Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-09-2014 PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA
Planning and Community Development June 9, 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 27, 2014* (Tate) III.ACTION A. Resolution No. 5075* (Webb) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, approving the 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program of the City of Auburn pursuant to R.C.W. Chapter 35.77 of the laws of the State of Washington. B. Ordinance No. 6508* (Dixon) An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, amending Section 18.23.030 of the Auburn City Code relating to Warehouse and Distribution uses. IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Resolution No. 5073* (Mund) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, setting a public hearing to consider the vacation of the alley between South Division Street and A Street SE, south of 1st Street SE, within the City of Auburn, Washington. B. Resolution No. 5077* (Miller) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the City of Auburn to adopt the King County Regional Framework for Disasters and Planned Events and authorizing the Mayor to execute the necessary agreements. C. Communal Housing Follow-Up Report* (Tate) Staff to review and update the Committee on the communal housing implementation. D. Urban Land Institute Report "Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places", November, 2013* (Tate) Discuss "Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places". E. Director's Report (Tate) Page 1 of 266 F. PCDC 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 266 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Minutes - May 27, 2014 Date: June 4, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: May 27, 2014 Draft Minutes Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to approve the Planning and Community Development Committee minutes as written. Background Summary: Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:June 9, 2014 Item Number:CA.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.A Page 3 of 266 Planning and Community Development May 27, 2014 - 5:00 PM Annex Conference Room 2 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair John Holman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. in Annex Conference Room 2 located on the 2nd 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, City Attorney Dan Heid, Director of Community Development and Public Works Kevin Snyder, Director of Administration Michael Hursh, Assistant Director of Community Development Services Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Ingrid Gaub, Planning Services Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain, Transportation Manager Pablo Para, Emergency Preparedness Manager Sarah Miller, Veterans/Human Services Coordinator Erica Sullivan, Engineering Aide Amber Mund, and Community Development Secretary Tina Kriss. Members of the Audience present: Councilmember Osborne, Jim Honan, Kim Lorenz, Drew Zaborowski, Casey Sheehan, Eric Little, Brent Carson, and Robert Whale of the Auburn Reporter. B. Announcements C. Agenda Modifications II. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - May 12, 2014 (Tate) Vice Chair Wales moved and Member Trout seconded to approve the May 12, 2014 minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. 3-0 III. ACTION A. Resolution No. 5074 (Para) Transportation Manager Pablo Para presented the staff report on Page 1 of 5 CA.A Page 4 of 266 Resolution No. 5074, to set the time and date for a public hearing to amend the six year 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Plan. Vice-Chair Wales moved and Member Trout seconded to recommend City Council adopt Resolution No. 5074. Motion carried unanimously. 3-0 B. Resolution No. 5069 (Miller) Emergency Preparedness Manager Sarah Miller provided background information on Resolution No. 5069, 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. The Committee discussed the history of the position and was supportive of the Resolution. Vice-Chair Wales moved and Member Trout seconded to request City Council adopt Resolution No. 5069. Motion unanimously moved. 3-0 C. Resolution No. 5070 (Miller) Emergency Preparedness Manager Sarah Miller introduced the City's Veterans/Human Services Coordinator Erica Sullivan to the Committee and provided background information on Resolution No. 5070, 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. A discussion was held regarding the position history and previous grant funding; the Committee was supportive of the Resolution. Vice-Chair Wales moved and Member Trout seconded to request City Council adopt Resolution No. 5070. Motion unanimously approved. 3-0 IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Resolution No. 5065 (Mund) Engineering Aide Amber Mund reviewed Resolution No. 5065. If approved, the Resolution would set the date of the public hearing for Vacation No. V2-14, vacation of the un-opened right-of-way of South Page 2 of 5 CA.A Page 5 of 266 324th Street located between 46th Place South and 51st Avenue South, south of South 321st Street by PNW Home for July 7, 2014. The Committee was supportive of this right-of-way vacation. B. ZOA14-0002 - Amendment to Zoning Code Section 18.23. Related to Warehouse and Distribution Uses (Tate) Principal Planner Dixon briefed the Committee on Ordinance No. 6508 and explained that at the May 6, 2014 Public Hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval of Ordinance No. 6508 amending Auburn City Code Chapter Section 18.23.030 with Footnote 1, as amended. A memorandum, map and letter regarding ZOA14- 0002 were provided to the Committee. The Committee and staff discussed the EP zone uses, the intent of the Council in creating the EP zoning designation, and conforming and non-conforming uses. A discussion was held regarding the requests made by Mr. Carson in his letter to the Committee dated May 23, 2014. The Committee asked to hear from the owners of the properties impacted by ZOA14-0002. Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, LLP, 719 2nd Ave., Ste. 1150, Seattle Mr. Carson stated that the owners of the property are looking for certainty, if warehouse and distribution was a permitted “P” use in the EP zone, clarity and certainty would be provided to owners, lenders, and buyers. After reviewing his request in a letter dated May 23, 2014, Mr. Carson emphasized that their position today remains consistent to ask that the Committee recommend to full Council an outright permitted “P” use for warehouse and distribution in the EP zoning district identical to the M1 and M2 zoning districts. This would provide the owners in the EP zone the same rights and uses as the owners in the M1 and M2 zoning district. Kim Lorenz, owner of Sound Tire, LLC, 59 Skagit Key, Bellevue Mr. Lorenz reviewed the history of his building located in the EP zone. He explained that there has been no additional development in the EP zone as compared to the $150,000,000.00 in investments in other zones. Mr. Lorenz stated that the when owners invested in their properties multiple uses were allowed. The owners would like to continue to invest in those properties and Mr. Lorenz feels they should have the right, and deserve to invest in those properties. Removing that option substantially reduces the marketability and value of the buildings. When he lost the sale of his building, the purchaser emphasized, if the building can not be used for warehouse, distribution, and manufacturing, the value of the building is zero. Green businesses coming into this zone will have assembly, Page 3 of 5 CA.A Page 6 of 266 receiving, shipping, and warehouse products. Limiting the use will limit green activity and technology. Allowing warehouse and distribution as permitted “P” uses in the EP zone would only be fair to the owners. The Committee and staff discussed the lack of development in the EP zone compared to the M1 and M2 zones and providing relief to the owners of the buildings. After discussing the proposals before the Committee, the Committee concurred to amend the Environmental Park (EP) zone, allowing warehouse and distribution as a permitted “P” use identical to the M1, M2 zoning district. The Committee also requested that the EP zone be reviewed by the Council and Community with the Comprehensive Plan updates in order to refine any necessary changes or updates. The Committee would like to add the EP zone discussion to the matrix and asked staff to return with a draft Ordinance. Staff indicated that they will be on target to go forward to full Council with a proposed Ordinance in June. C. AARP Report "Is This a Good Place to Live?/Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages (Tate) Assistant Director Tate, the Committee. and staff discussed the summary and lessons learned measuring livability within a community. Staff will continue to provide the Committee with various articles and information to assist with future community dialogue and the comprehensive plan updates. D. Auburn City Code Chapter 1.25 - Civil Penalties and Code Enforcement Procedures (Tate) Assistant Director Tate explained the gaps, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies within Chapter 1.25 of Auburn City Code as it relates to Civil Penalties and Code Enforcement. A discussion was held regarding the types of cases code enforcement manages and how Chapter 1.25 impacts those cases. The Committee and staff discussed Exhibit B, the draft ACC Chapter 1.25 Outline and additions that would be added to the proposed amendment (Exhibit B). The Committee and staff discussed options to inform the public of the City’s code enforcement processes and procedures, the Committee was encouraged with staff's amendment proposal. E. Director's Report (Tate) Assistant Director Tate reported that two Conditional Use Permits will be going before the May 28, 2014 Hearing Examiner. This is a quasi judicial process, the decision will be rendered within 10 business days of the closing date of the hearing. If there are any questions, please Page 4 of 5 CA.A Page 7 of 266 feel free to direct questions to staff. Staff has been meeting with VRFA, the Police, Utility Billing, and Information Technology Departments in coordination with the Auburn Adventist Academy representatives to discuss campus addressing. There are a number of private roads, buildings, and academic buildings within the campus which have caused some confusion with Police and Fire. This has been a collaborative process between the Academy and the City. Ultimately the change of address request will be drafted in a Resolution and go through the City’s process, being reviewed by this Committee before going forward to City Council. The City currently has 16 sub-divisions in process with a total of 778 new lots. Some of these applications were new and some were reactivated. F. PCDC Status Matrix (Tate) The Committee and staff reviewed the Matrix, there were no changes requested by the Committee. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning and Community Development Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m. Approved this _________________ day of ________________, 2014. _____________________________________ John Holman - Chair ______________________________________ Tina Kriss - Community Development Secretary Page 5 of 5 CA.A Page 8 of 266 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 5075 Date: June 4, 2014 Department: Public Works Attachments: Resolution No. 5075 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend City Council adopt Resolution No. 5075. Background Summary: The purpose of Resolution No. 5075 is for the City Council to adopt the 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development, Public Works Councilmember:Holman Staff:Webb Meeting Date:June 9, 2014 Item Number:ACT.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.A Page 9 of 266 Resolution No. 5075 May 29, 2014 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5075 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2015-2020 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF AUBURN PURSUANT TO R.C.W. CHAPTER 35.77 OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires that the legislative body of each City prepare and adopt a comprehensive Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the ensuing six years, but only after conducting a public hearing; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to review the 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program for the City of Auburn was held on June 16, 2014 at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall, pursuant to notice published in the legal newspaper of the City of Auburn on June 05, 2014; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. There is attached hereto and denominated as Exhibit “A,” the terms of which are incorporated herewith by reference as though fully set forth, a designation of the streets within the corporate limits of the City of Auburn to be improved in the manner therein set forth during the year set for the improvement of such street or streets. Section 2. That the City Engineer of the City of Auburn is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Washington State Department of Transportation for filing not more than thirty (30) days after the adoption of this Resolution. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. ACT.A Page 10 of 266 Resolution No. 5075 May 29, 2014 Page 2 Section 4. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. DATED 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 11 of 266 22001155--22002200 TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn IImmpprroovveemmeenntt PPrrooggrraamm CCoommmmuunniittyy DDeevveellooppmmeenntt aanndd PPuubblliicc WWoorrkkss DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn SSeeccttiioonn AAddoopptteedd JJuunnee 1166,, 22001144 ACT.A Page 12 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn IImmpprroovveemmeenntt PPrrooggrraamm 22001155--22002200 Adopted by Auburn City Council June 16, 2014 City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 (253)-931-3010 www.auburnwa.gov ACT.A Page 13 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program ii Cover Photos: Left: B Street NW Overlay, Right: Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvements ACT.A Page 14 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program iii RESOLUTION NO. 5075 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2015-2020 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF AUBURN PURSUANT TO R.C.W. CHAPTER 35.77 OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 requires that the legislative body of each City prepare and adopt a comprehensive Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the ensuing six years, but only after conducting a public hearing; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to review the 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program for the City of Auburn was held on June 16, 2014 at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall, pursuant to notice published in the legal newspaper of the City of Auburn on June 05, 2014; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. There is attached hereto and denominated as Exhibit “A,” the terms of which are incorporated herewith by reference as though fully set forth, a designation of the streets within the corporate limits of the City of Auburn to be improved in the manner therein set forth during the year set for the improvement of such street or streets. Section 2. That the City Engineer of the City of Auburn is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Washington State Department of Transportation for filing not more than thirty (30) days after the adoption of this Resolution. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. ACT.A Page 15 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program iv Section 4. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. DATED 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 16 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program v 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Projects & Financing Plan Summary .................................................................................................. 3 Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary ............................................................................... 15 Roadway Improvement Projects ....................................................................................................... 17 A Street NW, Phase 1 (TIP# 1) ......................................................................................................... 17 AWS Ped Improvements (TIP# 2) .................................................................................................... 18 Auburn Way Corridor (TIP# 3) ........................................................................................................ 19 I Street NE Corridor (TIP# 4) ........................................................................................................... 20 M Street Underpass (TIP# 5) ............................................................................................................ 21 S 272nd/277th Street (TIP# 6) ........................................................................................................... 22 A St NW, Phase 2 (TIP# 8) .............................................................................................................. 23 D Street NW (TIP# 9) ...................................................................................................................... 