are adopted. Because of the State of Washington’s implementation of sales tax mitigation payments to cities such as Auburn, the impact resulting from streamlined sales tax has been somewhat lessened. However, the continued availability of these payments is not certain due in part to the State’s current and anticipated fiscal challenges. In addition, the amount of payments does not equal the total loss in revenue to the City. The City’s economic development strategies are dependent upon the City being able to continue a strong public investment program in infrastructure and services. The City’s ability to continue this public investment is contingent upon maintaining solvent public revenue streams, particularly sales tax. Sales tax comprises the largest source of monies to the City’s General Fund, approximately 30 percent in 2010. The City anticipates that current and long-term fiscal challenges facing the State of Washington will likely result in the DI.B Page 29 of 116 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: May 21, 2014 Page 3 of 10 dissolution of the current sales tax revenue mitigation program. The eventual loss of the aforementioned sales tax revenue will directly and adversely affect the City’s ability to adequately fund the capital infrastructure and services necessary to support the realization of the City’s economic development strategies. This is especially applicable to industrial areas supporting warehouse and distribution centers that are origin-based in nature. In 2011, the City amended the City’s Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 6394 to identify that warehouse and distribution land uses are not a preferred long-term economic development and land use priority for industrial zoned areas in the City due to the loss of sales tax revenue associated with the State’s implementation of streamlined sales tax legislation, no substantive contribution to an increase in per capita income for Auburn residents, no reduction in the tax burden of Auburn residents, low employment densities, lower property values and land use inefficiencies. These changes specified that increases in manufacturing and other non- warehousing and distribution industrial land uses should be the City’s preferred economic development and land use priority for industrial zoned areas of the City currently dominated by warehousing and distribution land uses. These changes specified that the City should revise current comprehensive policies and regulations to provide for and require the conversion of existing warehousing and distribution land uses to manufacturing and industrial land uses. To implement the policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations affecting industrial zoning districts were changed by Ordinance No. 6433 near the end of 2012. Among other more minor changes, the Ordinance established that any new or expansion of existing warehouse and distribution uses in the M1, Light Industrial and M2, Heavy Industrial zone would require the land use application process of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Since the time of these comprehensive plan and zoning changes, the City has heard from a number of property owners and property management companies responsible for warehouse and distribution facilities located in the M1, Light Industrial zones expressing concern. The majority of concerns expressed were related to misunderstanding the effect of the changes to pre-existing warehouse and distribution uses. However, as a result of these comprehensive plan and zoning changes, the property owners, property managers and their professional organizations of warehouse and distribution uses have supported and advocated for the City with the state legislature. As a result of this support, the City determined it was appropriate to amend the policy guidance in it Comprehensive Plan to revise and “soften” the policy direction to promote and encourage through incentives the transition from warehousing and distribution uses rather than require the conversion of these uses. As a result of this support, the City also determined it was appropriate to amend the zoning code use regulations. On October 22, 2013 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the proposed comprehensive plan policy/text amendments affecting industrial zones as part of the items docketed for the annual comprehensive plan amendments. And following the public hearing, the Planning Commission forwarded its recommendation for approval to the City Council. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council on November 12, 2013 and the Committee forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council at its November 25, 2013 regular meeting. DI.B Page 30 of 116 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: May 21, 2014 Page 4 of 10 The Public Works Committee of the City Council reviewed the amendments and the Planning Commission recommendations at their November 18, 2013 meeting. Ordinance No. 6489 approving the comprehensive plan policy/text amendments was approved by the City Council at their December 2, 2013 regular meeting. Warehousing and distribution uses are still not preferred land uses in the Comprehensive Plan, but are no longer proposed to be transitioned to other uses. Proposed Zoning Code Change This proposal revises the zoning code to allow warehousing and distribution uses outright in the M1, Light Industrial zoning district to align with the previous year 2013 Comprehensive Plan text amendments and undo in part, the previous zoning code changes in 2012. Specifically, the “C” designating: “Conditionally Permitted Use” is proposed to change to “P” to indicate: “Permitted” in Table 18.23.030 shown as strike through and underline in the attached code section. Relation to EP, Environmental Park Zoning District The area north of West Main Street extending north to 15th ST NW and including Clay and Western Streets was identified by the 2005 Comprehensive Plan as a ‘problem area’ in relation to disparate mixture of land uses including remaining single family residential uses within an area transitioning to light industrial uses. The designation also recognized that the area was underserved by infrastructure; roads, water sewer and storm drainage. The comprehensive plan designation and zoning were for light industrial development and several industrial buildings were built. The City’s eventual ownership of the wetland mitigation site constructed as compensation for the wetland filling and impacts associated with the construction of the Emerald Downs Thoroughbred Racetrack (a.k.a. Thormod Wetland Mitigation Site) served as the catalyst for the city’s acquisition of additional adjacent parcels and formal establishment of the approximately 120-acre “Auburn Environmental Park’; a wetland natural resources park for open space and passive recreation. On August 7, 2006 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6036 that established a new industrial zoning classification termed the EP, Environmental Park Zoning district after the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposal on June 6, 2006. The EP zone consists of a larger approximately 276–acre area. The stated purpose of the Environmental Park zoning district is to allow uses in proximity to the Auburn Environmental Park that benefit from that location and will complement the park and its environmental focus. The uses to be allowed in this zone will focus upon medical, biotech and "green" technologies including energy conservation, engineering, water quality and similar uses. Other uses complementary to and supporting these uses are also allowed. Incorporation of sustainable design and green building practices will be a primary aspect of this zone. The construction of leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) and built green certified buildings is encouraged and built green will be required for multiple-family dwellings. The city recognizes that much of the property in this zone was developed under earlier standards, so the goals of the district will be realized over a period of time as properties are redeveloped. This change no longer allowed “warehousing and distribution facilities, to include wholesale trade not open to the general public”. As a result, the properties that were already developed as this use were made “legally-established, non-conforming uses”. Under the City’s regulations DI.B Page 31 of 116 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: May 21, 2014 Page 5 of 10 in ACC 18.54, ‘Nonconforming Structures, Land and Uses”, these legally-established, non- conforming uses are allowed to remain if continuously occupied, but if the space become vacant for more than 180 days, then the space may only be re-occupied by tenants meeting the more recent, current land use regulations. Also, with this change, owners of these non-conforming uses may only expand their nonconforming use or structure up to 25 percent after a ‘Special Exception’ is secured (land use approval by the Hearing Examiner). Since the time of these zoning changes, the City has heard from several owners of properties that were developed as warehousing and distribution facilities and located in the EP, zoning district expressing concern. Their concerns were related to the effect of the EP regulation changes to their pre-existing warehousing and distribution uses. In response to these concerns, the City wants to allow those sites that were developed as warehousing and distribution uses to prior the EP, Environmental Park zoning in 2006, additional regulatory flexibility to re-use and modify their use and/or structures. The City does not however wish to allow further or continued development and construction of new warehousing and distribution uses in the EP, Environmental Park zoning district. Further refinement of the zoning regulations of this zoning district to more effectively encourage and promote "green" development and sustainable design and environmentally sensitive building practices have previously been discussed by the City Council and are planned. Proposed Zoning Code Change This proposal revises the zoning code to allow those warehousing and distribution uses in structures pre-existing prior to the effective date of the EP, Environmental Park zoning district (August 17, 2006) to be an outright permitted use in the zone. Specifically, a footnote is added to Table 18.23.030 to denote: “1 Any legally-established warehousing and distribution facility that was issued a building permit as of the effective date of Ordinance No, 6036 (August 17, 2006) enacting the EP, Environmental Park Zoning District is an outright permitted use in the EP, Environmental Park zone and not a non-conforming use. Any manufacturing facility that was issued a building permit as of the effective date of Ordinance No, 6036 (August 17, 2006) enacting the EP, Environmental Park Zoning District converting to a warehousing and distribution facility is also an outright permitted use in the EP, Environmental Park zone and not a non-conforming use. Any such warehousing and distribution facility in the Environmental Park zone may be maintained, altered or added to according to ACC 18.23.040, Development Standards.” The proposed changes to Table 18.23.030 are shown as strike through and underline in the attached Ordinance No. 6508. Findings of Fact 1. In summary, the intent of the proposed code amendment is to change the use regulations applicable to warehousing and distribution facility uses in the EP, Environmental Park zoning district and the M1, Light Industrial zoning distinct. The current language of the code prohibits warehousing and distribution uses in the EP zone and requires a Conditional Use permit in the M1, Light Industrial zone. The City seeks to DI.B Page 32 of 116 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: May 21, 2014 Page 6 of 10 revise the regulations to allow the use outright in the M1, Light Industrial zone and outright if legally established prior to the zoning change in the EP zone. The change also allows any manufacturing facility that was issued a building permit prior to the effective date of Ordinance No, 6036 (August 17, 2006) enacting the EP, Environmental Park Zoning District and that is converting to a warehousing and distribution facility is also an outright permitted use in the EP, Environmental Park zone and not a non- conforming use. 2. To implement the policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan of the time, the zoning regulations affecting industrial zoning districts were changed by Ordinance No. 6433 near the end of 2012. The Ordinance established that any new or expansion of existing warehouse and distribution uses in the M1, Light industrial zone would require the land use application process of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 3. At their December 2, 2013 regular meeting, the City Council by Ordinance No. 6489 adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan Amendments that provide for and re-prioritize warehousing and distribution facilities uses in the industrial zoning districts. 4. On August 7, 2006 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6036 that established a new industrial zoning classification titled the EP, Environmental Park Zoning district for areas previously zoned M1, Light industrial. This designation does not allow “warehousing and distribution facilities, to include wholesale trade not open to the general public”. 5. The City of Auburn contains numerous properties that are developed as or suitable for development as “warehousing and distribution facilities, to include wholesale trade not open to the general public”. 6. Since the time of these comprehensive plan and zoning changes, the City has heard from a number of property owners and property management companies responsible for warehouse and distribution facilities located in the M1, Light industrial and EP, Environmental Park zones expressing concern. 7. In response to these concerns, the City proposes to reverse prior zoning changes and allow “warehousing and distribution facilities”, in the M1, Light Industrial zoning district. 8. Also, in response to these concerns, the City proposes to allow those sites that were developed as warehousing and distribution uses to prior the EP, Environmental Park zoning in 2006, additional regulatory flexibility to re-use and modify their use and/or structures. 