24 F Street SE (TIP# 10) ....................................................................................................................... 25 M Street NE (TIP# 11) ..................................................................................................................... 26 Grade-Separated Crossing of BNSF Yard (TIP# 12) ......................................................................... 27 8th Street NE Widening (TIP# 15).................................................................................................... 28 49th Street NE (TIP# 16) .................................................................................................................. 29 46th Pl S Realignment (TIP# 25) ....................................................................................................... 30 BNSF 3rd Rail Expansion Roadway Improvements (TIP# 33) .......................................................... 31 124th Ave SE & Se 320th St Intersection Improvements (TIP# 39) ................................................... 32 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements, Phase 2 (TIP# 40) ................................................................ 33 R Street Bypass (TIP# 41) ................................................................................................................ 34 SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements (TIP# 42) ........................................................................... 35 AWS (SR-164) Corridor Safety Improvements (TIP# 43) ................................................................. 36 West Valley Highway Improvements (15th NW to W Main St) (TIP# 49) ......................................... 37 West Main St Corridor Improvements (TIP# 55) .............................................................................. 38 AWS Corridor Improvements (Fir to Hemlock) (TIP# 58) ................................................................ 39 M Street SE Corridor (TIP# 60) ........................................................................................................ 40 AWS Bypass (TIP# 61) .................................................................................................................... 41 AWS Streetscape Improvements (TIP# 62) ...................................................................................... 42 Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (TIP# 64) ..................................................................................................... 43 Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (TIP# 65) ..................................................................................................... 44 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (TIP# 66) ..................................................................................................... 45 West Valley Highway Improvements (SR-18 to 15th SW) (TIP# 72) ................................................ 46 Intersection Signal & ITS Improvements ......................................................................................... 47 M Street SE/12th Street SE Traffic Signal (TIP# 14) ........................................................................ 47 Harvey Rd NE/8th St NE Intersection Improvements (TIP# 17) ....................................................... 48 8th Street NE/SE 104th St Intersection Improvements (TIP# 18) ...................................................... 49 Auburn Way North/1st Street NE Signal Improvements (TIP# 19) ................................................... 50 ACT.A Page 17 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program vi AWS/M Street SE Intersection Improvements (TIP# 20) .................................................................. 51 Main Street Signal Upgrades (TIP# 21) ............................................................................................ 52 Traffic Signal Improvements (TIP# 34) ............................................................................................ 53 37th Street NW/B Street NW Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements (TIP# 38) ............................. 54 Traffic Management Center Improvements (TIP# 47) ...................................................................... 55 A St SE & 6th St SE Safety & Access Improvements (TIP# 48) ........................................................ 56 ITS Dynamic Message Signs (TIP# 50) ............................................................................................ 57 Lake Tapps Parkway ITS Expansion (TIP# 51) ................................................................................ 58 8th Street NE and C Street NW ITS Improvements (TIP# 52) .......................................................... 59 AWS/12th Street SE Intersection Improvements (TIP# 53) .............................................................. 60 Auburn Ave NE & 3rd St NE Pedestrian & Access Improvements (TIP# 59) ................................... 61 29th St SE/R St SE Intersection Improvements (TIP# 63) ................................................................. 62 Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvements (TIP# 67) .................................................................. 63 37th Street & A St SE Traffic Signal Safety Improvement (TIP# 68) ................................................. 64 I St NE & 22nd St NE Roundabout Safety Improvement (TIP# 69) ................................................... 65 Non-Motorized & Transit Improvements ......................................................................................... 67 A Street SE Non-Motorized and Access Improvements (TIP# 23) .................................................... 67 Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail (TIP# 24) ....................................................................................... 68 Metro Shuttle (TIP# 26) ................................................................................................................... 69 Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility Program (TIP# 30) ...................................................................... 70 Citywide Arterial Bicycle and Safety Improvements (TIP# 31) ........................................................ 71 Citywide Sidewalk Repair and Improvements (TIP# 32) .................................................................. 72 A Street NE Pedestrian Improvements (TIP# 44) .............................................................................. 73 Interurban Trailhead Improvements (TIP# 45) .................................................................................. 74 Evergreen Heights Safe Routes to School Improvements (TIP# 56) .................................................. 75 Preliminary Engineering & Miscellaneous Projects ......................................................................... 77 Mohawk Plastics Site Mitigation (TIP# 13) ...................................................................................... 77 A Street SE Safety Improvements Study (TIP# 27)........................................................................... 78 S 277th St - Wetland Mitigation (TIP# 29) ....................................................................................... 79 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study (TIP# 46) ........................................................................ 80 Kersey Way SE Corridor Study (TIP# 54) ........................................................................................ 81 Pavement Preservation Projects ........................................................................................................ 83 15th St SW Reconstruction (TIP# 7).................................................................................................. 83 Lake Tapps Parkway Preservation (TIP#22) ..................................................................................... 84 Annual Bridge Structure Preservation (TIP# 28) ............................................................................... 85 Arterial Preservation Program (TIP# 35) .......................................................................................... 86 Arterial Crack Seal Program (TIP# 36) ............................................................................................. 87 Local Street Improvement Program (TIP# 37) .................................................................................. 88 Arterial Bridge Deck Rehabilitation (TIP# 57) ................................................................................. 89 Auburn Way North Preservation (TIP# 70)....................................................................................... 90 15th St NW/NE Preservation (TIP# 71) ............................................................................................. 91 Project Summary Sheet …………………………………….……………………………….Appendix A 2015-2020 TIP Project Map…..…………..………………………………………………….Appendix B ACT.A Page 18 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Executive Summary & Introduction 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a 6-year plan for transportation improvements that supports the City of Auburns current and future growth. The TIP along with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) serve as source documents for the City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan which is a Comprehensive Plan element required by Washington’s Growth Management Act. The program may be revised at any time by a majority of the City Council after a public hearing. INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of the TIP is to identify priority transportation projects and assure that the city has advanced plans as a guide in carrying out a coordinated transportation program. There are always more projects than available revenues. Therefore, a primary objective of the TIP is to integrate the two to produce a comprehensive, realistic program for the orderly development and maintenance of our street system. Projects are required to be included in the TIP in order to be eligible for state and federal grants. Grant funding for projects listed may not yet be secured. Statutory Requirements Six Year Transportation Improvement Program - RCW 35.77.010 requires that each city prepare and adopt a comprehensive transportation improvement program for the ensuing six calendar years consistent with its CTP. This six-year TIP shall be filed with the Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) each year within 30 days of adoption. Projects of Regional Significance - RCW 35.77.010 also requires each city to specifically set forth those projects and programs of regio nal significance for inclusion in the transportation improvement program for that region. The 2015-2020 TIP includes five projects of regional significance: TIP Project Number Project Title TIP # 6 S 272ND/277th Street Corridor TIP# 49 West Valley Highway (15th NW to W Main St) TIP #58 AWS Corridor Improvements (Fir to Hemlock) TIP#61 Auburn Way South Bypass TIP# 71 West Valley Highway (W Main St to 15th SW) ACT.A Page 19 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Executive Summary & Introduction 2 Methodology Annual updates of the TIP begins with developing a revenue forecast to provide a reasonable estimate of funding available to accomplish the transportation improvement needs. Since the desire to construct transportation improvements typically exceeds the available forecast revenue, it is necessary to est ablish some method of prioritizing the needs. Transportation needs are identified by examining the latest information concerning level of service, safety and accident history, growth trends, traffic studies and the City’s adopted CTP. The likelihood of receiving federal or state grants for various improvements, community interests and values are also considered. All of these factors yield a prioritized list of transportation improvements. Projects are placed into one of the following categories; Roadway Improvements, Intersection, Signal & Intelligent Transportation System Improvements, Non-Motorized & Transit Improvements, Preliminary Engineering & Miscellaneous Projects, and Roadway Preservation Projects. Each project is identified as a Capacity or Non-capacity improvement and those that lay within the limits of a defined Arterial LOS Corridor per with Table 2-2 of the City’s CTP are identified accordingly. Capacity projects from the 6-year plan are incorporated into the CTP as Group A projects. Longer term capacity projects are listed in the CPT as Group B Projects. Detailed project costs and funding sources are identified and provided for each project listed in the proposed TIP. The prioritized list is then financially constrained in the first three years to reflect the financial projections to yield the six-year Transportation Improvement Program. After completing all reviews and compiling the document, staff makes final recommendations to the Planning and Community Development Committee and City Council for approval. ACT.A Page 20 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 3 Projects & Financing Plan Summary 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Roadway Improvement Projects 1 A Street NW, Phase 1 Capital Costs 25,000 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Secured Fed & State Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 475,000 2 AWS Pedestrian Improvements, Dogwood St SE to Fir St SE Capital Costs 115,000 - - - - - 115,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Secured Fed & State Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 115,000 - - - - - 115,000 Other (MuckleShoot Tribe)- - - - - - - 3 Auburn Way Corridor, 4th St NE to 4th St SE Capital Costs - - - 818,700 3,000,000 - 3,818,700 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 110,000 600,000 - 710,000 Unsecured Grant - - - 708,700 2,400,000 - 3,108,700 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 4 I Street NE Corridor, 45th St NE to S 277th St Capital Costs - - - 6,760,000 - - 6,760,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 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 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Secured State Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 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 A Street NW, Phase 2 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 - - - 300,000 - 6,000,000 6,300,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 250,000 - 5,000,000 5,250,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 50,000 - 1,000,000 1,050,000 ACT.A Page 21 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 4 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Roadway Improvement Projects (Continued) 10 F Street SE, 4th St SE to AWS Capital Costs 400,000 250,000 1,800,000 - - - 2,450,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant 320,000 200,000 1,440,000 - - - 1,960,000 Traffic Impact Fees 80,000 50,000 360,000 - - - 490,000 11 M Street NE, E Main St to 4th St NE Capital Costs 100,000 - 275,000 1,150,000 - - 1,525,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 220,000 920,000 - - 1,140,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 - 55,000 230,000 - - 385,000 12 Grade-Separated Crossing of BNSF Railyard Capital Costs - - - - - 1,125,000 1,125,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other (Development)- - - - - 1,125,000 1,125,000 15 8th Street NE Widening, Pike St to R St NE Capital Costs - - 450,000 1,000,000 - - 1,450,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 360,000 800,000 - - 1,160,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 90,000 200,000 - - 290,000 16 49th Street NE, Auburn Way North to I St NE Capital Costs - - - 850,000 2,500,000 - 3,350,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other (Development)- - - 850,000 2,500,000 - 3,350,000 25 46th Place S Realignment Capital Costs - - - - - 825,000 825,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - 575,000 575,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 250,000 250,000 Other - - - - - - - 33 BNSF 3rd Rail Expansion Roadway Improvements Capital Costs 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 39 124th Ave SE & SE 320th St Intersection Improvements Capital Costs - - - 100,000 800,000 - 900,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 80,000 640,000 - 720,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 20,000 160,000 - 180,000 ACT.A Page 22 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 5 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Roadway Improvement Projects (Continued) 40 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements Phase 2 Capital Costs 500,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 - - - 4,100,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant 400,000 880,000 2,000,000 - - - 3,280,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 220,000 500,000 - - - 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 800,000 250,000 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 (15th 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 ACT.A Page 23 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 6 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Roadway Improvement Projects (Continued) 61 Auburn Way South Bypass Capital Costs - - - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - 4,800,000 4,800,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other (Development)- - - - - 1,200,000 1,200,000 62 Auburn Way South Streetscape Improvements, SR 