9. The proposed amendment of the city’s zoning regulations is exempt from the “Notice of Application” procedures under ACC 14.02.070, “Project permit or project permit application” and ACC 14.02.040, “Development regulations”, since the adoption or amendment of zoning regulation is a type of “development regulation” that is not a "Project permit" or "project permit application". The Notice of Application is required only for project permits and not development regulations. DI.B Page 33 of 116 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: May 21, 2014 Page 7 of 10 10. The code amendment is subject to environmental review process under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued April 28, 2014 (SEP14-0002) and the city observed a fourteen-day public comment period. The City has not received any comments in response to notice of the public comment period. 11. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed zoning code amendment was sent to the Washington State Department of Commerce and other state agencies as required for the state review of modifications of development regulations. The amendments were sent on April 28, 2014. The City requested expedited review, as allowed by their procedures. The Department of Commerce granted expedited review and acknowledged receipt on April 28, 2014. 12. The general approach of these code amendments was discussed with and reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council on March 7, 2014 at their regular meeting. The Council Committee was supportive of the general approach. 13. The public hearing notice was published on April 21, 2014 in the Seattle Times newspaper at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing conducted May 6, 2014. 14. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed code amendment on May 6, 2014 and after taking testimony and deliberating forwarded a recommendation for approval of the code amendment. 15. Six people testified at the public hearing in support of the code change. The testimony included a request that the code amendment also allow any manufacturing facility that was issued a building permit prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 6036 (August 17, 2006) enacting the EP, Environmental Park Zoning District and that is converting to a warehousing and distribution facility is also an outright permitted use in the EP, Environmental Park zone and not a non-conforming use. This was not part of the original staff recommendation, but is supportable and was made part of the Planning Commission recommendation. 16. The following conclusions support the proposed amendments to Section 18.23.030. Conclusions 1. The proposed code amendments are supported by the City of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contains several goals, objectives, and policies that promote predictability and flexibility in the City’s development regulations. The Comprehensive Plan also has sections that provide for, establish and maintain a balance of industrial uses that respond to local and regional needs and enhance the city's image through optimal siting and location. The following goals, objectives, and policies excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan relate to this proposal: DI.B Page 34 of 116 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: May 21, 2014 Page 8 of 10 2. Excerpt from : CHAPTER 3 – PLAN BACKGROUND “GOAL 2 – FLEXIBILITY: To provide predictability in the regulation of land use and development, especially where residential uses are affected, but to also provide flexibility for development through performance standards that allow development to occur while still protecting and enhancing natural resources, cultural resources and critical lands and in overall compliance with this Comprehensive Plan.” “Discussion: Predictability of land development regulation is important to both existing and future property owners and to new development. It assures property owners that adjacent properties will develop in a consistent manner and it helps new development to plan for their development based on knowing what is allowed and what is not. Since all parcels are not identical, however, it is helpful to have some flexibility in land development regulation. While a variance can sometimes resolve some of these issues, regulations which provide some flexibility in the form of performance standards can help to provide development which better meets the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan rather than strict adherence to a set standard established in the zoning ordinance.” (Emphasis added) “A discussion of issues and polices related to this goal can be found in Chapter 2: General Approach to Planning.” Complies: This goal sets out that all of the City’s regulations should be designed to provide predictability while maintaining the ability for flexibility. These proposed changes that allow continuation of warehousing and distribution uses provide better predictability and consistency. 3. Excerpt from : CHAPTER 3 – LAND USE “GOAL 11. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT To provide for, establish and maintain a balance of industrial uses that respond to local and regional needs and enhance the city's image through optimal siting and location, taking into consideration tax policy impacts of streamlined sales tax and/or other similar legislation. Type of Industrial Uses There is a wide variety of possible industrial uses that could be sited in Auburn. As with the mix of residential uses, the mix of industry also affects the image of the city. The regional image of the city is that of an industrial suburb. This image is quite apparent as one travels along Highway 167 where there is an almost unending view of high-bay warehouse buildings. Different types of industrial areas should be separated since some types of industrial activities conflict with other industrial activities (especially those of a DI.B Page 35 of 116 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: May 21, 2014 Page 9 of 10 more desirable character). Such separation should be based primarily on performance standards. Location of Industrial Uses Before the adoption of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, there had been little separation of various types of industrial uses. At the time, there was no well understood policy basis regarding the separation of different types of industrial uses and some areas very suitable for high quality light industrial uses were committed to heavier uses. High visibility corridors developed with a heavier industrial character and established a heavy industry image for the city. The Plan provides clear distinction between different industrial uses. It also reserves areas for light industrial uses. Objective 11.1. To create a physical image for the city conducive to attracting light industry. Policies: LU-96 Highly visible areas which tend to establish the image of the city should not be used by heavy industrial uses. LU-97 The City shall promote high quality development of all light industrial and warehouse areas. Objective 11.6. To promote and incentivize new high value-added manufacturing and industrial uses over existing warehouse and distribution uses. Policies: LU-114 Existing warehouse and distribution uses are not preferred long term land uses in industrial zoning districts in the City. Through the development and application of incentives the city shall promote more beneficial manufacturing and industrial uses. LU-115 Regulatory and financial incentives will be identified and implemented where appropriate to provide increased opportunities and encouragement for the establishment of new or expanded manufacturing and industrial uses and jobs in the City. Complies: This goal sets out that the City’s regulations should provide for, establish, and maintain a balance of industrial uses that respond to local and regional needs and enhance the city's image through optimal siting and location. The proposed code changes are consistent with previously adopted changes to the Comprehensive Plan which allow continuation of warehousing and distribution uses in order to provide better predictability and consistency and prescribe that warehousing and distribution uses. While warehousing and distribution still are not preferred land uses; they are no longer proposed to be transitioned to other uses. DI.B Page 36 of 116 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: May 21, 2014 Page 10 of 10 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning and Community Development Committee to review Ordinance No. 6508 amending Auburn City Code Chapter Section 18.23.030 and recommend approval to the City Council. Exhibits: Exhibit A: Ordinance No. 6508 code changes to ACC 18.23.030, ““Uses (of the Commercial and Industrial Zones)”; changes shown in strike-through and underline. Exhibit B: Acknowledgement of receipt of Request for WA Dept of Commerce for state review, April 28, 2014. Exhibit C: Affidavit of Publication -Seattle Times Newspaper, April 21, 2014. Exhibit D: Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit E: Affidavit of Posting Exhibit F: SEP14-0002 Determination of Non-Significance and completed environmental checklist application DI.B Page 37 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. 6 5 0 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 18.23.030 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION USES WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate, in order to update and better reflect the current use regulations and development needs of the City; and WHEREAS, from time to time, amendments to the City of Auburn zoning code are appropriate, in order to remain consistent with changes in the policy guidance of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this amendment to the code is to manage growth in a manner which enhances, rather than detracts from community quality and values by actively coordinating land use type and intensity with City facility and service provision and development; and WHEREAS, this amendment to the code is a blend of proactive and predictive approaches to development regulations assuring that basic community values and aspirations are reflected in the City's planning approach; and WHEREAS, these code amendments were subject to environmental review process under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued April 28, 2014 and the City observed a fourteen-day public comment period. The City did not receive any comments in response to notice of the public comment period; and DI.B Page 38 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 2 WHEREAS, these code amendments were considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on May 6, 2014 and after the close the public hearing the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation for approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the code amendments were reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council on May 27, 2014 and thereafter the Committee forwarded a recommendation for approval to the full City Council. WHEREAS, the City Council determined, in light of the recommendations it received, that the following code changes are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN, as follows: Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That section 18.23.030 of the Auburn City Code entitled “Uses (of the Commercial and Industrial Zones)” is hereby amended as follows: 18.23.030 Uses. A. General Permit Requirements. Table 18.23.030 identifies the uses of land allowed in each commercial and industrial zone and the land use approval process required to establish each use. B. Requirements for Certain Specific Land Uses. Where the last column in Table 18.23.030 (“Standards for Specific Land Uses”) includes a reference to a code section number, the referenced section determines other requirements and standards applicable to the use regardless of whether it is permitted outright or requires an administrative or conditional use permit. DI.B Page 39 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 3 Table 18.23.030 Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2 INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING, WHOLESALING Building contractor, light X X X P X P X P Building contractor, heavy X X X X X A X P Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – light intensity X X X P X P P P ACC 18.31.180 Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – medium intensity X X X A X P A P ACC 18.31.180 Manufacturing, assembling and packaging – heavy intensity X X X X X X X A ACC 18.31.180 Outdoor storage, incidental to principal permitted use on property X X X P X P P P ACC 18.57.020(A) Storage – Personal household storage facility (mini-storage) X P X P X P X P ACC 18.57.020(B) Warehousing and distribution X X X X X C P X/P1 C ACC 18.57.020(C) Also, see footnote No. 1 DI.B Page 40 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 4 Table 18.23.030 Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2 Warehousing and distribution, bonded and located within a designated foreign trade zone X X X P X P P P Wholesaling with on-site retail as an incidental use (coffee, bakery, e.g.) X X X P X P P P RECREATION, EDUCATION AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USEs Commercial recreation facility, indoor X P P P P P P A Commercial recreation facility, outdoor X X X A X P A A ACC 18.57.025(A) Conference/convention facility X X A A X A X X Library, museum X A A A X A P X Meeting facility, public or private A P P P X A P A Movie theater, except drive-in X P P P P X X X Private school – specialized education/training (for profit) A A P P P P P P Religious institutions, lot size less than one acre A P P P A A A A DI.B Page 41 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 5 Table 18.23.030 Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2 Religious institutions, lot size more than one acre C P P P A A A A Sexually oriented businesses X X X P X P X P Chapter 18.74 ACC Sports and entertainment assembly facility X X A A X A X A Studio – Art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. P P P P P P A A RESIDENTIAL Caretaker apartment X P P P X P P P Live/work or work/live unit X P P P P P P X Multiple-family dwellings as part of a mixed-use development X P P P P P P X ACC 18.57.030(A) Multiple-family dwellings, stand-alone X X X X X X X X ACC 18.57.030(B) Nursing home, assisted living facility X P P P C X X X Senior housing X A A A X X X X DI.B Page 42 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 6 Table 18.23.030 Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone Permitted, Administrative, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Zone P – Permitted C – Conditional A – Administrative X – Prohibited LAND USE Zoning Designation Standards for Specific Land Uses C-N C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 M-1 EP M-2 RETAIL Building and landscape materials sales X X X P X P X P ACC 18.57.035(A) Construction and heavy equipment sales and rental X X X X X A X P Convenience store A A P P X P P P