18 to M St SE Capital Costs - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - 4,750,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 200,000 200,000 - 400,000 Unsecured Grant - - - 1,750,000 2,600,000 - 4,350,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 64 Lea Hill Road Segment 1, R St NE to 105th Pl SE Capital Costs 150,000 - - 2,450,000 10,000,000 - 12,600,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 1,950,000 8,000,000 - 9,950,000 Traffic Impact Fees 150,000 - - 500,000 2,000,000 - 2,650,000 65 Lea Hill Road Segment 2, 105th Pl SE to 112th Ave SE Capital Costs - - - - 3,500,000 8,500,000 12,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - 2,900,000 7,100,000 10,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 600,000 1,400,000 2,000,000 66 Lea Hill Road Segment 3, 112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE Capital Costs - - - 1,000,000 3,000,000 - 4,000,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 72 West Valley Highway Improvements (SR-18 to 15th Street SW) Capital Costs 100,000 - 500,000 2,500,000 - - 3,100,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 400,000 2,000,000 - - 2,400,000 Traffic Impact Fees 100,000 - 100,000 500,000 - - 700,000 Subtotal, Roadway Improvement Projects: Capital Costs 11,485,458 5,553,470 10,258,590 23,936,250 33,481,520 23,080,490 107,795,778 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 81,490 209,650 - 310,000 800,000 - 1,401,140 Grants 8,247,208 4,250,240 8,900,000 11,783,700 23,290,000 17,475,000 73,946,148 Traffic Impact Fees 2,071,350 779,070 1,358,590 3,982,550 3,641,520 2,780,490 14,613,570 Other (Agencies)- - - - - - - Other (Development)1,000,000 - - 7,860,000 5,750,000 2,825,000 17,435,000 Other (Muckleshoot Tribe)- - - - - - - Other (Arterial Preserv. Fund)85,410 314,510 - - - - 399,920 PWTF - - - - - - - Total Funding 11,485,458 5,553,470 10,258,590 23,936,250 33,481,520 23,080,490 107,795,778 ACT.A Page 24 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 7 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Intersection, Signal & ITS Improvement Projects 14 M St SE & 12th St SE Traffic Signal Capital Costs - - - 625,000 - - 625,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 500,000 - - 500,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 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 North/1st Street NE Signal Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 - 550,000 - - - 600,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 50,000 - 125,000 - - - 175,000 Unsecured Grant - - 425,000 - - - 425,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 20 Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Secured State 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 - - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation 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 1,050,000 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 - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - ACT.A Page 25 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 8 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Intersection, Signal & ITS Improvement Projects (Continued) 47 Traffic Management Center Improvements Capital Costs 150,000 - - - - - 150,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 150,000 - - - - - 150,000 48 A St SE & 6th St SE Safety & Access Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - Other (BNSF)50,000 - - - - - 50,000 50 ITS Dynamic Message Signs Capital Costs - 100,000 200,000 200,000 - - 500,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 15,000 30,000 30,000 - - 75,000 Unsecured Grant - 85,000 170,000 170,000 - - 425,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 51 East Valley Highway ITS Expansion Capital Costs 105,000 900,000 - - - - 1,005,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant 82,950 711,000 - - - - 793,950 Traffic Impact Fees 22,050 189,000 - - - - 211,050 52 8th Street NE and C Street NW ITS Improvements Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Cap. Imp. Fund Balance - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - REET2 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 53 AWS and 12th Street Intersection Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 350,000 - - - - 400,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - 250,000 - - - - 250,000 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 100,000 - - - - 150,000 59 Auburn Ave & 3rd St NE Pedestrian & Access Improvements Capital Costs 50,000 - 300,000 - - - 350,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 250,000 - - - 250,000 Traffic Impact Fees 50,000 - 50,000 - - - 100,000 ACT.A Page 26 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 9 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Intersection, Signal & ITS Improvement Projects (Continued) 63 29th Street SE & R Street SE Intersection Improvements Capital Costs - - - 1,800,000 - - 1,800,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 1,300,000 - - 1,300,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - 500,000 - - 500,000 67 Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvement 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: 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 I Street NE and 22nd Street NE Roundabout Safety Improvement Capital Costs 200,000 1,175,000 - - - - 1,375,000 Funding Sources: 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. Projects: 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 ACT.A Page 27 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 10 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP:Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 23 A Street SE Non-Motorized and Access Improvements Capital Costs 89,029 - - - - - 89,029 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Secured Federal Grant 89,029 - - - - - 89,029 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 24 Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail Capital Costs - - - 425,000 425,000 - 850,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 42,500 42,500 - 85,000 Unsecured Grant - - - 382,500 382,500 - 765,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 26 METRO Shuttle: Lakeland Hills Shuttle Capital Costs 200,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 925,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 200,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 925,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 30 Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility and Safety Program Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 31 Citywide Arterial Bicycle and Safety Improvements Capital Costs - 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 300,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 300,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 32 Citywide Sidewalk Repairs and Improvements Capital Costs 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 750,000 Funding Sources: Cap. Imp. Fund Balance 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 Unsecured Grant 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 REET2 - - - - - - - 44 A St NE Pedestrian Improvements Capital Costs - - - 150,000 - - 150,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 150,000 - - 150,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - ACT.A Page 28 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 11 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 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 56 Evergreen Heights Safe Routes to School Improvements Capital Costs 790,000 563,000 4,620,000 - - - 5,973,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted 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 ACT.A Page 29 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 12 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 13 Mohawks Plastics Site Mitigation Project Capital Costs 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - 150,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Cap. Imp. Funds - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - 150,000 27 A Street SE Safety Improvements Study Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 29 S 277th Street, Wetland Mitigation Capital Costs 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - 46 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study Capital Costs 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue 5,000 - - - - - 5,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 54 Kersey Way SE Corridor Study Capital Costs 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Funding Sources: Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Subtotal, Prel. Eng. and Misc. Projects: Capital Costs 110,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - 235,000 Funding Sources Unrestricted Street Revenue 35,000 - - - - - 35,000 Grants - - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Traffic Impact Fees 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - 150,000 Total Funding 110,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - 235,000 ACT.A Page 30 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 13 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Roadway Preservation Projects 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 Other - - - - - - - 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 Other - - - - - - - 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 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 37 Local Streets Improvement Program Capital Costs 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 10,600,000 Funding Sources: Local St Preservation Fund 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 10,600,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - ACT.A Page 31 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 14 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total TIP#Roadway Preservation Projects 57 Arterial Bridge Deck Rehabilitation Capital Costs 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 70 Auburn Way N Preservation (22nd Street NE to 45th Street NE) Capital Costs 120,000 1,300,000 - - - - 1,420,000 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund 60,000 650,000 - - - - 710,000 Unsecured Grant 60,000 650,000 - - - - 710,000 Other - - - - - - - 71 15th Street NE/NW Preservation (SR-167 to NE 8th Street) Capital Costs - 135,000 1,500,000 - - - 1,635,000 Funding Sources: Arterial Preservation Fund - 67,500 750,000 - - - 817,500 Unsecured Grant - 67,500 750,000 - - - 817,500 Other - - - - - - - Subtotal, Preservation Projects: Capital Costs 4,670,000 4,059,380 5,303,470 6,100,000 3,650,000 3,650,000 27,432,850 Funding Sources Arterial Preservation Fund 2,010,000 1,643,980 2,001,370 2,000,000 2,050,000 2,050,000 11,755,350 Grants 60,000 815,400 1,702,100 2,500,000 - - 5,077,500 Local St Preservation Fund 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 10,600,000 Total Funding 4,670,000 4,059,380 5,303,470 6,100,000 3,650,000 3,650,000 27,432,850 ACT.A Page 32 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 15 Financial Constraint & Fund Balance Summary PROJECT FINANCING SUMMARY:2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total CAPITAL COSTS Roadway Projects 11,485,458 5,553,470 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 18,691,887 14,078,950 21,877,260 34,241,050 38,210,920 27,469,490 154,569,557 FUNDING SOURCES: Unrestricted Street Revenue 664,990 689,150 1,088,000 727,500 1,092,500 355,000 4,617,140 Traffic Impact Fees 2,494,400 1,408,670 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 18,691,887 14,078,950 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 1,705,600 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 2,494,400 1,408,670 1,513,790 4,632,350 3,745,920 2,864,490 End of Year Fund Balance 1,705,600 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 ACT.A Page 33 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Projects & Financing Plan Summary 16 ACT.A Page 34 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 17 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: A Street NW - Phase 1 (3rd St NW to 14th St NW) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:c207a0 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# 18 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 187,712 66,028 - - - - - - - 253,740 Secured Grants (Fed,State)6,562,702 - - - - - - - - 6,562,702 Traffic Impact Fees 956,198 101,672 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 175,000 1,707,870 Other Sources (Developer)382,817 - - - - - - - - 382,817 Total Funding Sources:8,089,429 167,700 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 175,000 8,907,129 Capital Expenditures: Design 2,247,331 - 50,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 2,387,331 Right of Way 821,341 - - - - - - - - 821,341 Construction 5,020,757 167,700 300,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 135,000 5,698,457 Total Expenditures:8,089,429 167,700 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 175,000 8,907,129 TIP# 1 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $25,830. Budget Forecast Project Cost Progress Summary: Pre-design was completed prior to 2007. Final design and environmental permitting were completed in 2011. Construction was completed in 2012. Wetland monitoring is required to continue until 2023. Description: Construct a new multi-lane arterial from 3rd Street NW to 14th Street NW. This project will improve mobility and is tied to corridor development. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and completes a missing link of a north/south arterial corridor. The project length is approximately three-quarters of a mile. The City purchased ROW from the northern property owner. If the property develops, some or a portion of those funds may be reimbursed to the City (total cost was $251,000). ACT.A Page 35 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 18 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Auburn Way South Pedestrian Improvements (Dogwood St SE to Fir St SE)STIP# AUB-37 Project No:cp1118 Project Type:Non-Motorized Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID# 4 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 6,446 93,554 - - - - - - - 100,000 Secured Grants (Fed,State)211,454 629,376 - - - - - - - 840,830 Traffic Impact Fees - - 115,000 - - - - - - 115,000 Other Sources (MIT)- 330,000 - - - - - - - 330,000 Total Funding Sources:217,900 1,052,930 115,000 - - - - - - 1,385,830 Capital Expenditures: Design 217,900 72,930 - - - - - - - 290,830 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - 980,000 115,000 - - - - - - 1,095,000 Total Expenditures:217,900 1,052,930 115,000 - - - - - - 1,385,830 TIP# 2 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project will construct pedestrian improvements along Auburn Way South between Dogwood Street SE and Fir Street SE that are consistent with WSDOT's SR-164 Route Development Plan. The project includes sidewalk improvements, access management, a mid-block pedestrian crossing, construction of a U-turn wedge for eastbound vehicles at Fir Street SE and street lighting. Progress Summary: The City was awarded $100,000 in federal funding and $740,830 in state funding in May 2011. Other funding source is Muckleshoot Indian Tribe contribution. Project design began in 2012. Design is expected be completed in 2014 and construction started in early 2015. ACT.A Page 36 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 19 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Auburn Way Corridor (4th St NE to 4th St SE) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:c409a0 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2, 3 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 78,251 - - - - 110,000 600,000 - - 788,251 Unsecured Grant - - - - - 708,700 2,400,000 - - 3,108,700 REET - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other Sources - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:78,251 - - - - 818,700 3,000,000 - - 3,896,951 Capital Expenditures: Design 78,251 - - - - 618,700 - - - 696,951 Right of Way - - - - - 200,000 - - - 200,000 Construction - - - - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 Total Expenditures:78,251 - - - - 818,700 3,000,000 - - 3,896,951 TIP# 3 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: This project is based on a pre-design study to improve pedestrian accessibility, appearance, and link the downtown area along Auburn Way South between 4th Street NE and 4th Street SE. The project may include some pavement repairs. However, an overlay was completed as part of the City's Arterial Pavement Preservation Program in 2007. Although this was considered a temporary fix, the scope has been modified to account for the pavement work. The project is approximately 0.5 miles long. Progress Summary: The pavement portion has been minimized due to the work completed in 2007 under the Arterial Pavement Preservation Program. ACT.A Page 37 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 20 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: I Street NE Corridor (45th St NE to S 277th St) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:c415a0 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 21 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 3,892 - - - - - - - - 3,892 Other Sources (Development)- - - - - 6,760,000 - - - 6,760,000 Other (Port of Seattle)- - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:3,892 - - - - 6,760,000 - - - 6,763,892 Capital Expenditures: Design 3,892 - - - - 460,000 - - - 463,892 Right of Way - - - - - 1,020,000 - - - 1,020,000 Construction - - - - - 5,280,000 - - - 5,280,000 Total Expenditures:3,892 - - - - 6,760,000 - - - 6,763,892 TIP# 4 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $25,200. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: The final alignment of the I Street Corridor is being analyzed as part of the Northeast Auburn Speci al Area Plan Environmental Impact Study. A portion of the ROW and Construction will be developer funded. The cross section will likely be a 5-lane arterial per the c ity's Comprehensive Plan. Progress Summary: This project is development driven. Prior expenditures were for design and construction of culvert crossing. ACT.A Page 38 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 21 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: M Street Underpass (3rd St SE to 8th St SE) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:c201a0 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID# 6 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 163,958 - - - - - - - - 163,958 Secured Grants (Fed,State)8,599,948 - - - - - - - - 8,599,948 REET2 1,140,000 - - - - - - - - 1,140,000 Traffic Impact Fees (Construction)4,255,428 - - - - - - - - 4,255,428 Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)38,640 109,550 109,550 109,070 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 2,286,640 3,081,600 Traffic Mitigation Fees 660,000 - - - - - - - - 660,000 PWTFL (30 years)3,044,491 215,500 - - - - - - - 3,259,991 Other (Agencies)3,090,514 - - - - - - - - 3,090,514 20,992,979 325,050 109,550 109,070 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 2,286,640 24,251,439 Capital Expenditures: Design 2,688,924 - - - - - - - - 2,688,924 Right of Way 3,358,443 - - - - - - - - 3,358,443 Construction 14,906,972 215,500 - - - - - - - 15,122,472 PWTF Debt Service 38,640 109,550 109,550 109,070 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 2,286,640 3,081,600 Total Expenditures:20,992,979 325,050 109,550 109,070 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 2,286,640 24,251,439 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $21,827. Budget Forecast Project Cost TIP# 5 Description: Construction of a grade separated railroad crossing of M Street SE at the BNSF Stampede Pass tracks. Progress Summary: 100% Design Drawings and right of way acquisition were completed in 2011. Construction started in early 2012 and was completed in 2014. Project is now in PWTFL debt repayment. Other Agencies are King County Metro Sewer, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and BNSF Railway ACT.A Page 39 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 22 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: S 272nd/277th St Corridor Capacity & Non-Motorized Trail Improvements STIP# AUB-42 Project No:c222a0 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID# 12 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 33,011 357,590 - - - - - - - 390,601 Secured Grants (Fed,State)90,503 930,197 4,000,000 - - - - - - 5,020,700 Traffic Impact Fees - - 581,800 - - - - - - 581,800 Other (RPG)- 1,300,000 1,000,000 - - - - - - 2,300,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:123,514 2,587,787 5,581,800 - - - - - - 8,293,101 Capital Expenditures: Pre-Design 10,448 - - - - - - - - 10,448 Design 113,066 1,267,787 - - - - - - - 1,380,853 Right of Way - 1,320,000 - - - - - - - 1,320,000 Construction - - 5,581,800 - - - - - - 5,581,800 Total Expenditures:123,514 2,587,787 5,581,800 - - - - - - 8,293,101 TIP# 6 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance costs for this project is estimated to be $27,250. Description: This project includes preliminary engineering, design, right of way acquisition and construction of major widening on S 277th Street, including the addition of three lanes, one westbound and two eastbound, a Class 1 trail, and storm improvements. The project extends from Auburn Way North to L Street NE, approximately 0.9 miles. Progress Summary: Federal design and ROW grant was secured in 2012 through PSRC and state construction grant was secured in 2013 through TIB. Design consultant was selected in 2013. Envirionmental permitting and design are in process. Staff is coordinating with the City of Kent and King County to complete annexation of the roadway into the City of Auburn. Auburn and Robertson Properties Group executed a project participating agreement in 2013. RPG is contributing funds and dedicating all necessary roadway frontage to the City. ACT.A Page 40 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 23 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main St to 3rd St NW) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 18 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other (Developer)150,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,150,000 Total Funding Sources:150,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - 250,000 - - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction 150,000 - - - - - 2,750,000 - - 2,900,000 Total Expenditures:150,000 - - - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,150,000 TIP# 8 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: Construct a multi-lane arterial from W Main St to 3rd St NW. This project will connect A St NW, Phase 1 to the Sound Transit Station and the Central Business District. This project could be partially or fully funded by development. The project is approximately 0.2 miles long. Progress Summary: The parking garage constructed by the Auburn Regional Medical Center completed a portion of this project in 2009. Design of A Street is anticipated to begin in 2015. ACT.A Page 41 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 24 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: D Street NW (37th St NW to 44th St NW) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 20 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - 250,000 - 5,000,000 - 5,250,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 50,000 - 1,000,000 - 1,050,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 300,000 - 6,000,000 - 6,300,000 Capital Expenditures:- Design - - - - - 300,000 - 750,000 - 1,050,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - 1,750,000 - 1,750,000 Construction - - - - - 3,500,000 3,500,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 300,000 - 6,000,000 - 6,300,000 TIP# 9 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $11,450. Description: Construct a new four-lane arterial per the city Comprehensive Plan. This project is tied to potential future development and will complete the missing link of a major north/south arterial corridor between S 277th St to the north and Ellingson Road SW (41st Street SE) to the south. The new corridor will improve north/south mobility through the City. The D St NW project is approximately 0.42 miles in length. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 42 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 25 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: F Street SE Non-Motorized Improvements (Downtown to Les Gove) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp0911 Project Type:Capacity, Non-Motorized Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 320,000 200,000 1,440,000 - - - - 1,960,000 Traffic Impact Fees 7,620 - 80,000 50,000 360,000 - - - - 497,620 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:7,620 - 400,000 250,000 1,800,000 - - - - 2,457,620 Capital Expenditures: Design 7,620 - 400,000 200,000 - - - - - 607,620 Right of Way - - - 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Construction - - - - 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 Total Expenditures:7,620 - 400,000 250,000 1,800,000 - - - - 2,457,620 TIP# 10 Description: The F St SE project includes pavement rehabilitation, installation of curbs, gutters, bike lanes, sidewalks, ADA improvements, utility undergrounding, LED street lighting, new two way center left turn-lane, crash attenuation at the supports for the BNSF railroad bridge, initiation of Auburn Staff Bikeshare pilot program, wayfinding signage and a "Bicycle Boulevard" designation of roadway connections between Auburn City Hall and the Les Gove Park Campus. This project improves mobility and safety along the corridor and will complete a gap in the non-motorized network between Auburn's Downtown and the Les Gove Community Campus. The major infrastructure improvements are approximately 0.3 miles long and the "Bicycle Boulevard" improvements are just over a mile long. Progress Summary: Preliminary design and survey work was completed in 2009. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $4,100. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 43 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 26 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: M Street NE (E Main St to 4th St NE) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 5 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - 220,000 920,000 - - - 1,140,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 100,000 - 55,000 230,000 - - - 385,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 100,000 - 275,000 1,150,000 - - - 1,525,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 100,000 - 75,000 - - - - 175,000 Right of Way - - - - 200,000 - - - - 200,000 Construction - - - - - 1,150,000 - 1,150,000 Total Expenditures:- - 100,000 - 275,000 1,150,000 - - - 1,525,000 TIP# 11 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,500. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project will construct a complete four-lane street section on M St NE between south of E Main St and 4th St NE. Progress Summary: Pre-design is planned to be completed during 2015 to refine project scope, alignment, and cost. ACT.A Page 44 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 27 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Grade-Separated Crossing of BNSF Railyard STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - 1,125,000 31,000,000 32,125,000 Total Funding Sources:- - - - - - - 1,125,000 31,000,000 32,125,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - - 1,125,000 2,500,000 3,625,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - 4,000,000 4,000,000 Construction - - - - - - 24,500,000 24,500,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - - - 1,125,000 31,000,000 32,125,000 TIP# 12 Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project will grade-separate the crossing of the BNSF Railyard, either from SR-18 to 6th Street SE or from 15th Street SW to A Street SE. The first alternative would realign the SR-18 eastbound ramp, grade separate the main north/south line and the Stampede Pass line, and connect to 6th Street SE. The second alternative would provide a new corridor from 15th Street SW to A Street SE in the vicinity of 12th Street SE and 17th Street SE, either via an overpass or underpass of the BNSF Railyard. This new east/west connection will improve access and circulation associated with the potential redevelopment of the BNSF yard as an intermodal freight facility. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 45 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 28 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: 8th Street NE Widening (Pike St NE to R St NE)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - 360,000 800,000 - - - 1,160,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - 90,000 200,000 - - - 290,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - 450,000 1,000,000 - - - 1,450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 200,000 - - - - 200,000 Right of Way - - - - 250,000 - - - - 250,000 Construction - - - - - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - 450,000 1,000,000 - - - 1,450,000 TIP# 15 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: Widen 8th Street NE to extend the five-lane cross-section which currently exists to the west of Pike St NE to R St NE by providing an additional travel lane along the south side of the roadway. This is a planning level cost estimate. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 46 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 29 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: 49th Street NE (Auburn Way North to I St NE)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 29 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other (Development) - - - - - 850,000 2,500,000 - - 3,350,000 Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 850,000 2,500,000 - - 3,350,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 250,000 - - - 250,000 Right of Way - - - - - 600,000 - - - 600,000 Construction - - - - - 2,500,000 - - 2,500,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 850,000 2,500,000 - - 3,350,000 TIP# 16 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $27,050. Description: Construct a new east/west corridor from Auburn Way North to I St NE. The existing 49th Street corridor extends B St NW to the west. This project also includes a traffic signal at the intersection of Auburn Way North and 49th Street. This roadway was evaluated and recommended in the NE Special Planning Area. It is anticipated that this will be constructed by future development. It is approximately 0.75 miles long. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 47 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 30 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: 46th Place S Realignment STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - 575,000 - 575,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - 250,000 - 250,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - - - 825,000 - 825,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - - 125,000 - 125,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - 25,000 - 25,000 Construction - - - - - - - 675,000 - 675,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - - - 825,000 - 825,000 TIP# 25 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $1,750. Description: The project will realign 46th Place S to the south of S 321st Street. The realignment will move the 46th Place S intersection with S 321st Street approximately 350 feet to the east of the current location. This will create two T-intersections (44th Avenue S and 46th Place S) in place of the existing four-leg intersection. The existing 46th Place S will be dead-ended to the south of S 321st Street. The project will improve safety and traffic operations at the intersections. Progress Summary: Right-of-way for the realigned roadway will be dedicated as part of an adjacent development project. ACT.A Page 48 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 31 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: BNSF 3rd Rail Expansion Roadway Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 13, 18 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 25,000 - - - - - - 25,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 25,000 - - - - - - 25,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 5,000 - - - - - - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - 20,000 - - - - - - 20,000 Total Expenditures:- - 25,000 - - - - - - 25,000 TIP# 33 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: This project will design and construct roadway improvements associated with the construction of the 3rd rail line by BNSF. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 49 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 32 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: 124th Ave SE & SE 320th St Intersection Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23, 25 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - 80,000 640,000 - - 720,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 20,000 160,000 - - 180,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 100,000 800,000 - - 900,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - - 50,000 - - 50,000 Construction - - - - - - 750,000 - - 750,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 100,000 800,000 - - 900,000 TIP# 39 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project will fund the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of improvements to the signalized SE 320th St and 124th Ave SE intersection. Improvements include constructing bike lanes, sidewalks, dual southbound left-turn lanes into GRCC, and ITS improvements. The intersection is located at the main entrance to Green River Community College and will require additional on-site improvements to be constructed by GRCC. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 50 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 33 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements - Phase 2 STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 400,000 880,000 2,000,000 - - - - 3,280,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 100,000 220,000 500,000 - - - - 820,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 500,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 - - - - 4,100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 500,000 - - - - - - 500,000 Right of Way - - - 1,100,000 - - - - - 1,100,000 Construction - - - - 2,500,000 - - - - 2,500,000 Total Expenditures:- - 500,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 - - - - 4,100,000 TIP# 40 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $3,500. Description: This project will fund the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of a four-lane section with bicycle and pedestrian facilities on 124th Ave SE between SE 318th St and SE 312th St, and improvements to the signalized intersection of SE 312th St and 124th Ave SE (including adding bike lanes, dual westbound left-turn lanes, dual southbound through-lanes, a northbound right-turn pocket, ITS improvements, and pedestrian safety improvements). Progress Summary: Phase 1 improvements between SE 318th and SE 316th were completed by GRCC in 2012. ACT.A Page 51 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 34 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: R Street Bypass (M Street SE to SR-18)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other (Development)- - - - - - - 500,000 5,700,000 6,200,000 Total Funding Sources:- - - - - - - 500,000 5,700,000 6,200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - - 500,000 - 500,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - 1,800,000 1,800,000 Construction - - - - - - - - 3,900,000 3,900,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - - - 500,000 5,700,000 6,200,000 TIP# 41 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Description: This project will complete the design and construction of the Bypass Rd, an arterial connection between M Street and Auburn Black Diamond Road, paralleling the rail line. The project will provide an arterial connection from the newly constructed M Street Underpass to the Auburn Black Diamond Road interchange with SR-18 to keep both vehicular and freight traffic out of residential neighborhoods along R Street SE north of the Stampede Pass line. The arterial connection may also provide opportunities for partnering with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe as they redevelop the Miles Pit area and as more definitive plans are developed for a potential new WSDOT interchange on SR-18 in the vicinity of the project. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 52 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 35 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: SE 320th Street Corridor Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity, Safety Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 25 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 640,000 200,000 4,000,000 - - - - 4,840,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 160,000 50,000 - - - - - 210,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 800,000 250,000 4,000,000 - - - - 5,050,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 800,000 - - - - - - 800,000 Right of Way - - - 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Construction - - - - 4,000,000 - - - - 4,000,000 Total Expenditures:- - 800,000 250,000 4,000,000 - - - - 5,050,000 TIP# 42 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is not expected to have a significant impact on operating budgets. Description: SE 320th St is a primary route serving Green River community college and adjacent neighborhoods. There are very high volumes of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit utilizing the corridor. This project will fund the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of non-motorized roadway and safety improvements including a roundabout at 116th Ave SE, adding bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and streetlighting between 122nd Ave SE and 108th Ave SE. Project length is approximately .95 miles. Progress Summary: GRCC completed the design and construction for the segment between 124th Ave SE and 122nd Ave SE in 2013. Corridor design is scheduled to start in 2015. Construction is planned for 2017. Federal grant application will be submitted in July 2014. ACT.A Page 53 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 36 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Auburn Way South (SR-164) Corridor Safety Improvements STIP# AUB-44 Project No:cp1218 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID# 4 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 2,684 - - - - - - - - 2,684 Grants (Fed,State,Local)2,738 247,262 2,083,108 - - - - - - 2,333,108 Traffic Impact Fees - - 250,000 - - - - - - 250,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:5,422 247,262 2,333,108 - - - - - - 2,585,792 Capital Expenditures: Design 5,422 239,762 93,000 - - - - - - 338,184 Right of Way - 7,500 62,000 - - - - - - 69,500 Construction - - 2,178,108 - - - - - - 2,178,108 Total Expenditures:5,422 247,262 2,333,108 - - - - - - 2,585,792 TIP# 43 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project is expected to have a neglible impact on operating budgets. Description: This project will improve access management, including u-turns, upgrade transit stops and street lighting, widen to accomodate turn-lanes and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, upgrade pavement markings, install pedestrian signals and audible pedestrian push buttons, and upgrade traffic signals to change the phasing and to improve the visibility of the signal heads. Progress Summary: Grant funding was awarded in 2012 and does not require a local match. ACT.A Page 54 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 37 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: West Valley Highway Improvements (15th Street NW to W Main Street)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 35 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - 480,000 2,400,000 - - - 2,880,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 100,000 - 120,000 600,000 - - - 820,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 100,000 - 600,000 3,000,000 - - - 3,700,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 100,000 - 600,000 - - - - 700,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 3,000,000 - - - 3,000,000 Total Expenditures:- - 100,000 - 600,000 3,000,000 - - - 3,700,000 TIP# 49 Description: This project scope includes pavement rehabilitation and re-channelization, roadway widening, bicycle lanes, pedestrian facilities, roadway lighting, required storm system improvements, and Intelligent Transportation System Improvements. Progress Summary: Survey, base mapping and pre-design are planned to be completed in 2015 to complete preliminary plans and refine project cost-estimate. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 55 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 38 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102), ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105) Project Title: W Main Street Multimodal Corridor and ITS Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 11 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 56,490 209,650 - - - - - 266,140 Unsecured Grant - - 804,100 2,970,240 - - - - - 3,774,340 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other (Arterial Pres. Fund)- - 85,410 314,510 - - - - - 399,920 Total Funding Sources:- - 946,000 3,494,400 - - - - - 4,440,400 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 946,000 - - - - - - 946,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - 3,494,400 - - - - - 3,494,400 Total Expenditures:- - 946,000 3,494,400 - - - - - 4,440,400 TIP# 55 Description: This project will repurpose the existing W Main St corridor within Auburn’s designated Regional Growth Center and will construct Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements serving local and regional transportation networks and a major commercial retail center. Improvements include converting the existing four-lane roadway section to a three-lane section including center two-way left turn lane with new bike lanes, new sidewalks, new LED street lighting, and streetscape improvements between West Valley Highway and the Interurban Trail. ITS Improvements include interconnecting and coordinating traffic signals From C St NW along W Main St to W Valley Highway south to 15th St SW including two interchanges with SR-18 and one with SR-167. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 56 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 39 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Auburn Way S Corridor Improvements (Fir St SE to Hemlock St SE)STIP# AUB-38 Project No:cp1119 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID# 4 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 150 - - - - - - - - 150 Secured State Grant 364,449 2,061,951 - - - - - - - 2,426,400 Traffic Impact Fees - - 200,000 - - - - - - 200,000 Other (MIT)91,112 745,489 - - - - - - - 836,601 Total Funding Sources:455,711 2,807,440 200,000 - - - - - - 3,463,151 Capital Expenditures: Design 425,068 90,000 - - - - - - - 515,068 Right of Way 30,643 406,000 - - - - - - - 436,643 Construction - 2,311,440 200,000 - - - - - - 2,511,440 Total Expenditures:455,711 2,807,440 200,000 - - - - - - 3,463,151 TIP# 58 Description: This project will widen Auburn Way South between Fir St SE and Hemlock St SE to five lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk, illumination and storm improvements. A new traffic signal will be constructed at Hemlock Street SE and connect to Auburn's Intelligent Transportation System. Progress Summary: Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) awarded the City grant funds in the amount of $2,426,400 on November 19, 2010. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is a project partner and is contributing ROW dedications and project funding in the amount $836,601. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $9,300. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 57 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 40 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: M Street SE Corridor (8th St SE to AWS)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 6 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost 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 Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 1,925,000 4,750,000 - - 6,675,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 650,000 - - - 650,000 Right of Way - - - - - 1,275,000 - - - 1,275,000 Construction - - - - - - 4,750,000 - - 4,750,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 1,925,000 4,750,000 - - 6,675,000 TIP# 60 Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: Widen M Street SE into a multi-lane arterial between 8th St SE and AWS. This project will improve mobility and is tied to corridor development. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and contributes to the completion of a north/south arterial corridor. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 58 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 41 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Auburn Way South Bypass - Riverwalk Dr to SR-18 at R St SE STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - 4,800,000 43,560,000 48,360,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other (Development)- - - - - - - 1,200,000 10,890,000 12,090,000 Total Funding Sources:- - - - - - - 6,000,000 54,450,000 60,450,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - - 6,000,000 - 6,000,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 Construction - - - - - - - - 48,450,000 48,450,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - - - 6,000,000 54,450,000 60,450,000 TIP# 61 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: Description: This project will construct a new roadway corridor to bypass Auburn Way South. The new roadway will extend from Riverwalk Drive to R Street SE to the north of SR-18. A new connection to a new interchange with SR-18. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 59 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 42 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR-18 to M St SE)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Miscellaneous Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 3 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2,015 2,016 2,017 2,018 2,019 2,020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 200,000 200,000 - - 400,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - 1,750,000 2,600,000 - - 4,350,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - - 4,750,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 500,000 - - - 500,000 Right of Way - - - - - 1,450,000 - - - 1,450,000 Construction - - - - - - 2,800,000 - - 2,800,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - - 4,750,000 TIP# 62 Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project will revitalize and beautify AWS from the SR-18 interchange to the intersection with M Street SE. Proposed improvements include: enhancement of crosswalks and pedestrian linkages; new and repaired sidewalks; curb and gutter; pedestrian ramps; new landscaped medians; street trees; new lighting; pedestrian benches; trash receptacles; recycling containers and other appropriate amenities. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 60 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 43 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th Pl SE) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - 1,950,000 8,000,000 - - 9,950,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 600,000 150,000 - - 500,000 2,000,000 - - 3,250,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 600,000 150,000 - - 2,450,000 10,000,000 - - 13,200,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 150,000 - - 1,950,000 - - - 2,100,000 Right of Way - 600,000 - - - 500,000 - - - 1,100,000 Construction - - - - - - 10,000,000 - - 10,000,000 Total Expenditures:- 600,000 150,000 - - 2,450,000 10,000,000 - - 13,200,000 TIP# 64 Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: Widen the existing roadway to provide a four-lane cross section with pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The project includes widening the Green River Bridge. Progress Summary: Two parcels along the future roadway alignment were procured in 2014. Corridor pre-design effort is planned to begin in mid 2015 following adoption of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan major update. ACT.A Page 61 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 44 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (105th Pl SE to 112th Ave SE) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - 2,900,000 7,100,000 - 10,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - 600,000 1,400,000 - 2,000,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - - 3,500,000 8,500,000 - 12,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 Right of Way - - - - - - 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 Construction - - - - - - - 8,500,000 - 8,500,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - - 3,500,000 8,500,000 - 12,000,000 TIP# 65 Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: Project includes widening the existing roadway to provide a four-lane cross-section including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 62 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 45 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE ) STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 19 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 1,000,000 3,000,000 - - 4,000,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 500,000 - - - 500,000 Right of Way - - - - - 500,000 - - - 500,000 Construction - - - - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 1,000,000 3,000,000 - - 4,000,000 TIP# 66 Future Impact on Operating Budget: Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: Project includes widening the existing roadway to provide a four-lane cross-section including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 63 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Roadway Improvement Projects 46 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: West Valley Highway Improvements (SR-18 to 15th Street SW)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 35 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - 400,000 2,000,000 - - - 2,400,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 100,000 - 100,000 500,000 - - - 700,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 100,000 - 500,000 2,500,000 - - - 3,100,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 100,000 - 500,000 - - - - 600,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 2,500,000 - - - 2,500,000 Total Expenditures:- - 100,000 - 500,000 2,500,000 - - - 3,100,000 TIP# 72 Description: This project scope includes pavement rehabilitation and re-channelization, pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements, improved roadway lighting, required storm system improvements, intersection signal replacement at 15th St SW, and Intelligent Transportation System Improvements. Progress Summary: Survey, base mapping and pre-design are planned to be completed in 2015 to complete preliminary plans and refine project cost-estimate. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 64 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 47 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: M Street SE/12th Street SE Traffic Signal STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 11 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - 500,000 - - - 500,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other (Development) - - - - - 125,000 - - - 125,000 Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 625,000 - - - 625,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 75,000 - - - 75,000 Right of Way - - - - - 50,000 - - - 50,000 Construction - - - - - 500,000 - - - 500,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 625,000 - - - 625,000 TIP# 14 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $6,600. Description: This project includes the design, right of way acquisistion and construction of a new traffic signal. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 65 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 48 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Harvey Rd NE/8th St NE Intersection Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp0611 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:None LOS Corridor ID# 5,19 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees (Debt Service)349,000 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 84,000 657,600 1,603,100 Traffic Impact Fees 204,500 - - - - - - - - 204,500 PWTF 1,527,300 - - - - - - - - 1,527,300 Total Funding Sources:2,080,800 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 84,000 657,600 3,334,900 Capital Expenditures: Design 327,500 - - - - - - - - 327,500 Right of Way 200,400 - - - - - - - - 200,400 Construction 1,203,900 - - - - - - 1,203,900 Long Term Debt: PWTF 349,000 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 84,000 657,600 1,603,100 Total Expenditures:2,080,800 86,500 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 84,000 657,600 3,334,900 TIP# 17 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: Add one eastbound through/right turn-lane on 8th St NE to the west of Harvey Rd. Modify traffic signals and traffic channelization to accommodate the new lane. The additional lane will reduce traffic delays and queuing at the intersection of Harvey Rd and 8th St NE in all directions. This project will reconstruct M St NE from 4th St NE to 8th St NE, a segment of roadway approximately 0.3 miles long with a four-lane cross-section. The reconstruction will address the existing poor pavement condition and fill in any gaps in the sidewalk network. Progress Summary: Project was completed in 2010. Ongoing budget is for PWTFL debt payments. ACT.A Page 66 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 49 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102), CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Project Title: 8th St NE/104th Ave SE Intersection Improvements STIP# AUB-40 Project No:cp1104 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# 19 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 8,600 148,400 5,000 - - - - - - 162,000 Secured Federal Grant 40,816 59,184 - - - - - - - 100,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Cap Imp Fund 328 (REET2)2,608 119,000 - - - - - - - 121,608 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:52,024 326,584 5,000 - - - - - - 383,608 Capital Expenditures: Design 50,546 38,000 - - - - - - - 88,546 Right of Way 1,478 - - - - - - - - 1,478 Construction - 288,584 5,000 - - - - 293,584 Total Expenditures:52,024 326,584 5,000 - - - - - - 383,608 TIP# 18 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $6,600. Description: This project includes the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of intersection improvements including a new traffic signal. Progress Summary: Design began in 2011. Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2014. ACT.A Page 67 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 50 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Auburn Way North/1st Street NE Signal Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 50,000 - 125,000 - - - - 175,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - 425,000 - - - - 425,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 50,000 - 550,000 - - - - 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Construction - - - - 450,000 - - 450,000 Total Expenditures:- - 50,000 - 550,000 - - - - 600,000 TIP# 19 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: This project will construct a new traffic signal with controller cabinet and battery backup along with necessary intersection improvements. Progress Summary: Design is scheduled to be completed in 2015. ACT.A Page 68 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 51 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Auburn Way South/M St SE Intersection Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp1024 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID# 3,4 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 38,815 61,185 5,000 - - - - - - 105,000 Secured State Grant 59,080 390,920 - - - - - - - 450,000 Traffic Impact Fees - 125,000 - - - - - - - 125,000 Traffic Mitigation Funds 37,368 112,632 - - - - - - - 150,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:135,263 689,737 5,000 - - - - - - 830,000 Capital Expenditures: Design 121,174 163,000 - - - - - - - 284,174 Right of Way 14,089 85,737 - - - - - - - 99,826 Construction - 441,000 5,000 - - - - 446,000 Total Expenditures:135,263 689,737 5,000 - - - - - - 830,000 TIP# 20 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: This project is the first phase of improvements at the Auburn Way South/M St SE intersection. The project will construct new westbound to northbound right-turn pockets, improved turning radius on the northeast corner, realignment of the westbound 17th St SE approach to Auburn Way South, lighting improvements, related traffic signal modifications and right-of-way acquisition. Progress Summary: Pre-design was completed in 2012. Final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction are planned for completion in 2014. ACT.A Page 69 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 52 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Main Street Signal Upgrades STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp1406 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Seth Wickstrom LOS Corridor ID# 11 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - 315,000 5,000 - - - - - 320,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 465,000 5,000 - - - - - - 470,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 50,000 - - - - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - 415,000 5,000 - - - - - 420,000 Total Expenditures:- 465,000 5,000 - - - - - - 470,000 TIP# 21 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: Reconstruct the existing traffic signals at C St NW and W Main St and at E Main St and Auburn Ave/A St SE. The new C St NW signal would provide protected left-turn phasing for C St, and would provide additional safety related to the railroad pre-emption. The Auburn Ave/A St signal would replace one of the City's oldest signals which has exceeded its design life. Progress Summary: Design started in 2014 and construction is expected to start in 2014. ACT.A Page 70 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 53 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Project Title: Traffic Signal Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:Various Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager:Scott Nutter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Fund Balance - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - REET 2 - 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 - 1,225,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 - 1,225,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 175,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - 1,050,000 Total Expenditures:- 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 - 1,225,000 TIP# 34 Description: This project includes procuring capital equipment needed to replace cabinets, video detection cameras, conflict monitors and upgrade pedestrian pushbuttons to APS. This project is also used to make safety improvements to our signals like auxiliary heads and flashing yellow arrows, or capacity improvements like right turn overlap signals. The City uses current traffic counts and accident data to determine intersections for these improvements. Progress Summary: Project continues to complete various intersection improvements. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 71 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 54 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: 37th St NW & B St NW Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements STIP# AUB-43 Project No:cp1304 Project Type:Non-Capacity (Safety) Project Manager:Jacob Sweeting LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 12,310 64,590 5,000 - - - - - - 81,900 Unsecured Grant 22,112 285,438 - - - - - - - 307,550 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:34,422 350,028 5,000 - - - - - - 389,450 Capital Expenditures: Design 34,422 50,000 - - - - - - - 84,422 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - 300,028 5,000 - - - - - 305,028 Total Expenditures:34,422 350,028 5,000 - - - - - - 389,450 TIP# 38 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Description: This project will fund the design and construction of a pre-signal at the 37th Street NW/B Street NW intersection adjacent to the at-grade BNSF rail crossing, and to mitigate impacts from the proposed BNSF third rail project. The project will include communication improvements and advanced train detection for new warning times for advanced railroad pre-emption at the signal. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 72 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 55 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Traffic Management Center Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity, ITS Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 25,000 - - - - - - 25,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - 125,000 - - - - - - 125,000 Total Expenditures:- - 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000 TIP# 47 Description: The rapid growth of the City traffic signal and Intelligent Transportation Systems infrastructure has severely strained the capacity and reliability of the existing network processing capabilities. This project will implement network communications, software, video, and physical improvements to the Traffic Management Center which will improve the network data processing speed, reliability, and redundancy improving the City's ability to manage the transportation system and respond to emergencies. Additionally, these improvement will allow Information & Technology staff to isolate the Traffic Management data processing demands from the City's general facility security data processing demands resulting in improvements to both processes. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 73 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 56 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: A St SE & 6th St SE Safety and Access Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other (BNSF)- - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 Total Funding Sources:- - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 10,000 - - - - - - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - 40,000 - - - - - - 40,000 Total Expenditures:- - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 TIP# 48 Description: This project is a partnership between Auburn and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway to improve the intersection of A St SE and 6th St SE. The scope of the project includes adding a phase to the traffic signal for traffic entering and exiting the BNSF railyard. Progress Summary: Design and construction is planned to be completed in 2015 pending agreement with BNSF. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 74 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 57 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: ITS Dynamic Message Signs STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (ITS) Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 15,000 30,000 30,000 - - - 75,000 Unsecured Grant - - - 85,000 170,000 170,000 - - - 425,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - 100,000 200,000 200,000 - - - 500,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 10,000 20,000 20,000 - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - 90,000 180,000 180,000 - - - 450,000 Total Expenditures:- - - 100,000 200,000 200,000 - - - 500,000 TIP# 50 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Description: This project funds the design and construction of Dynamic Message Signs at various locations throughout the City. Dynamic message signs are an important ITS tool for providing information to roadway users. Priority locations for sign placement are based on the Comprehensive Transportation Plans ITS map and include Auburn Way N, Auburn Way S, W Valley Highway, E Valley Highway, Lake Tapps Parkway, and Lea Hill Rd. Progress Summary: The first phase of this project is scheduled to begin in 2016 or sooner if grant funding becomes available. ACT.A Page 75 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 58 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Lake Tapps Parkway ITS Expansion STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 82,950 711,000 - - - - - 793,950 Traffic Impact Fees - - 22,050 189,000 - - - - - 211,050 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 105,000 900,000 - - - - - 1,005,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 105,000 - - - - - - 105,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - 900,000 - - - - - 900,000 Total Expenditures:- - 105,000 900,000 - - - - - 1,005,000 TIP# 51 Description: The project funds the design, coordination, permitting, and construction of new ITS infrastructure along Lake Tapps Parkway from Lakeland Hills Way to East Valley Highway, and along East Valley Highway to Lakeland Hills Way. The proposed ITS infrastructure includes conduit, fiber, VMS signage, cameras, network communication upgrades, and weather stations along the route. Progress Summary: Federal Grant application was submitted to PSRC in May 2014. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 76 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 59 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: 8th Street NE and C Street NW ITS Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp1226 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# 18,19 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Fund Balance - - - - - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - - - - - REET2 - 50,000 5,000 - - - - - - 55,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 50,000 5,000 - - - - - - 55,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 10,000 - - - - - - - 10,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - 40,000 5,000 - - - - - - 45,000 Total Expenditures:- 50,000 5,000 - - - - - - 55,000 TIP# 52 Description: This project will expand the City's ITS network to improve travel reliability, maintenance response, and emergency management capabilities. The project includes the design, coordination, permitting, and construction of the ITS expansion on the 8th Street NE/Lea Hil l Road corridor and at the C Street NW/W Main Street, C Street NW/3rd Street NW, and A Street NW/3rd Steet NW intersections. Progress Summary: Project is planned to be completed in 2014. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 77 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 60 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Auburn Way South and 12th Street SE Intersection Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp1114 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:Ryan Vondrak LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 50,000 100,000 - - - - - 150,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 50,000 350,000 - - - - - 400,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - 350,000 - - - - - 350,000 Total Expenditures:- - 50,000 350,000 - - - - - 400,000 TIP# 53 Description: The project will design multi-modal intersection improvements at the AWS/12th Street SE intersection. The improvements will include pedestrian access, bicycle lanes, signal phasing and timing, and ITS upgrades. All aspects of the project will be completed with the exception of construction which will be initiated with the allocation of future funding or the award of a grant. Progress Summary: Design is scheduled to be completed in 2015. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 78 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 61 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Auburn Ave NE & 3rd St NE Pedestrian & Access Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp1023 Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 2 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 8,778 - - - - - - - - 8,778 Unsecured Grant - - - - 250,000 - - - - 250,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - 100,000 REET2 - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:8,778 - 50,000 - 300,000 - - - - 358,778 Capital Expenditures: Design 8,778 - 50,000 - - - - - - 58,778 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - 300,000 - - - - 300,000 Total Expenditures:8,778 - 50,000 - 300,000 - - - - 358,778 TIP# 59 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project will improve access, safety and operations for pedestrian, bicyclists and motorized vehicles at the intersections of 3rd St NE/Auburn Ave, 4th St NE/Auburn Ave, and 4th St NE/Auburn Way North. Improvements include a new traffic signal and geometric improvements at 3rd St NE to add a missing pedestrian crossing and accomodate the northbound left-turn movement; improving pedestrian facilities to meet ADA requirements, restricting uncontrolled accesses near the intersection, and modifying the traffic signal at Auburn Way North and 4th St NE to eliminate the east/west split phase operation. Progress Summary: Survey and pre-design were started in 2010-2011. Pre-design will be completed in 2015, with construction scheduled for 2017, pending grant funding. ACT.A Page 79 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 62 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: 29th St SE/R St SE Intersection Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 16, 27 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - 1,300,000 - - - 1,300,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - 500,000 - - - 500,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 1,800,000 - - - 1,800,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 350,000 - - - 350,000 Right of Way - - - - - 450,000 - - - 450,000 Construction - - - - - 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 1,800,000 - - - 1,800,000 TIP# 63 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project funds the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of intersection capacity and safety improvements at the 29th St SE/R St SE intersection. This project will include creating eastbound/westbound dual left-turn lanes, auxiliary signal heads and pedestrian safety enhancements. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 80 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 63 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102), CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Project Title: Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvements STIP# AUB-45 Project No:cp1222 Project Type:Non-Capacity (Safety) Project Manager:Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 6,916 55,000 5,000 - - - - - - 66,916 Secure Federal Grant 31,624 368,376 - - - - - - - 400,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - REET2 (328)4,316 20,684 - - - - - - - 25,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:42,856 444,060 5,000 - - - - - - 491,916 Capital Expenditures: Design 41,075 - - - - - - - - 41,075 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction 1,781 444,060 5,000 - - - - - - 450,841 Total Expenditures:42,856 444,060 5,000 - - - - - - 491,916 TIP# 67 Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project will convert nine signals to Flashing Yellow Arrow operation, improve traffic signal phasing and timing, and improve visibility of traffic signal heads. Progress Summary: Federal Grant funding was awarded June 2012. Project was designed in 2013 and constructed in 2014. ACT.A Page 81 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 64 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102), ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105) Project Title: 37th Street SE and A Street SE Traffic Signal Safety Improvement STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity, Safety Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 10 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 55,000 45,000 - - - - - 100,000 Unsecured Grant - - 121,400 440,000 - - - - - 561,400 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Arterial Preserv. Funds (105)- - - 152,500 - - - - - 152,500 Total Funding Sources:- - 176,400 637,500 - - - - - 813,900 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 110,000 - - - - - - 110,000 Right of Way - - 66,400 - - - - - - 66,400 Construction - - - 637,500 - - - - - 637,500 Total Expenditures:- - 176,400 637,500 - - - - - 813,900 TIP# 68 Description: This project includes the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of a new traffic signal at the 37th Street SE intersection with A Street SE. This project will be designed to accommodate and support future access management safety improvements along the A St SE Corridor. Progress Summary: Grant Application will be submitted in July 2014. Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 82 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 65 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: I Street NE and 22nd Street NE Roundabout Safety Improvement STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity (Safety) Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 21 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - 160,000 940,000 - - - - - 1,100,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - 40,000 235,000 - - - - - 275,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 200,000 1,175,000 - - - - - 1,375,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 200,000 - - - - - - 200,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - 1,175,000 - - - - - 1,175,000 Total Expenditures:- - 200,000 1,175,000 - - - - - 1,375,000 TIP# 69 Description: This project includes the design and construction of a roundabout at the 22nd Street NE intersection with I Street NE. This is currently a 4-way stop controlled intersection. Progress Summary: Multiple grant applications were submitted in May/July 2014. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 83 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Intersection, Traffic Signal, & Intelligent Transportation Systems Improvement Projects 66ACT.A Page 84 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 67 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: A Street SE Non-Motorized and Access Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Class 1 Trail (Capacity) Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 53,900 - - - - - - - - 53,900 Secured Federal Grant 170,400 - 89,029 - - - - - - 259,429 REET - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - Other (Agencies) - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:224,300 - 89,029 - - - - - - 313,329 Capital Expenditures: Design 224,300 - 89,029 - - - - - - 313,329 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures:224,300 - 89,029 - - - - - - 313,329 TIP# 23 Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $2,500. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: Preliminary design of improvements to A Street SE between the White River Bridge and 41st Street SE, including a signalized pedestrian crossing and access management including consolidatoin of commercial driveways. Progress Summary: Remaining grant funds from the BNSF/E Valley Highway Pedestrian Underpass project are in the process of being reprogrammed to this project. Preliminary design work has not begun. Expenditures prior to 2013 were for project c229a0. ACT.A Page 85 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 68 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Academy Drive Multi-Use Trail STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Class 1 Trail (Capacity) Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - 42,500 42,500 - - 85,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - 382,500 382,500 - - 765,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 425,000 425,000 - - 850,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 325,000 425,000 - - 750,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 425,000 425,000 - - 850,000 TIP# 24 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to be $5,000. Description: This project will use existing Acadamy Dr right-of-way to create a multi-use trail on between the Green River Rd and Auburn Way S. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 86 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 69 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: METRO Shuttle: Lakeland Hills Shuttle STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:NA Project Type:Other Project Manager:Joe Welsh LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - 240,000 200,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 - 1,165,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - REET - - - - - - - - - - Other (Agencies)- - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 240,000 200,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 - 1,165,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Transit Service - 240,000 200,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 - 1,165,000 Total Expenditures:- 240,000 200,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 - 1,165,000 TIP# 26 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: Operating costs associated with the Commuter Shuttle from the Lakeland Hills neighborhood to Auburn Station. Progress Summary: The Lakeland Hills route began in 2009, the community shuttle in 2010. Funding assistance will be requested through the Transit Now Partnership Program. Funding shown for 2015-2020 is reduced to reflect King County Metro Transit's proposed service cuts starting in 2015 to eliminate the Transit Now Partnership Route 910. ACT.A Page 87 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 70 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility and Safety Program STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager:Pablo Para LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 600,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - REET - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 600,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 - 90,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 - 510,000 Total Expenditures:- - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 600,000 TIP# 30 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This is an annual program to fund small pedestrian improvement projects at locations throughout the City. Projects are prioritized annually based on pedestrian demands, existing deficiencies, and citizen requests. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 88 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 71 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (Safety) Project Manager:Various LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 10,000 - 10,000 - 10,000 - 30,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - 90,000 - 90,000 - 90,000 - 270,000 Total Expenditures:- - - 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 TIP# 31 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This is a bi-annual program to fund bicycle and safety improvements on classified roadways. Project s are prioritized annually based upon field studies. Project was previously called "Citywide Roadway Safety Infrastructure Improvements". Progress Summary: 2013 project is funding improvements at the W Main St/C Street intersection as part of TIP # 21, and at the 37th Street NW/B Street NW intersection as part of TIP # 38. ACT.A Page 89 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 72 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Project Title: Citywide Sidewalk Repairs & Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp1301 Project Type:Non-Capacity (Annual) Project Manager:Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Fund Balance - - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 150,000 Unsecured Grant - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 600,000 REET 2 - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 - 750,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 - 90,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 - 660,000 Total Expenditures:- - 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 - 750,000 TIP# 32 Description: Project funds sidewalk improvements at multiple locations throughout the City. A sidewalk inventory was completed in 2004. Annual projects are selected based upon criteria such as: gap closure, safe walking routes to schools, completion of downtown pedestrian corridor or "linkage", connectivity to transit service, ADA requirements, and "Save our Streets" (SOS) project locations. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 90 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 73 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: A Street NE Pedestrian Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Sidewalk Improvements (Non-Capacity) Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - 150,000 - - - 150,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 150,000 - - - 150,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 15,000 - - - 15,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 135,000 - - - 135,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 150,000 - - - 150,000 TIP# 44 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: The annual maintenance cost for this project is estimated to minimal. Description: This project completes a pedestrian connection between Downtown Auburn and the 8th St NE business district. This project will improve a pedestrian crossing at 3rd St NE, and construct sidewalks/access ramps along the A St NE corridor. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 91 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 74 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Interurban Trailhead Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Class 1 Trail (Non-Capacity) Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - 210,000 - - - 210,000 Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - - 210,000 - - - 210,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - 20,000 - - - 20,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 190,000 - - - 190,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - - 210,000 - - - 210,000 TIP# 45 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: This project provides funding for enhancements to existing trailheads and construction of new trailheads. Improvements include bike racks, kiosks, parking and access. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 92 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 75 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Evergreen Heights Safe Routes to School Improvements STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity, Non-Motorized Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 23 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted 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 - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 790,000 563,000 4,620,000 - - - - 5,973,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 790,000 - - - - - - 790,000 Right of Way - - - 563,000 - - - - - 563,000 Construction - - - - 4,620,000 - - - - 4,620,000 Total Expenditures:- - 790,000 563,000 4,620,000 - - - - 5,973,000 TIP# 56 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: The project will widen S 316th Street from 51st Avenue S to the west of the Evergreen Elementary School frontage, and 56th Avenue S between S 316th Street and S 318th Street. The proposed widening will allow the addition of bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street to match the existing roadway cross-section to the east of the school. A roundabout will be constructed at the S 316th Street/56th Avenue S intersection replacing the existing all-way stop-control and the school driveway will be relocated to the west to align with the roundabout. The reconstruction of S 316th Street includes the vertical alignment of the existing roadway along the school frontage which creates sight-distance problems associated with the school driveways, and at the intersection with 56th Avenue S. Other project elements include undergrounding of aerial utilities, street lighting, and upgrades to the storm water system. Progress Summary: Grant funding applications were submitted in May 2014. ACT.A Page 93 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Non-Motorized & Transit Improvement Projects 76 ACT.A Page 94 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 77 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102), CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (328) Project Title: Mohawks Plastics Site Mitigation Project STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp0767 Project Type: Non-Capacity Project Manager: Jeff Dixon LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity: 2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Fund Balance - - - - - - - - - - Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees 382,304 25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - - 557,304 REET 2 (328)169,186 - - - - - - - - 169,186 Total Funding Sources:551,490 25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - - 726,490 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction 551,490 25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - - 726,490 Total Expenditures:551,490 25,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - - 726,490 TIP# 13 Description: The project consists of the design, construction, maintenance and monitoring of approximately 2.2-acres of wetland creation and approximately 0.4-acres of wetland enhancement within the Goedecke South Property owned by the Sewer Utility in order to compensate for approximately 1.6-acre wetland loss on the Mohawk Plastics property (Parcel # 1321049056). The project was approved under an existing agreement approved by Resolution No. 4196, June 2007. Progress Summary: The City received the DOE WQ Certification, WDFW HPA, and on May 7, 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 404 wetland permit (NWS-2007-1913). Subsequently, bid specifications and construction plans were prepared and construction began in October 2009. Construction was completed in January 2010 and the project is currently within the 10-year monitoring period, which involves annual maintenance, monitoring and reporting. Future Impact on Operating Budget: It is anticipated that annual maintenance, monitoring and reporting on the performance of the wetland mitigation project will be required for a period of 10 years, in conformance with permit requirements. After the successful conclusion of this 10-year monitoring period, which is anticipated to be in December 2019, ongoing operation expenses should be minimal. Budget Forecast Project Cost ACT.A Page 95 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 78 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: A Street SE Safety Improvements Study STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cp1110 Project Type:Safety (Non-Capacity) Project Manager:James Webb LOS Corridor ID# 10,33 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 1,230 45,000 5,000 - - - - - - 51,230 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:1,230 45,000 5,000 - - - - - - 51,230 Capital Expenditures: Design 1,230 45,000 5,000 - - - - - - 51,230 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures:1,230 45,000 5,000 - - - - - - 51,230 TIP# 27 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This study will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: Study the A Street SE corridor between 6th Street SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE including 41st St SE from D St SE to C St SE. The study will review the safety and access needs of the traveling public and the adjacent properties. Progress Summary: In-house pre-design will be done to refine project scope, alignment, and cost will be complete in 2014. 