Drive-through espresso stands A A A P A P A A Drive-through facility, including banks and restaurants A A A P P P X P ACC 18.52.040 Entertainment, commercial X A P P X A X A Groceries, specialty food stores P P P P P P P X ACC 18.57.035(B) Nursery X X X P A P X P ACC 18.57.035(C) Outdoor displays and sales associated with a permitted use (auto/vehicle sales not included in this category) P P P P P P P P ACC 18.57.035(D) DI.B Page 43 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 7 Restaurant, cafe, coffee shop P P P P P P P P Retail Community retail establishment A P P P P P X P Neighborhood retail establishment P P P P P P X P Regional retail establishment X X X P P P X A Tasting room P P P P P P P P Tavern P P X P P P X A Wine production facility, small craft distillery, small craft brewery A P P P P P P P SERVICES Animal daycare (excluding kennels and animal boarding) A A A P A P X P ACC 18.57.040(A) Animal sales and services (excluding kennels and veterinary clinics) P P P P P P X P ACC 18.57.040(B) Banking and related financial institutions, excluding drive-through facilities P P P P P P P P Catering service P P P P A P A P Daycare, including mini daycare, daycare center, preschools or nursery schools A P P P P P P X Dry cleaning and laundry service (personal) P P P P P P P P Equipment rental and leasing X X X P X P X P Kennel, animal boarding X X X A X A X A ACC 18.57.040(C) Government facilities, this excludes A A A A A A A A DI.B Page 44 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 8 offices and related uses that are permitted outright Hospital X P P P X P X P Lodging – Hotel or motel X P P P P A P A Medical – Dental clinic P P P P P P X X Mortuary, funeral home, crematorium A P X P X P X X Personal service shops P P P P P P X X Pharmacies P P P P P X X X Print and copy shop P P P P P P X X Printing and publishing (of books, newspaper and other printed matter) X A P P P P P P Professional offices P P P P P P P P Repair service – equipment, appliances X A P P P P X P ACC 18.57.040(D) Veterinary clinic, animal hospital A P P P P P X X TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Ambulance, taxi, and specialized transportation facility X X X A X P X P Broadcasting studio X P X P X P X P Heliport X X X C X C X C Motor freight terminal1 2 X X X X X X X X See Footnote No. 1 2 Parking facility, public or commercial, surface X P P P P P P X Parking facility, public or commercial, structured X P P P P P P X Towing storage yard X X X X X A X P ACC 18.57.045(A) DI.B Page 45 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 9 Utility transmission or distribution line or substation A A A A A A A A Wireless communication facility (WCF) – – – – – – – – ACC 18.04.912, 18.31.100 VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICES Automobile washes (automatic, full or self-service) X A X P P P X P ACC 18.57.050(A) Auto parts sales with installation services X A A P P P X P Auto/vehicle sales and rental X A X P X P X P ACC 18.57.050(B) Fueling station X A A P P P X P ACC 18.57.050(C) Mobile home, boat, or RV sales X X X P X P X P Vehicle services – repair/body work X X A P X P X P ACC 18.57.050(D) OTHER Any commercial use abutting a residential zone which has hours of operations outside of the following: Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or Monday – Saturday: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. A A A A A A A A Other uses may be permitted by the planning director or designee if the use is determined to be consistent with the intent of the zone and is of the same general character of the uses permitted. See ACC 18.02.120(C)(6), Unclassified Uses. P P P P P P P P DI.B Page 46 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 10 1 Any legally-established warehousing and distribution facility that was issued a building permit as of the effective date of Ordinance No, 6036 (August 17, 2006), enacting the EP, Environmental Park Zoning District, is an outright permitted use in the EP, Environmental Park zone and not a non-conforming use. Any manufacturing facility that was issued a building permit as of the effective date of Ordinance No, 6036 (August 17, 2006), enacting the EP, Environmental Park Zoning District, converting to a warehousing and distribution facility is also an outright permitted use in the EP, Environmental Park zone and not a non- conforming use. Any such warehousing and distribution facility in the Environmental Park zone may be maintained, altered or added to according to ACC 18.23.040, Development Standards, 1 2 Any motor freight terminal, as defined by ACC 18.04.635, in existence as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, is an outright permitted use in the M-1 and M-2 zone. Any maintenance, alterations and additions to an existing motor freight terminal which are consistent with ACC 18.23.040, Development standards, are allowed. Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: __________________ PASSED: _______________________ APPROVED: ____________________ DI.B Page 47 of 116 Ordinance No. 6508 May 21, 2014 Page 11 ___________________________________ ATTEST: NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR _________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney PUBLISHED: ______________ DI.B Page 48 of 116 Dear Mr. Dixon: Principal Planner City of Auburn 25 W Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001-4998 Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. April 28, 2014 Jeff Dixon City of Auburn - Proposed amendment to zoning code section ACC 18.23.030, "Uses (of the Commercial and Industrial Zones)" to change the use regulations applicable to warehousing and distribution facility uses in the EP, Environmental Park zoning district and the M1, Light Industrial zoning distinct to allow uses outright; the warehousing and distribution facility uses are currently prohibited or conditionally permitted. These materials were received on April 28, 2014 and processed with the material ID # 20218. Expedited Review is requested under RCW 36.70A.106(3)(b). If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106. If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment requesting expedited review, then we have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies for expedited review and comment. If one or more state agencies indicate that they will be commenting, then Commerce will deny expedited review and the standard 60-day review period (from date received) will apply. Commerce will notify you by e-mail regarding of approval or denial of your expedited review request. If approved for expedited review, then final adoption may occur no earlier than fifteen calendar days after the original date of receipt by Commerce. Please remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption. If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov, or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048. Sincerely, Review Team Growth Management Services DI.B Page 49 of 116 DI.B Page 50 of 116 DI.B Page 51 of 116 DI.B Page 52 of 116 DI.B Page 53 of 116 DI.B Page 54 of 116 DI.B Page 55 of 116 DI.B Page 56 of 116 DI.B Page 57 of 116 DI.B Page 58 of 116 DI.B Page 59 of 116 DI.B Page 60 of 116 DI.B Page 61 of 116 DI.B Page 62 of 116 DI.B Page 63 of 116 DI.B Page 64 of 116 DI.B Page 65 of 116 DI.B Page 66 of 116 DI.B Page 67 of 116 DI.B Page 68 of 116 DI.B Page 69 of 116 DI.B Page 70 of 116 DI.B Page 71 of 116 DI.B Page 72 of 116 DI.B Page 73 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: AARP Report "Is This a Good Place to Live?/Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages Date: May 21, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum AARP 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 27, 2014 Item Number:DI.C AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 74 of 116 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 21, 2014 RE: AARP Report – Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages As a follow up to the May 12, 2014 PCDC meeting, which included a discussion on the American Planning Association (APA) report titled “Investing in Place”, staff is transmitting a recent report prepared and released by American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) titled “Is This a Good Place to Live?/Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages”. As the City progresses down the path of community visioning and a comprehensive plan update, staff will be transmitting these types of reports to PCDC in order to help facilitate future community dialogue associated with these efforts. In order to avoid overloading PCDC with reports and information, staff will transmit one or two reports with each PCDC agenda package. Each agenda will include a placeholder to allow for questions and discussion pertaining to the content of each report. Attachment: AARP “Is This a Good Place to Live?/Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages” Report DI.C Page 75 of 116 601 E Street, NW | Washington, DC 20049 202-434-3840 PH | 202-434-6480 F | www.aarp.org/ppi Public Policy Institute Research ReportResearch Report AARP Public Policy Institute yearsCELEBRATING years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G yearsCELEBRATING years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G yearsAARP PUBLIC PO L I C Y I N S TITUTECELEBRATINGCELEBRATINGyearsAARP PUBLIC PO L I C Y I N STITUTECELEBRATINGyears years CELEBRATIN G years CELEBRATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years CELEBRATIN G years A A R P P U BLIC PO L I C Y I N S TITUTE C E L E B R ATIN G CELEBRATIN G years A A R P P U BLIC POLICY INSTITUTE CELEBRATIN G years Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages Rodney Harrell Jana Lynott Shannon Guzman DI.C Page 76 of 116 DI.C Page 77 of 116 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages Rodney Harrell Jana Lynott Shannon Guzman AARP’s Public Policy Institute informs and stimulates public debate on the issues we face as we age. Through research, analysis, and dialogue with the nation’s leading ex- perts, PPI promotes development of sound, creative policies to address our common need for economic security, health care, and quality of life. The views expressed herein are for information, debate, and discussion and do not neces- sarily represent official policies of AARP. 2014-01 April 2014 ©2014, AARP Reprinting with permission only AARP Public Policy Institute 601 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20049 http://www.aarp.org/ppi DI.C Page 78 of 116 DI.C Page 79 of 116 v Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................3 Strategies for Increasing Livability: Short- and Long-Term Solutions .......................4 Principles for Creating Livable Communities ...............................................................6 Principles from Other Organizations .............................................................................6 World Health Organization Domains .............................................................................6 Measuring Livability ........................................................................................................9 Preference Surveys .........................................................................................................9 Original Data Collection ..............................................................................................10 Multimethod Case Studies ...........................................................................................10 Data Sources ................................................................................................................10 Lessons for Measurement ............................................................................................11 Our Vision for Measuring Livability .............................................................................13 Appendix A. Principles for Communities ....................................................................15 Selected AARP Livable Community Principles .........................................................15 Other Sets of Principles ...............................................................................................17 Appendix B. Preferences ..............................................................................................19 DI.C Page 80 of 116 vi List of Figures Figure 1. Three Elements of a Livability Index for All Ages ......................................13 Figure B.1. Conceptual Framework .............................................................................19 List of Boxes Box 1. AARP Livable Community Principles (Selected) ..............................................7 Box A.1. 10 Principles of Smart Growth .....................................................................17 Box A.2. Principles of Sustainable Communities .........................................................18 List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of AARP Community Attributes and WHO Domains .................8 DI.C Page 81 of 116 1 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages ExEcutivE Summary What makes a community livable, and how can we measure it? These are key questions for both policy makers and advocates, but there is no universally accepted measure for evaluating community livability. The AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) is planning a set of livability reports and is developing an AARP-sponsored index to measure community livability across the United States. Lessons learned from that project have initially inspired the creation of two companion reports, “What Is Livable? Community Preferences of Older Adults” and “Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages.” The latter, which is this report, explores the meaning of livability, examines previous efforts to evaluate the livability of communities, and describes the PPI’s current work to quantify and compare livability, with a special focus on the preferences of the older population and the needs of people as they age. Work on this initiative began with a review of previous AARP livability surveys and other efforts to measure livability. It continued with focus groups and a nationwide community livability survey that was specifically designed to uncover the diverse needs and wants of the older adult population. (For detailed results from the focus groups and surveys, see the companion report titled “What Is Livable?”) Several approaches exist for measuring livability, including preference surveys, original data collection, multimethod case studies, Census Bureau studies, and online databases. Each of those sources is useful for investigating some part of community livability, but each methodology also has limitations. No one can provide all the data necessary to measure every element of a livable community, and researchers must understand that individuals perceive things differently from one another. Additionally, the preferences that people share tell only part of the story. Previous work on measuring livability offered several lessons for designing the AARP index. That index will accomplish the following: Take the wide range of individual preferences into account. Include objective indicators to measure what a community looks like and how well it meets the varying needs of community members. Take into account policy interventions as a key indicator of a community’s potential to improve over time. Several of our research findings provide lessons for development of a livability index: Individual preferences for livability include both issues that can be addressed by public policy and others that cannot. People and communities have differing perspectives: one type of community does not fit all. Perceptions of a livable community are made when choosing housing and may not change as a person ages, unless a major life change forces a new perspective. DI.C Page 82 of 116 2 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages From these findings, several implications evolve for an index that aims to measure livability. An index must achieve the following: Be relevant and useful to existing efforts to improve community livability. Incorporate the needs of older adults into a measure of general livability. Be useful for educating people about what they need as they age. Help policy makers, planners, and others better understand the needs of an aging population and the steps that can be taken to improve livability. Be relevant to all, no matter where they live, what their background may be, or what their income is. Acknowledge data limitations. Those lessons are being applied to the development of AARP’s index to measure community livability, and they will be useful for any attempt to measure or understand community livability that is for people of all ages. Together, the measures will (a) help us build an index that will show how well a community is prepared for aging; (b) help us educate policy makers about how to improve the community; and (c) let individuals answer this question: “Is this a good place to live?” DI.C Page 83 of 116 3 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages introduction A livable community is one that is safe and secure, has affordable and appropriate housing and transportation options, and offers supportive community features and services. Once in place, those resources enhance personal independence; allow residents to age in place; and foster residents’ engagement in the community’s civic, economic, and social life.1 AARP’s definition describes communities that support the needs of all residents, regardless of age, physical ability, income, cultural background, race, or other factors. In many ways, it is an aspirational goal of communities to become as “livable” as they can. Once defined, the larger challenge is to create livable communities, both in the places where people already live and in the process of when designing new communities. AARP surveys consistently show that older adults overwhelmingly desire to age in their homes and communities. Many of them have worked hard to establish their homes and social connections: friendships have been established and memories have been made, community organizations have been joined, and local ties have increased over time. Moving is an undesirable choice for residents who do not want to leave their communities, particularly when that choice is forced because a home or neighborhood no longer meets their needs. Staying in one’s home is not an ideal outcome for everyone, but policies and programs should recognize that general desire. Creating communities that support and enhance the lives of people who want to age in place is an important goal. Homes and communities that are missing elements of livability need changes to ensure that they can meet the livability goals of residents. This paper examines issues related to livability and describes AARP’s strategy to create a “livability index” that will help us measure the degree to which a community is livable. 1 Adapted from “Livable Communities,” in The Policy Book: AARP Public Policies, 2013–2014 (Washington, DC: AARP, 2013). DI.C Page 84 of 116 4 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages StratEgiES for incrEaSing LivabiLity: Short- and Long-tErm SoLutionS The baby-boom generation is aging and will shift the demographic mix in many communities over the coming decades. As recently as 2010, people ages 65 and older represented 13 percent of the population. But by 2030, those older adults will represent 20 percent of the population, more than doubling in number from 35 million to over 72 million.2 Many communities were developed without properly considering the wide range of needs faced by older adults and other populations, such as people with disabilities.3 That oversight leaves a gap between factors that allow people to live independently and the features and services of communities (such as transportation, shopping, recreation, and access to health care). In the long term, changes to the design of homes and communities can benefit all residents. Improved services can help “fill the gap” between the needs of the community members and the features their communities provide. To bridge the gap between the communities that exist today and the communities we need tomorrow, both short- and long-term solutions are needed. Some communities with large older populations, forward-looking policy makers, or a combination of both have started to prepare themselves to serve everyone. One example is in Pima County, Arizona, which in 2002 adopted an Inclusive Home Design Ordinance that requires basic access (“visitability”) features be included in all new homes. However, most jurisdictions have not addressed the changing needs of aging residents. Communities that fail to plan ahead will not have an easy or relatively low-cost “fix” when the age boom hits. Policy solutions and innovative programs can improve the way that existing neighborhoods and communities function to serve the diverse needs of residents. For example, a home-sharing program can connect older adults with helpers and can provide an option for those who can no longer function alone in homes that were not built for their needs. Supplemental transportation programs can compensate for either a community with a street design that prevents walking or a community with a layout that separates housing from shopping, recreation, and other services. Today’s older adults need quick action to help them overcome the flaws in their communities. The next generation of older adults will benefit from policies enacted now that (a) expand the availability of housing built with universal design principles that will accommodate residents and visitors of varying physical abilities; (b) complete streets that serve all users regardless of mode of transportation; and (c) contain a range of other features that make our homes, streets, and communities work for all, regardless of physical ability, age, or income. The creation of affordable options for housing and 2 United States Census Bureau, “National Population Projections,” 2012, http://www.census.gov /population/projections/data/national/. 3 Several AARP Public Policy Institute reports discuss components of this issue. See Jordana L. Maisel, Eleanor Smith, and Edward Steinfeld, “Increasing Home Access: Designing for Visitability,” AARP Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, August 2008, which focuses on housing design; and Janet Lynott et al., “Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America,” AARP Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, May 2009, which focuses on the street network. DI.C Page 85 of 116 5 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages transportation may take years to develop and implement, but certain short-term actions can provide interim solutions. Both the current conditions and the policies that can affect the future must be considered when one determines a community’s livability. For example, an individual may develop unanticipated needs after a job loss or a disability that prevents driving. The policy maker’s role is to address current needs, anticipate future needs, and coordinate the community’s responses accordingly. DI.C Page 86 of 116 6 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages PrinciPLES for crEating LivabLE communitiES AARP has developed and refined a set of livable community principles that serve as the foundation of our advocacy and policy agenda (see box 1). They are designed to guide policy makers who wish to ensure that their communities work for all. The principles appear in each edition of The Policy Book: AARP Public Policies and are divided into four distinct groups: general, land use, housing, and transportation. By adopting those principles and implementing the policies and practices that are based on them, communities can ensure that sufficient options exist to meet the needs of their population.4 Principles from Other Organizations Other sets of principles have been developed by a range of organizations or groups of organizations. (The sets of principles are discussed in appendix A.) The commonalities between those sets of principles and the AARP principles reflect the fact that many policies that improve communities for older adults will also improve communities for people of all ages. World Health Organization Domains In 2011, AARP became the US affiliate for the Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities of WHO. Age-Friendly Cities and Communities is a voluntary international effort to help cities prepare for two global demographic trends: (a) the rapid aging of populations and (b) the increase in urbanization. The program targets the environmental, social, and economic factors that influence the health and well-being of older adults. In its affiliate role, AARP will help WHO identify American communities that qualify for membership in the network and will spread awareness of the need to better accommodate the needs and desires of increasingly older populations. To join the network, communities must commit to continual improvement on a range of factors that improve quality of life for people of all ages. The program is intended to help cities and less populated communities become more supportive of older people by addressing their needs across eight distinct dimensions (or domains) of age-friendliness: the built environment, transportation, housing, social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, communication, and community support and health services. The domains identified by WHO are remarkably similar to those community attributes previously identified by AARP. The first seven domains and attributes listed in table 1 match closely. Although the language for the final one in each column differs, the detailed descriptions in AARP’s Livable Communities and WHO’s Age-Friendly Cities and Communities literature generally align. Together, those principles and domains identify key elements of community livability. The combined list represents the various dimensions that should be measured. The re- maining question is how to evaluate livability. 4 See http://www.aarp.org/policybook. DI.C Page 87 of 116 7 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages Box 1. AARP Livable Community Principles (Selected) General Principles Create livable communities.* Improve health. Foster safety and personal security. Engage residents in community planning, and provide equal access to the decision-making process. Coordinate planning processes. Invest in existing communities. Land-Use Principles Enhance access. Create communities with a strong sense of place. Promote mixed-use development. Foster lifelong learning opportunities. Housing Principles Improve home design. Promote affordable housing options. Foster home- and community-based service delivery. Transportation and Mobility Principles Create transportation options. Promote affordable transportation options. Ensure that the transportation system is accessible. Promote healthy communities through sustainable transportation infrastructure. Foster coordinated transportation services and assets. * The principle of “Create livable communities” encourages policy makers to create communities that are safe and secure, that have affordable and appropriate housing and transportation options, and that have supportive community features and services. For the full definition, see appendix A. DI.C Page 88 of 116 8 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages Table 1. Comparison of AARP Community Attributes and WHO Domains AARP Public Policy Institute’s Attributes from Livable Communities: An Evaluation Guide WHO Domains of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Transportation Transportation Housing Housing A physical environment that fosters walking Outdoor spaces and buildings Care and support services Community support and health services Health services Social participation Engagement of residents in social life Civic participation and employment Engagement of residents in civic life Communication and information Safety and security Respect and social inclusion Recreation and cultural activities Access to grocery stores and other shopping DI.C Page 89 of 116 9 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages mEaSuring LivabiLity There are several approaches to measuring livability objectively. They vary in several ways, including cost, feasibility on a national scale, and ability to focus on the needs of older adults. Preference Surveys Numerous preference surveys have been conducted, including several sponsored by AARP. One AARP survey titled “Home and Community Preferences of the 45+ Population” was conducted in 2010 and measured the preferences of 1,616 people ages 45 and older. Although it asked about particular features in the home and community that support aging, it and other preference surveys are most useful for finding out what home and community features are important to individuals. Such surveys can uncover the preferences of respondents at a point in time. The composition of the sample (the types of individuals being surveyed) determines how well that survey captures the needs of the entire aging population. The AARP Public Policy Institute (PPI) contracted in 2010 with the University of Vermont’s Transportation Research Center to synthesize data from 18 previous AARP livable community surveys that had been conducted between 2003 and 2010 and to rank community attributes by their stated importance. On the basis of this analysis, the center identified critical attributes in the determination of livability for older adults, for those who are in both urban and rural zip codes.5 A second phase of unpublished work included a literature review of high-ranking critical attributes and the identification of a preliminary set of broadly defined metrics and potential data sets. Both phases helped frame the thinking for the current index design. One drawback of the Phase 1 analysis was that it limited the ranked attributes to those included in the AARP surveys, which were not initially designed to accommodate broader analysis. Building a livability index solely around individual preferences reported through AARP or other surveys would not be adequate. Most people do not seriously consider the degree to which their environment enables them to “age in place”6 until they are personally challenged by a disability or an age-based constraint. For example, most people will not plan for a time when they no longer drive until they must hang up the keys, despite the research evidence that many people will outlive their driving years. On average, people who live to age 70 will outlive their driving years by 7 (men) to 10 (women) years.7 5 Jim Sullivan, Justine Sears, and Karen Glitman, “A Travel-Livability Index for Seniors, Phase 1: Livability Attribute Importance,” UVM TRC Report no. 11-001, University of Vermont Transportation Research Center, Burlington, May 2011. 6 “Age in place” refers to “the ability to live in one’s home and community safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age, income, or ability level.” See “Healthy Places Terminology,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, 2010, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm. 7 Daniel J. Foley, Harket K. Heimovitz, Jack M. Guralnik, and Dwight B. Brock, “Driving Life Expectancy of Persons Aged 70 Years and Older in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health 92, no. 8 (2002): 1284−99. DI.C Page 90 of 116 10 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages Original Data Collection In March 2013, the Stanford Center on Longevity and the MetLife Mature Market Institute released “Livable Community Indicators for Aging in Place,” an indicator system to measure “sustainable aging in place.” The indicators can be measured by local governments, and they cover housing options, accessibility to the community (transportation), and community supports and services. The indicators are useful for governments that want to measure the livability of their communities and can provide valuable community information. However, communities need to conduct independent local assessments and to collect their own data in order to use the indicators. Multimethod Case Studies Multimethod case studies can be the gold standard of measuring livability. It is possible to measure both local preferences and objective indicators by sending a team of researchers to conduct site visits, to collect original data, to interview residents about their preferences and observations, and to clarify what is on the ground in each community. Researchers sometimes take this approach, but it is often limited to a relatively small number of communities because of the high cost. Although it is by far the most thorough method, such an approach is not practical to implement nationwide. Data Sources Even if the approaches listed earlier can be specifically designed for measuring livability, they require far greater resources than might be required by using existing data sources. However, existing data sources are often not designed specifically for the purpose of measuring livability, so their utility may be limited. Census Bureau Surveys. The American Community Survey replaced the Census Long Form and provides small-area information each year. Consequently, it can provide results for every community nationwide. Many questions focus on the home and certain characteristics of the people who live in that home. Most other federally funded surveys have limited usefulness for small geographic areas because of their small sample sizes, but they may be useful for measuring certain questions about community livability. Online Databases. The Census Bureau is not the only source for data; many private companies have access to geocoded data that can measure a wide range of proximity-related data at every level of geography. Online users can find websites that measure the values and sale prices of homes in their neighborhoods, the walkability of their neighborhoods, the amount of crime in their regions, or the nearest bank or ATM. Proximity data are valuable (and are often costly), but they are rarely focused on community livability. DI.C Page 91 of 116 11 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages LESSonS for mEaSurEmEnt The companion report titled “What Is Livable? Community Preferences of Older Adults” details PPI’s research for the livability index and lists several lessons for index development. Each of the lessons (summarized next) influences our design of the ideal livability index. 1. Individual definitions of “livability” can include issue areas that may or may not be addressed by public policy. 2. People and communities have differing perspectives. One type of community does not fit all. 3. Perceptions of a livable community are made when choosing housing, and they may not change as the person (and community) ages, unless a major life change occurs. Together, those lessons combine with lessons from previous efforts to identify the challenges in building an index. Every effort is limited in key ways: 1. Data are lacking to measure many elements of a livable community. This limitation is not new to this type of effort: modeling requires data that are accurate, relevant, and current, but those data don’t exist across every element of a livable community. Any effort to measure livability must accept the inherent limitations of available data and must avoid biasing results. For example, it may be impossible to have a count of every home with a universal design feature or an up- to-date accounting of on-time service for every transportation option. The American Community Survey collects only certain data, and other national surveys are limited in scope or geographic coverage. Usually, data cannot be attributed to a small enough geographic area to be useful for measuring local livability. If specific data are available for smaller geographies, they are often not collected nationally, making comparison with other communities impossible. Transparency about what is (and is not) included in the index is an important consideration, and qualitative measures may be needed to complement the more quantitative measures that most researchers use for such projects on a national scale. 2. Individuals perceive things differently. Despite the efforts of researchers to use objective measures, individuals make their own determinations about what is desirable, and definitions about what is “livable” not only vary from person to person but also vary by life stage. The determination about what is “too far” or “too expensive” can change from person to person. Over time, those perceptions may fluctuate as an individual’s circumstances and experiences change. Moreover, a lack of knowledge about the features and services that exist in other communities can limit an individual’s ability to accurately rate his or her own community. 3. Stated preferences tell only part of the story. Preference surveys are common, but users of that method must compensate for several things: DI.C Page 92 of 116 12 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages a. An individual’s preferences can conflict: the same person may simultaneously want lower taxes and more government services. However, tradeoffs happen, and ideally an examination of preferences can take such an anomaly into account. b. Focus groups interviewed for the Public Policy Institute’s livability index revealed that many people had given no previous thought to how well their homes and communities would support their aging. The degree to which their “top of mind” stated preferences reflect their actual preferences is unclear. c. Long-term thinking about needs as we age is lacking. People who neither have a physical disability nor live with a person who has one may be unable to anticipate future needs. People may not recognize that steep stairways or the need to drive may become barriers. Yet if they acquire a physical disability, they will have to face the challenges presented by inaccessible housing or transportation. d. People are adaptable. Those in the housing field have witnessed many people who “make do” in circumstances that are far from ideal. One benefit of a livable community is that it has features and services that anticipate those needs and can help people lead better lives. Individuals may be accustomed to “the way that things have always been” and may not know that better options exist. (See appendix B for more about preferences.) Any effort to measure livability must take such limitations into account. DI.C Page 93 of 116 13 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages Individ u al P r e f e r e n c e s Objective I n d i c a t o r s Policy Interventio n s our viSion for mEaSuring LivabiLity Once we understand the opportunities, methods, and limitations for defining and measuring livability, the next step is to create an index (see figure 1). An ideal index must (a) reflect the preferences of a wide range of people as they age, (b) include objective indicators to measure what those people’s communities look like today, and (c) measure the potential for the communities to improve and do a better job of meeting needs in the future. Policy interventions that align with AARP principles will help ensure that communities are laying the groundwork to improve livability over the coming years. Together, lessons from previous research make it clear that a complex design is needed for any livability index to give a reasonable score for livability across the United States. A livability index that measures the needs of older adults and people of other ages must (a) provide relevant information, (b) be transparent about what it does and does not cover, and (c) give an idea of livability both now and into the future. The lessons from previous work should be acknowledged as well, and their limitations must be addressed. A livability index must accomplish the following: 1. Be relevant to existing efforts to improve community livability. The index must be relevant and useful to those who are familiar with existing efforts, including the AARP livable community principles, the sustainable community Figure 1. Three Elements of a Livability Index for All Ages What do people want? Are steps being made to improve this place over the long term? What does this community actually look like? DI.C Page 94 of 116 14 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages principles, the WHO domains of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities, and other efforts to ensure that communities are livable. 2. Incorporate the needs of older adults into a measure of general livability. Many older adults are concerned about general community issues, such as safety, government services, and even school quality. Those issues greatly overlap with issues of concern for the entire community. For maximum relevance, an index should be useful to areas with large numbers of older adults and areas that do not currently have high percentages of older adults. 3. Be useful for educating people about their needs as they age. Individuals don’t always make their choices about where to live as they age, and even when they do, they may not anticipate future needs. The index should help educate people about their future needs. 4. Help policy makers, planners, and others better understand the needs of an aging population and the steps they can take to improve livability. Knowledge about the policies, programs, and practices that make communities better for aging can help local officials and others understand and prepare for the aging of the population. Decision making that is based on inadequate information can lead to communities’ no longer being able to meet the needs of their residents. 5. Be relevant to all, no matter where they live, their background, or their income. Not every older adult has a physical disability or difficulty driving. Not all older adults have high incomes or savings.8 Additionally, not everyone lives downtown in a major city. Consequently, a one-size-fits-all approach will not be relevant to the entire population. An index that is usable at the individual level must acknowledge different needs and preferences. 6. Acknowledge data limitations. Quantitative data will not be available for every element of livability. An index must also be transparent about what it does and does not cover. As the AARP livability index is developed, our study of preferences will be combined with objective measures to understand what exists on the ground. Preferences and needs will be analyzed to understand the elements of livability (for a range of different circumstances) and will inform where a community stands today. Policy interventions will tell us whether a community is taking steps to prepare for the future. Together, those measures will help us build an index that will allow us to understand how well a community is prepared for aging, let policy makers know how to improve it, and let individuals answer this question: “Is this a good place to live?” 8 See the AARP Public Policy Institute’s Middle Class Security Project for several papers that discuss the financial challenges facing the population age 50 and older, http://www.aarp.org/security. DI.C Page 95 of 116 15 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages aPPEndix a. PrinciPLES for communitiES This report has focused on the AARP livable community principles, but other sets of principles exist that are designed to help guide policy makers in creating and improving communities. This appendix discusses the AARP livable community principles and two other sets of principles. Selected AARP Livable Community Principles (Adapted from The Policy Book: AARP Public Policies, 2013–2014)9 AARP General Livable Community Principles Create Livable Communities. Features and services should be designed to enhance the ability of residents with diverse needs to remain independent and actively engaged in community life, including safe, appropriate, decent, affordable, and accessible housing as well as comprehensive mobility options that include alternatives to driving (through transportation design, zoning, walkable neighborhoods, and technology infrastructure). Improve Health. Communities should provide access to healthy food options; opportunities for walking, biking, and exercise; and connections to health facilities and related services and supports, including home- and community-based supportive features and services. Foster Safety and Personal Security. Governments should support and promote community safety and security initiatives that promote neighborhood cohesion and that maximize opportunities for residents to be active and engaged with neighbors, family, and friends. Engage Residents in Community Planning, and Provide Equal Access to the Decision-Making Process. Communities should put in place structures that ensure that those decisions are made only with the active input of a wide cross section of community members, including representation of those who are unable to advocate on their own behalf. The costs and benefits of community decisions should be equitably shared within the community. Coordinate Planning Processes. Community land-use, infrastructure, housing, transportation, supportive services, and community health care planning each play a part in creating livable communities and promoting successful aging in place. Planning processes and decisions that affect those policy areas should be developed in a way that reflects their interconnectedness. Invest in Existing Communities. Investment in existing communities must be efficient and beneficial to those who desire to age in place. Development resources should be strengthened and directed toward existing communities and community revitalization, and economic development plans should include the needs of older adults. 9 For original text, see http://www.aarp.org/policybook, page 9.2. DI.C Page 96 of 116 16 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages AARP Land-Use Principles Enhance Access. All communities should consider the connections among land- use, housing, and alternative transportation and mobility options. Communities should coordinate decisions in those areas to enhance residents’ independence and active engagement and to promote successful aging in place. Create Communities with a Strong Sense of Place. The built environment should be in character with the natural environment and should respect community values. Valued historic and community resources should be preserved to create and reinvigorate intergenerational pride in the community and to help reverse patterns of decline. Promote Mixed-Use Development. Land-use planning that connects residents to jobs, services, retail, recreation, and entertainment through an interconnected network of “complete streets” sustainably will increase transportation options and social interactions. Foster Lifelong Learning Opportunities. Encouraging the intergenerational use of public facilities provides residents with lifelong learning opportunities that contribute to personal growth and economic productivity. AARP Housing Principles Improve Home Design. Communities should provide safe, decent, and accessible housing that promotes independence and aging in place through home modification and repair, appropriate design features in new and rehabilitated housing (through principles such as universal design, visitability, and energy efficiency), and use of innovative home products. Promote Affordable Housing Options. Governments should ensure that land- use and other policies support the private and public sectors in providing a variety of housing sizes and types. They should also promote funding and policies for programs that lead to an adequate supply of affordable rental and ownership options that are integrated with the community to meet the needs of people of all ages, family compositions, and incomes. Foster Home- and Community-Based Service Delivery. The delivery of home- and community-based supportive services that assist older people in maintaining independence and actively engaging in their community should be encouraged. AARP Transportation and Mobility Principles Create Transportation Options. All individuals should have a range of safe, accessible, dependable, and affordable transportation options, including alternatives to driving that enhance mobility, promote independence, facilitate employment opportunity, and foster social engagement. Promote Affordable Transportation Options. Transit services should equitably connect people to jobs and services, including low- and moderate-income or older people, who may not have access to cars. DI.C Page 97 of 116 17 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages Ensure That the Transportation System Is Accessible. Travel infrastructure and facilities should accommodate older drivers’ and pedestrians’ needs and should enhance safety for all users across all modes of travel. Promote Healthy Communities through Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure. Public health can be enhanced by coordinating transportation and land- use decisions to create communities where it is safe and convenient to replace trips in private vehicles with walking, bicycling, and using public transportation. Foster Coordinated Transportation Services and Assets. The coordination of community transportation services and assets can improve the availability, quality, and efficient delivery of transportation services for all residents, in particular older adults, people with disabilities, and individuals with lower incomes. Other Sets of Principles One well-known and oft-used set is “10 Principles of Smart Growth” (see box A.1), which was developed by the 40 nonprofit and government organizations that make up the Smart Growth Network. The federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities joined the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate their activities to improve communities. Those agencies created the six principles shown in box A.2. The two sets of principles are largely directed at development decisions and other actions at the state and local levels to ensure that communities are designed in a way Box A.1. 10 Principles of Smart Growth 1. Mix land uses. 2. Take advantage of compact building design. 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. 4. Create walkable neighborhoods. 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. 6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas. 7. Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities. 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices. 9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective. 10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Smart Growth Principles,” Washington, DC, http://www.epa.gov/dced/about_sg.htm. DI.C Page 98 of 116 18 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages that serves all. The overlap with the AARP principles should not be surprising: although AARP generally focuses on issues affecting the population ages 50 and older, the AARP principles are based on an understanding that a livable community must include support for people of all ages. The principles are intended to help shape policy and planning decisions, but they can also provide a basis for developing measures of livability. If a community can meet those objectives and can support community members regardless of age, income, level of physical ability, or cultural background, then that community is a “livable” one. Box A.2. Principles of Sustainable Communities 1. Provide more transportation choices. 2. Promote equitable, affordable housing. 3. Enhance economic competitiveness. 4. Support existing communities. 5. Coordinate policies, and leverage investment. 6. Value communities and neighborhoods. Source: Partnership for Sustainable Communities, “Livability Principles,” Washington, DC, http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov /aboutUs.html. DI.C Page 99 of 116 19 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages aPPEndix b. PrEfErEncES Many researchers rely on preferences for their measurements of livability (see figure B.1). To properly understand the role and limitations of preferences requires a deeper explanation. The conceptual framework in figure B.1 models residential location decisions. In short, many elements go into stated preferences, and mobility limiters prevent those desires from being achieved. Figure B.1. Conceptual Framework General Preferences Value/price Cleanliness Safety Closeness to amenities: Schools Shopping Employment Transportation links Parks and recreation Services “Good” neighbors Visual appeal Reputation of neighborhood Others Internal Mobility Limiters Lack of information Desire to eliminate conflict with spouse/ partner’s preferences Fear (of prejudice, crime, etc.) Lingering memory of past/failure to anticipate the future External Mobility Limiters Individual income limitations Local economic conditions Lack of different kinds of neighborhoods in region Lack of transportation choices Steering Historical and current policies with discriminatory effects Discrimination Actual prejudice, discrimination, crime, violence Family/Cultural Amenities and Comfort Closeness to family Religious institutions Ethnic shopping, etc. Sense of community Political incorporation Integration Neighborhood pride Others Residential Preferences Neighborhood Choices/Outcomes DI.C Page 100 of 116 20 Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages Although an individual’s personal preferences are created by his or her unique combination of magnitude and direction of preferences, certain limits to mobility interact with preferences in ways that account for the differences between what an individual prefers and where that individual ends up living. Those mobility limiters are grouped into two categories: internal and external. Internal mobility limiters are self-imposed constraints on choice and may affect that individual’s perception of a particular neighborhood in ways contrary to that person’s best interest. The internal mobility limiters have the potential to interfere with an individual’s own ability to find a neighborhood that meets his or her needs. External mobility limiters are externally imposed constraints on choice. External mobility limiters reduce an individual’s ability to take advantage of other existing options. For example, the effect of actual discrimination, racial steering, and historical and current policies with discriminatory effects (such as redlining) can prevent someone from moving to a desired neighborhood. Additional external mobility limiters can best be described as regional limitations. Additional external mobility limiters can reduce the number of options, and they include (a) poor local economic conditions that prevent many from having the income necessary to purchase homes; (b) a lack of different kinds of neighborhoods; (c) a lack of transportation options; and (d) other differences that may exist in a particular region at a given point in time, including housing shortages, effects of natural disasters, and other factors. The external mobility limiters can restrict the number of choices or can limit the ability to choose from among the available choices. A particular region may fail to benefit potential residents on any or all of those criteria and would thereby limit the ability of potential movers to find desirable neighborhoods. People’s stated preferences are not unassailable because internal mobility limiters prevent individuals from knowing their “true” preferences. The external mobility limiters are issues that can be addressed by public policies that ensure that people can find what they want.10 10 The framework and explanation are adapted from a framework originally developed for “Understanding Modern Segregation: Suburbanization and the Black Middle Class” by Rodney Harrell (PhD diss., University of Maryland, 2008). See that publication for a more detailed explanation. DI.C Page 101 of 116 DI.C Page 102 of 116 601 E Street, NW | Washington, DC 20049 202-434-3840 PH | 202-434-6480 F | www.aarp.org/ppi Public Policy Institute Research ReportResearch Report AARP Public Policy Institute yearsCELEBRATING years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G yearsCELEBRATING years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G yearsAARP PUBLIC PO L I C Y I N S TITUTECELEBRATINGCELEBRATINGyearsAARP PUBLIC PO L I C Y I N STITUTECELEBRATINGyears years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years C E L E B R ATIN G years A A R P P U BLIC PO L I C Y I N S TITUTE C E L E B R ATIN G C E L E B R ATIN G years A A R P P U BLIC PO L I C Y I N STITUTE C E L E B R ATIN G years DI.C Page 103 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Auburn City Code Chapter 1.25 - Civil Penalties and Code Enforcement Procedures Date: May 21, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Exhibit A Exhibit B Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: See attached memorandum. Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:May 27, 2014 Item Number:DI.D AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 104 of 116 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 DATE: May 21, 2014 RE: Auburn City Code Chapter 1.25 – Civil Penalties and Code Enforcement Procedures Overview Chapter 1.25 of the Auburn City Code (ACC) sets forth the procedures that City Code Compliance Officers utilize when responding to complaints and pursuing action to remedy violations. This Chapter of code covers 9 titles of City code (5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18) that include 146 separate chapters as well as all of the international building codes and all of the city engineering design and construction standards. A small sample of the subject matter of these chapters of code includes noise, nuisances, business licenses, environment, zoning, vegetation, sidewalk obstructions, garbage, and tree cutting. Since its adoption in 1991 Chapter 1.25 has been only slightly modified. While the code contains the basic tools needed to carry out most enforcement actions, there are a number of gaps, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies within ACC Chapter 1.25 and the other chapters that it is designed to support. Additionally, Chapter 1.25 does not contain certain tools that can help increase the expediency and effectiveness of code enforcement strategies. Exhibit A provides for a few examples of the gaps, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies as well as some general ideas for other tools that should be considered in a code update of Chapter 1.25. Exhibit B provides an initial draft of an outline that can be used to develop an updated Chapter 1.25. Questions 1. What philosophy, ideas or other tools should staff consider as part of its analysis and updated of ACC Chapter 1.25? 2. Code Compliance Officers are particularly challenged when they cannot find a responsible party to address the violation. In spite of initiating formal code enforcement DI.D Page 105 of 116 action and levying fines against the property the violation persists. The City is then faced with a dilemma of simply allowing fines to accrue until someone eventually takes responsibility or it can respond more proactively through abatement actions which allow the City to remediate the violation. Sometimes remediation is a one time event (e.g. boarding up a house), other times it requires ongoing action (e.g. lawn maintenance). There are a number of ways to initiate proactive abatement actions but they almost always result in the expenditure of City funds. Staff is seeking input on how proactive the City should be for different types of abatement actions given that each action incurs a cost. 3. Other questions, priorities or concerns? Exhibits: Exhibit A – Examples of Code Amendments Exhibit B – Sample Code Structure DI.D Page 106 of 116 Exhibit A – Examples of Needed ACC Chapter 1.25 Code Amendments 1. The purpose statement in ACC Chapter 1.25 states that it applies to Title 15 (the Building Code) yet it also states that it applies to all “non-fire code violations”. This is an internal inconsistency because the fire code is located within Title 15. Additionally, Valley Regional Fire Authority does not have code enforcement authority and there are no other City codes that describe how a fire code violation is addressed. Therefore, there is also a gap in the code that the leaves staff without any authority or process to address fire code violations. 2. The purpose statement in Chapter 1.25 states that it applies to Title 5 (Business Licenses) yet there is a separate chapter (ACC 5.15) that sets forth a process for the administration of business license enforcement. This scenario presents an inconsistency and challenge in determining which standards and procedure to follow. 3. Chapter 1.25 defines how an enforcement notice shall be served to a property owner. The City of Auburn has established a higher standard of service than other jurisdictions by requiring that service be delivered via one of two ways: a. In person, or b. Mailing a notice by certified mail, postage prepaid, return requested, and by posting a notice on the property Option b presents a significant challenge when a property is unoccupied, vacant, or in foreclosure since the mailed notice goes nowhere. Most jurisdictions establish method of service through three options in that they split option b into two separate acceptable methods of service. In other words, the bolded word “and” would be replaced with the word “or” and posting the notice would become an option c. 4. Chapter 1.25 defines an abatement process. Title 15 (the Building Code) adopts the international building code which also describes a process for abatement. The two abatement procedures are very different. Language should be incorporated into the code that either aligns the procedures or includes clarifying language that one procedure trumps the other. 5. Additionally, the City’s abatement procedure is a one size fits all approach. Staff believes that there are different levels of abatement that warrant different approaches. Obtaining authorization to abate a lawn maintenance violation is much different than abatement of a dangerous structure. One solution simply requires mowing a lawn while the other may require a structure to be demolished. For simple abatement procedures staff would like to develop a more expeditious process. DI.D Page 107 of 116 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit B – Initial Draft of Auburn City Code Chapter 1.25 Outline Authority Statement of City Authority and Applicable Titles of Code Designation of Authority from Mayor to Director to Other Designees Distinction between Director’s Authority and Building Official’s Authority Identification of Designees Code Compliance Officers Conduct and Ethics of Officers Limited Commissioning of Officers Relationship to Other Laws and Agencies IPMC – recognize all standards and authorities of IPMC – specificy adopted sections IFC – clarify who is the responsible fire code official and that this section does apply to fire code violations Other International Codes City Code City Police – sometimes it may be appropriate for a police officer to issue an infraction – describe Valley Regional Fire Authority – service provider vs. having code authority Lead Responsibility Definitions Abatement Act Building Official Code Compliance Official Department Designee Director Emergency Notice of Infraction Notice of Penalty Person Property Owner Stop Work Order Tenant Violation Actions Type of Violations Describe different levels (e.g. minor to major) Define code enforcement process for minor and major Voluntary Compliance Targeted Outreach and Education Individual Education DI.D Page 108 of 116 Page 2 of 3 Graffiti and Other Violations where the Owner is a Victim Community Participation Amnesty Contract with Party Signed Agreement with Violator Purpose Minimum Information on Contract Identification of Violation Action Items Timeframes, Deadlines and Milestones Authorization to Extend Appeals Exceptions to the Contract (When can we skip this step): After the fact permitting Illicit discharges Clear and present danger Repeating same violation and owner hasn’t changed Notice of Infraction Typically issued when the owner or tenant is present Financial penalty Akin to a ticket Notice of Penalty Typically issued when the owner can’t be identified Financial penalty Lein against property Cease and Desist Order Posted on property Demands that work cease Revocation of Permits, Licenses and Other Approvals Improperly Issued Approval Clear and Present Danger Illicit Discharge Falsification of Documents Violation of Notice or Order Violation of Notice or Order – Criminal Order to Vacate Water Shutoff Unsafe Premises Unhealthy Living Conditions Enforcement Directives Permit/Process Waiver (e.g. Emergency Actions) After the Fact Permitting Site Stabilization Site Security DI.D Page 109 of 116 Page 3 of 3 Boarding Fencing Abatement Securing a Site and/or Structure (post fire, life/safety nuisance, etc.) – Mayor Approval Premises (removing cars, maintaining vegetation, etc.) – Council Approval Interior – Court Order Graffiti – Administrative Expedited procedures Service To Property Owner, Tenant, Business Owner, Resident In Person, By USPS, On Site (Any single one will suffice) Appeals Contract – Request for Reconsideration to Director Civil – Hearing Examiner Criminal – District Court Severability DI.D Page 110 of 116 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: PCDC Status Matrix Date: May 21, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: PCDC Status Matrix Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:May 27, 2014 Item Number:DI.F AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.F Page 111 of 116 PC D C W o r k P l a n M a t r i x – M a y 2 7 , 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 2 7 , 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 01 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 Ma y 2 7 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. The 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 . · S h o r t P l a t T h r e s h o l d Ju l y 2 0 1 4 Ta t e St a f f w i l l p r o v i d e a p l a t a n d s h o r t p l a t t r a i n i n g s ession during the June 23rd PC D C m e e t i n g . S t a f f w i l l t h e n r e t u r n t o P C D C o n J u ly 28th with an overview of po t e n t i a l d r a f t c o d e a m e n d m e n t 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 . 0 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 . 0 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 . 0 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. DI . F Pa g e 1 1 2 o f 1 1 6 Ma y 2 7 , 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 05 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 ur n 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 0 6 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. 0 7 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 vi d e d a s n e e d e d o r r e q u e s t e d . 0 8 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 0 9 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. 1 0 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 . 1 1 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. 1 2 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 . 1 3 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 . 1 4 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 T h 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 PC D C . 1 5 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 oc c u r r e d 1 0 - 2 8 - 1 3 w i t h P C D C . DI . F Pa g e 1 1 3 o f 1 1 6 Ma y 2 7 , 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 ) 1 6 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 . 1 7 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 Ju n e 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 began 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 in Ma y a n d w i l l p r o v i d e u p d a t e s t o t h e d r a f t J u n e 2 , 2 014. 1 8 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 . 1 9 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 . F Pa g e 1 1 4 o f 1 1 6 Ma y 2 7 , 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 20 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 . 21 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 . 22 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. 23 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 . 24 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 . 2 5 A u b u r n E n v i r o n m e n t a l P a r k S p r i n g 2 0 1 5 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. 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 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 . F E M A o n - s i t e a u d i t of the City’s CRS Program is s c h e d u l e d f o r N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 1 4 . 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 . F Pa g e 1 1 5 o f 1 1 6 Ma y 2 7 , 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 . F Pa g e 1 1 6 o f 1 1 6 WASHINGTON PCDC 6/9/14 Pg 2 III.G. Chapter 8.20 Vegetation Submitted by: Jeff Tate TO: Councilmember John Holman, Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Largo Wales, Vice Chair, Planning and Community Development Committee Councilmember Yolanda Trout, Planning and Community Development Committee CC: Mayor Backus PROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development Services DATE: June 9, 2014 RE: Chapter 8.20 — Vegetation ACC 8.20.010 — Vegetation as a Nuisance Background ACC 8.20.010 defines various types of vegetation nuisances. Subsection D is intended to establish a 12" height limit for grasses, ground cover, and /or vines on vacant lots that are within or adjacent to developed areas. Flowever, the current language states that this standard applies to "vacant lots ". Chapter 17.04 provides for a definition of a lot but it includes an exclusion statement that reads as follows: "the term shall not include those tracts or parcels which are not buildable, but are created for common or public use, such as road and utility tracts." Title 17 is intended to establish the procedures and standards for dividing land or adjusting property lines. The above exlusion may have applicability in the arena of land division but it creates an unintended restriction when enforcing the vegetation nuisance regulations. Recommendation Staff is seeking a modification to the ACC 8.20.010.D to ensure that the height limits for grass, groundcover and vines has applicability to all types of land which include tracts, parcels, lots or other divisions. Exhibit A contains a draft amendment to Chapter 8.20 which staff recommends be forwarded to full City Council for action. Exhibit A 8.20.010 Vegetation as a nuisance. Vegetation left uncut and /or in an unkempt stage may cause safety hazards, fire hazards, and /or pest harborages, and may interfere with, annoy, Injure or endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of others, or unlawfully interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, or render dangerous for passage, street or highway; or in any way render other persons insecure in life, or in the use and enjoyment of property, thus constituting a public nuisance. A. Trees, plants, bushes, shrubs, vines, other vegetation or parts thereof which overhang any sidewalk, street, alley or other public way which are growing in such a manner as to cause a sight distance hazard or to obstruct or impair the full use of the sidewalk, street, alley or other public way are declare to be a public nuisance. B. Trees, plants, bushes, shrubs, grasses, vines, other vegetation or parts thereof that are growing and /or grown and died and are now causing a fire hazard or menace to public health and safety, or are degrading or causing a decline of the character of the neighborhood are also declared to be a public nuisance. C. Grasses (lawn) within the yards of occupied residential properties which are not maintained at a height of six inches or less are also declared to be a public nuisance; provided, that property within the R owe,,..., ^^'C'��,. ^e ^t '' ' RC Residential Conservancy zone shall be exempt from the provisions of this paragraph D. Grasses, ground cover, and /or vines on vasaRt -lots parcels tracts, or other divisions, whether or not buildable. that are within or adjacent to developed areas which are not used for agricultural purposes, and are not part of a wetland or other sensitive environmental system, which are not maintained at a height of 12 inches or less are also declared to be a public nuisance, provided, that property within the R R F tatRC Residential Conservancy zone shall be exempt from the provisions of this paragraph. E. Failure to maintain the trees, shrubs, ground cover, or grass of any landscaped area (that was required by the city to be planted) in a healthy, living condition shall be a public nuisance. Failure to replace any tree or shrub that has died is a public nuisance. It is also a public nuisance if landscaped areas are overgrown with weeds or un- maintained grass. F. Any pruning of trees or shrubs (that were required by the city to be planted) shall be for the purpose of maintaining the tree or shrub in a healthy growing condition and /or to enhance its natural growing form. Excessive pruning of trees or shrubs that adversely affects the healthy living condition of the plant or excessively damages the natural growing form of the plant shall be a public nuisance; unless such pruning is done to alleviate documented public health and safety concerns. pCOC 619114 P9 15 _ M A. Resolution No 5p75 i' City ofAuburn Transportation Improvement Program Submitted by. Pablo P Projects & Financing Plan Summary 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP# Roadway Improvement Projects 1 A Street NW, Phase 1 Capital Costs 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - Secured Fed & State Grants. - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 350.000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 2 AWS Pedestrian Improvements. Doowood St SE to Fir St SE Capital Costs 115,000 - - - - - 115,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Secured Fed & State Grants - - - - - - - Traffc Impact Fees 115,000 - - - - - 115,000 Other (MuckleShoot Tribe) 3 Auburn Way Corridor, 4th St NEW 4th St SE Capital Costs , Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - Unsecured Grant 4 I Street NE Corritlor. 45th St NE to S 277th St Capital Costs - Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - Unsecured Grant - Traffc Impact Fees - 818,700 3,000,000 . - 3,818,700 - 110,000 600,000 - 710,000 708,700 2,400,000 - 3,108,700 - - 6,760,000 - - 6,760,000 Other (Development) 6,760.000 - 6,760,000 5 M Street Underpass, 3rd. St SE to 8th St SE ' Capital Costs 109,550 109,070 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 646,770 - Funtling. Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - .Secured State Grant - - - - - - - - ,TraRclmpactFees 109,550 109,070 108,590 .107,550 106,520 105,490 646,770 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - PWTFL Other (Agencies) - - 6 S 272nd/277th St Corridor Capital Costs 5,581,800 - - - - - 5,581,800 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Secured Fed & State Grants 4,000,000 - - - - - 4,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees 581,800 - - - - - 581,800 Other (Development) 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 8 AStreetNW Phase - - Capital Costs: - - - -- - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 Funding Sources: - Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other (Development) 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 . 9 D Street NW, 37th St NW to 44th St NW Capital Costs Funding Sources: 300,000 - 6,000,000 6,300,000 Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 250,000 - 5,000,000 5,250,000 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 - 1,000,000 1,050,000_ Projects & Financing Plan Summary City ofAuburn Transportation Improvement Program 58 Auburn Way South Corridor Improvements. Fir to Hemlock 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP# Roadway Improvement Proiects (Continued) Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 40 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2 - - Secured State Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 200,000 - Capital Costs 500,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 - - - 4,100,000 Funding Sources: Capital Costs - - - 1',925,000 4,750,000 Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant 400,000 880,000 2,000,000 - - - 3,280,000 Traffic Impact Fees _ - Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 220,000 500,000 - 250,000 820,000 41 R Street Bypass ' Capital Costs - - - - - 500,000 500,000 Funding Sources: . Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - 'Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - .Other (Development) 500,000 500,000 42 SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements Capital Costs 80D,000 250,000 4,000,000 - - - 5,050,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant 640,000 200,000 4,000,000 - - - 4,840,000 Traffic Impact Fees 160.000 50,000 210,000 43 Auburn Way South (SR -164) Corridor safety Improvements Capital Costs 2,333,108 - - - - - - - 2,333,108 Funding Sources: - Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Secured Federal Grant 2,083,108 - - _ - - .2,083,108 Traffic Impact Fees 250,000 . 250,000 49 West Valley Highway Improvements 115th Street NW to W Main Street) Capital Costs 100,000 - 600,000 3,000,000 - - 3,700,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 480,000 2,400,000 - - 2,880,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 120,000 600,000 820,000 55 W Main Street Improvements ' Capital Costs - 946,000 3,494,400 - - - - 4,440;400 Funding Sources: - Unrestricted Street Revenue 56,490 209,650 .- - - - - 266,140 Unsecured Grant 804,100 2,970:240 - - - - 3,774,340 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other (Arterial Preserv.Fund) 85,410 , 314,510 399,920 58 Auburn Way South Corridor Improvements. Fir to Hemlock Capital Costs 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Secured State Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 200,000 - - - - - 200,000 Other (Muckleshoot Tribe) 60 M Street SE Corridor, 8th St SE to AWS Capital Costs - - - 1',925,000 4,750,000 - 6,675,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 925;000 3,750,000 - 4,675,000. Traffic Impact Fees _ - - .750,000 750,000 - 1,500,000 Other (Development) 250,000 250,000 500,000, Projects & Financing Plan Summary TIP# 14 City ofAuburn Transportation Improvement Program Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue Unsecured Grant Traffic Impact Fees 2017 2018 2019 2020 625,000 - - 625,000 500,000 - - 600,000 Other (Development) 125,000 125,000 17 Harvey Road & 8th St NE Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 84,000 510,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 84,000 510,000 18 8th St NE & 104th St NE Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Secured Federal Grant - - - - - - - REET2 - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 19 Auburn Way Northllst Street NE Signal Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 Unsecured Grant - 20 Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Improvements 550,000 - - - 600,000 125,000 - - - 175,000 425,000 - - - 425,000 Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Secured Slate Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees 21 Main Street Signal Upgrades Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 34 Traffic Signal Improvements Capital Costs 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,050,000 Funding Sources: Cap. Imp. Fund Balance - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - REET2 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175.000 11050,000 38 37th & B St NW Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Secured Federal Grant - - - - - - - Projects & Financing Plan Summary City ofAubttrn Transportation Improvement Program TIP# Intersection. Signal & ITS Improvement Proiects (Continued) 637,500 - - - - 813,900 63 29th Street SE & R Street SE Intersection Improvements 30,000 - - 375,000 Capital Costs - - - 1,800,000 - - 1,800,000 Funding Sources: 440,000 - - - - 561,400 Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 1,300,000 - - 1,300,000 Traffic Impact Fees 500.000 500,000 67 Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvement 1,175,000 -. - - - 1,375,000 Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: - - - - - Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Secured Federal Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - 68 37th Street SE and A Street SE Traffic Signal Safety Improvement Capital Costs 176,400 637,500 - - - - 813,900 Funding Sources: 30,000 - - 375,000 Unrestricted Street Revenue 55,000 45,000 - - - - 100,000 Unsecured Grant 121,400 440,000 - - - - 561,400 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Arterial Preserv. Fund (105) 152,500 152,500 69 1 Street NE and 22nd Street NE Roundabout Safety Improvement - - Capital Costs - 200,000 1,175,000 -. - - - 1,375,000 Funding Sources: 180,000 175,000 . Unrestricted Street. Revenue - - - - - - Unsecured Grant 160;000 940,000 - - - - - 1,100,000 . Traffic Impact Fees 40,000 . 235,000 275,000 Subtotal, Intersection, Signal & ITS Imp. Proiects: - - Capital Costs 1,122,400 3,423,100 1,310,200 2,884,800 259,400 259,000 9,258,900 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 130,000 60,000 155,000 30,000 - - 375,000 Grants 364,350 2,426,000 845,000 1,970,000 - - 5,605,350 Traffic Impact Fees 398,050 609,600 135,200 584,800 84,400 84,000 1,896,050 Traffic Mitigation Fees - - - - - - - REET2(328) 180,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,055,000 Arterial Preserv. Fund (105) - 152,500 - - - - 152,500 Other ( Development) - - - 125,000 - - 125,000 Other (BNSF) 50,000 50,000 Total Funding 1,122,400 3,423,100 1,310,200 2,884,800 259,400 259,000 9,258,900 Projects & Financing Plan Summary City ofAuburn Transportation Improvement Program 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP: Non - Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects (Continued) 45 Interurban Trailhead Improvements Capital Costs - - - 210,000 - - 210,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 210,000 - - 210,000 56 Everareen Heights Safe Routes to School Improvements Capital Costs 790,000 563,000 4,620,000 - - - 5,973,000 Funding Sources: 292,500 355,000 2,806,000 Unrestriced Street Revenue 118,500 84,500 693,000 - - - 896,000 Unsecured Grant 671,500 478,500 3,927,000 - - - 5,077,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - Subtotal Non - Motorized & Transit Projects: Capital Costs 1,304,029 1,023,000 4,985,000 1,255,000 800,000 480,000 9,847,029 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 418,500 419,500 933,000 387,500 292,500 355,000 2,806,000 Grants 860,529 578,500 4,027,000 842,500 482,500 100,000 6,891,029 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Cap.Imp.Fund Balance 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 Total Funding 1,304,029 1,023,000 4,985,000 1,255,000 800,000 480,000 9,847,029 Projects & Financing Plan Summary 11 r City ofAnburn Transportation Improvement Program 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP* Roadway Preservation Protects 7 15th St SW Reconstruction Capital Costs - - 375,000 3,000,000 - - 3,375,000 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - - 75,000 500,000 - - 575,000 Unsecured Grant - - 300,000 2,500,000 - - 2,800,000 22 Lake Tapps Parkway Preservation (City Limit to Lakeland Hills Way) Capital Costs - 124,380 828,470 - - - 952,850 Funding Sources: _ Arterial Preservation Fund - 26,480 176,370 - - - 202,850 Unsecured Grant - 97,900 652,100 - - - 750,000 ether - - 28 Annual Bridge Structure Preservation Capital Costs 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Other 35 Annual Arterial Preservation Program Capital Costs 1,700,000 650,000 750,000 1,250,000 - 1,800,000 1,800,000 7,950,000 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 1,700,000 " 650,000 750,000 1,250,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 7,950,000 Unsecured Grant - ., - - - - - - Other - -. - - - - 36 Annual Arterial Crack Seal Program Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - . 37 Local Streets Improvement Program Capital Costs 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 Funding Sources: Local St Preservation Fund 2,600;000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - nmo. 100,000 600,000 100,000 600,000 1,600,000 10,600,000 1,600,000 10,600,000 Projects & Financing Plan Summary 13 City ofAzfburn Transportation Improvement Program Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary PROJECT FINANCING SUMMARY: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total CAPITAL COSTS 2,819,400 1,083,670 1,513,790 4,632,350 3,745,920 2,864,490 16,659,620 Roadway Projects 11,810,458 5,228,470 10,258,590 23,936,250 33,481,520 23,080,490 107,795,778 Int., Signal & ITS Projects 1,122,400 3,423,100 1,310,200 2,884,800 259,400 259,000 9,258,900 Non - Motorized Projects 1,304,029 1,023,000 4,985,000 1,255,000 800,000 480,000 9,847,029 Prel. Eng. and Misc. Projects 110,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - 235,000 Preservation Projects 4,670,000 4,059,380 5,303,470 6,100,000 3,650,000 3,650,000 27,432,850 Total Costs 19,016,887 13,753,950 21,877,260 34,241,050 38,210,920 27,469,490 154,569,557 Unrestricted Street Revenue 664,990 689,150 1,088,000 727,500 1,092,500 355,000 4,617,140 Traffic Impact Fees 2,819,400 1,083,670 1,513,790 4,632,350 3,745,920 2,864,490 16,659,620 Traffic Mitigation Fees 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Local Street Pres. Fund 103 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 10,600,000 Arterial Preservation Fund 105 2,095,410 2,110,990 2,001,370 2,000,000 2,050,000 2,050,000 12,307,770 Grants 9,532,087 8,070,140 15,474,100 17,096,200 23,772,500 17,575,000 91,520,027 Cap, Imp. Fund Balance 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 REET2 180,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,055,000 Other (Agencies) 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Other (Development) 1,000,000 - - 7,985,000 5,750,000 2,825,000 17,560,000 Other (Muckleshoot Tribe) - - - - - - - PWTFL Total Funding 19,016,887 13,753,950 21,877,260 34,241,050 38,210,920 27,469,490 154,569,557 Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Unrestricted Street Revenue 102 Beginning Fund Balance 930,000 800,010 645,860 92,860 (99,640) (657,140) Forecast Annual Revenue 535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000 Project Expenses 664,990 689,150 1,088,000 727,500 1,092,500 355,000 End of Year Fund Balance 800,010 645,860 92,860 (99,640) (657,140) (477,140) Traffic Impact Fees Beginning Fund Balance 3,200,000 1,380,600 1,346,930 933,140 (2,549,210) (5,095,130) Forecast Annual Revenue 1,000,000 1,050,000 1,100,000 1,150,000 1,200,000 1,250,000 Project Expenses 2,819,400 1,083,670 1,513,790 4,632,350 3,745,920 2,864,490 End of Year Fund Balance 1,380,600 1,346,930 933,140 (2,549,210) (5,095,130) (6,709,620) Traffic Mitigation Fees Beginning Fund Balance 84,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 Forecast Annual Revenue - - - - - - Project Expenses 50,000 - End of Year Fund Balance 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 Local Street Preservation Fund 103 Beginning Fund Balance 1,080,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Forecast Annual Revenue 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 Project Expenses 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 End of Year Fund Balance 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Arterial Preservation Fund 105 Beginning Fund Balance 700,000 504,590 293,600 292,230 292,230 292,230 Forecast Annual Revenue 1,900,000 1,900,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,050,000 2,050,000 Project Expenses 2,095,410 2,110,990 2,001,370 2,000,000 2,050,000 2,050,000 End of Year Fund Balance 504,590 293,600 292,230 292,230 292,230 292,230 Projects & Financing Plan Summary 15