2015 design will complete detailed corridor plan for future improvements. ACT.A Page 96 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 79 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: S 277th Street - Wetland Mitigation STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:c410a0 Project Type:Non-Capacity Project Manager:Matt Larson LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue 264,084 55,000 25,000 - - - - - - 344,084 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:264,084 55,000 25,000 - - - - - - 344,084 Capital Expenditures: Design 130,997 10,000 10,000 - - - - - - 150,997 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction 133,087 45,000 15,000 - - - - 193,087 Total Expenditures:264,084 55,000 25,000 - - - - - - 344,084 TIP# 29 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: Wetland mitigation for the S 277th St grade separation project. Progress Summary: This is a 10-year obligation, which began in 2004. ACT.A Page 97 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 80 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity (Intersection Safety) Project Manager:James Webb LOS Corridor ID# 24 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - 5,000 - - - - - - 5,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Traffic Impact Fees - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 5,000 - - - - - - 5,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 5,000 - - - - - - 5,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures:- - 5,000 - - - - - - 5,000 TIP# 46 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: This project funds a pre-design study to determine the right-of-way, environmental and construction requirements for intersection safety improvements. The project is anticipated to include sight-distance improvements, constructing turn-lanes, channelization, environmental mitigation, signage and clear zone improvements. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 98 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 81 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL STREET FUND (102) Project Title: Kersey Way SE Corridor Study STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Capacity Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 4 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Unrestricted Street Revenue - - - - - - - - - - Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - - - - - Traffic Mitigation Fees - - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures:- - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 TIP# 54 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project will study improvements to the Kersey Way SE corridor from the White River Bridge to the southern city limits. The study will develop the scope and costs for horizontal/vertical geometric roadway improvements, roadside hazard mitigation, street lighting and non-motorized trail construction. The project length is approximately two miles. Progress Summary: Design will begin in 2015 following the completion of the update to the Comprehensive Plan. ACT.A Page 99 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preliminary Engineering and Miscellaneous Projects 82ACT.A Page 100 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 83 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105) Project Title: 15th Street SW Reconstruction STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Preservation Project Manager:TBD LOS Corridor ID# 12 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Arterial Preservation Fund - - - - 75,000 500,000 - - - 575,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - 300,000 2,500,000 - - - 2,800,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - - 375,000 3,000,000 - - - 3,375,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - 375,000 - - - - 375,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - - 3,000,000 - - - 3,000,000 Total Expenditures:- - - - 375,000 3,000,000 - - - 3,375,000 TIP# 7 Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: This project will evaluate improvements to the Union Pacific at grade rail crossings as well as the vertical sight distance to the Interurban Trail crossing to the west of the tracks. This project was originally scoped to include pavement preservation. The pavement preservation component could still be combined with this project, but is also eligible for the Arterial Pavement Preservation Program. A planning level cost estimate is provided. Progress Summary: ACT.A Page 101 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 84 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105) Project Title: Lake Tapps Parkway Preservation (City Limit to Lakeland Hills Way)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Preservation Project Manager:Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# 17 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Fund Balance - - - 26,480 176,370 - - - - 202,850 Unsecured Grant - - - 97,900 652,100 - - - - 750,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - 124,380 828,470 - - - - 952,850 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 124,380 - - - - - 124,380 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - 828,470 - - - - 828,470 Total Expenditures:- - - 124,380 828,470 - - - - 952,850 TIP# 22 Description: The Lake Tapps Parkway Preservation project will complete a patch and overlay of pavement between the Auburn/Sumner City limit and Lakeland Hills Way including all required ADA improvements to curb ramps, sidewalks, and pedestrian signals. Progress Summary: Application for Federal grant was submitted May 2014. If awarded funds will be available in 2015. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget Forecast Project Costs ACT.A Page 102 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 85 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105) Project Title: Annual Bridge Structure Preservation STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:Various Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Scott Nutter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Arterial Preservation Fund - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 350,000 Grants (Fed,State,Local)- - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 350,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 - 35,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 - 315,000 Total Expenditures:- 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 350,000 TIP# 28 Budget Forecast Project Cost Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Description: This is an annual program to fund improvements to bridge structues identified by the city's annual bridge inspection program. Progress Summary: Program completed load rating calculations for nine bridges in 2011. 2012 project completed miscellaneous bridge repairs. Inspections of nine bridges were completed in 2012. ACT.A Page 103 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 86 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105) Project Title: Arterial Street Preservation Program STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:varies annually Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Arterial Preservation Fund - 2,620,579 1,700,000 650,000 750,000 1,250,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 10,570,579 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 2,620,579 1,700,000 650,000 750,000 1,250,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 10,570,579 Capital Expenditures: Design - 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 20,000 - 370,000 Right of Way - - - - - - Construction - 2,520,579 1,650,000 600,000 700,000 1,200,000 1,750,000 1,780,000 - 10,200,579 Total Expenditures:- 2,620,579 1,700,000 650,000 750,000 1,250,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 10,570,579 TIP# 35 Description: Implement regular pavement maintenance and/or rehabilitation of various classified streets citywide. These projects may include a combination of overlays, rebuilds, and spot repairs. This program is funded through a 1% utility tax that was adopted by City Council during 2008. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget Forecast Project Costs ACT.A Page 104 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 87 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND FUND (105) Project Title: Annual Arterial Crackseal Program STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Arterial Preservation Fund - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 700,000 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 700,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 70,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 - 630,000 Total Expenditures:- 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 700,000 TIP# 36 Description: Implement regular maintenance of various classified streets by sealing newly formed cracks. Sealing the cracks will prolong the life of the pavement by stopping water from draining into the sub-base of the road. Progress Summary: Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget Forecast Project Costs ACT.A Page 105 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 88 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan LOCAL STREET PRESERVATION FUND (103) Project Title: Local Street Improvement Program STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:Various Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# N/A Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Local Street Preserv. Fund - 2,545,396 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 13,145,396 Unsecured Grant - - - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 2,545,396 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 13,145,396 Capital Expenditures: Design - 400,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 - 2,200,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - 2,145,396 2,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 - 10,945,396 Total Expenditures:- 2,545,396 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 13,145,396 TIP# 37 Budget Forecast Project Cost Description: The program preserves local (unclassified) streets. The work includes crack sealing, asphalt patching, pre-leveling, asphalt overlays and roadway reconstruction. Beginning in 2013 sales tax on construction was dedicated by council to fund this program. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Progress Summary: This program has successfully completed overlays, chip seals and complete reconstructions since 2005. The program will focus on completing reconstruction needs in addition regular maintenance treatments. ACT.A Page 106 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 89 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105) Project Title: Bridge Deck Preservation STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Scott Nutter LOS Corridor ID# 17 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Arterial Preservation Fund - 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 650,000 Utility Tax - - - - - - - - - - Bond proceeds - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 650,000 - Capital Expenditures: Design - - - - - - - - - - Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 650,000 Total Expenditures:- - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 650,000 TIP# 57 Description: This is an annual program to fund the rehabilitation of bridge decks as identified by the city's annual bridge inspection program. Progress Summary: R St SE Stuck River Bridge deck repairs were completed in 2014. Future Impact on Operating Budget: This project will have no impact on the operating budget for street maintenance. Budget Forecast Project Costs ACT.A Page 107 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 90 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105) Project Title: Auburn Way N Preservation (22nd Street NE to 45th Street NE)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# 21 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Arterial Preservation Fund - - 60,000 650,000 - - - - - 710,000 Unsecured Grant - - 60,000 650,000 - - - - - 710,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - 120,000 1,300,000 - - - - - 1,420,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - 120,000 - - - - - - 120,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - 1,300,000 - - - - - 1,300,000 Total Expenditures:- - 120,000 1,300,000 - - - - - 1,420,000 TIP# 70 Description: The project proposes to grind and overlay Auburn Way N from the 22nd Street NE to 45th Street NE. The project will restore 7.3 lane miles of pavement, upgrade 26 curb ramps to meet current ADA standard, as we as remove unused driveway openings as an upgrade to non ADA compliant pedestrian facilities. The project funds the design, coordination, permitting, and construction of the pavement preservation project. Progress Summary: Application for Federal grant was submitted May 2014. If awarded funds will be available in 2015. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget Forecast Project Costs ACT.A Page 108 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 91 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan ARTERIAL PRESERVATION FUND (105) Project Title: 15th Street NE/NW Preservation (SR-167 to 8th Street NE)STIP# AUB-N/A Project No:cpxxxx Project Type:Non-Capacity, Preservation Project Manager:Jai Carter LOS Corridor ID# 9 Activity:2014 YE Funding Sources:Prior to 2014 Estimate 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Arterial Preservation Fund - - - 67,500 750,000 - - - - 817,500 Unsecured Grant - - - 67,500 750,000 - - - - 817,500 Other - - - - - - - - - - Total Funding Sources:- - - 135,000 1,500,000 - - - - 1,635,000 Capital Expenditures: Design - - - 135,000 - - - - - 135,000 Right of Way - - - - - - - - - - Construction - - - - 1,500,000 - - - - 1,500,000 Total Expenditures:- - - 135,000 1,500,000 - - - - 1,635,000 TIP# 71 Description: The project proposes to grind and overlay 15th Street NW/NE from the SR167 to Auburn Way N; and gri nd and overlay Harvey Road NE from Auburn Way N to 8th Street NE. The project will restore 7.57 lane miles of pavement, upgrade 30 curb ramps to meet current ADA standard, as well as remove unused driveway openings as an upgrade to non ADA compliant pedestrian facilities. The project funds the design, coordination, permitting, and construction of the pavement preservation project. Progress Summary: Application for Federal grant was submitted May 2014. If awarded funds will be available in 2015. Future Impact on Operating Budget: There is no impact to the street maintenance budget. Budget Forecast Project Costs ACT.A Page 109 of 266 City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Program Preservation Projects 92 ACT.A Page 110 of 266 City of Auburn 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program Summary Project Number TIP #Project Title Grant Status Prior to 2015 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Beyond 2020 Total Project Cost Project Category c207a0 1 A St NW - Phase 1 (3rd St NW to 14th St NW)Secured 8,257,129 350,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 175,000 8,907,129 Roadway cp1118 2 Auburn Way South Pedestrian Improvements (Dogwood St SE to Fir St SE)Secured 1,270,830 115,000 - - - - - - 1,385,830 Roadway c409a0 3 Auburn Way South (4th St NE to 4th St SE)Unsecured 78,251 - - - 818,700 3,000,000 - - 3,896,951 Roadway c415a0 4 I Street NE Corridor (45th St NE to S 277th St)Unsecured 3,892 - - - 6,760,000 - - - 6,763,892 Roadway c201a0 5 M Street Underpass (3rd St SE to 8th St SE)Secured 21,318,029 109,550 109,070 108,590 107,550 106,520 105,490 2,286,640 24,251,439 Roadway c222a0 6 S 277th Street (AWN to L Street NE)Secured 2,711,301 5,581,800 - - - - - - 8,293,101 Roadway cpxxxx 7 15th St SW Reconstruction Unsecured - - - 375,000 3,000,000 - - - 3,375,000 Preservation cpxxxx 8 A Street NW, Phase 2 (W Main St to 3rd St NW)Unsecured 150,000 - - - - 3,000,000 - - 3,150,000 Roadway cpxxxx 9 D Street NW (37th St NW to 44th St NW)Unsecured - - - - 300,000 - 6,000,000 - 6,300,000 Roadway cp0911 10 F Street SE (4th St SE to AWS)Unsecured 7,620 400,000 250,000 1,800,000 - - - - 2,457,620 Roadway cpxxxx 11 M Street NE (E Main St to 4th St NE)Unsecured - 100,000 - 275,000 1,150,000 - - - 1,525,000 Roadway cpxxxx 12 Grade-Separated Crossing of BNSF Railyard Unsecured - - - - - - 1,125,000 31,000,000 32,125,000 Roadway cp0767 13 Mohawk Plastics Site Mitigation Project N/A 576,490 25,000 20,000 20,000 65,000 20,000 - - 726,490 Miscellaneous cpxxxx 14 M Street SE/12th Street SE Traffic Signal Unsecured - - - - 625,000 - - - 625,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 15 8th Street NE Widening (Pike St NE to R St NE)Unsecured - - - 450,000 1,000,000 - - - 1,450,000 Roadway cpxxxx 16 49th Street NE (Auburn Way North to I St NE)Unsecured - - - - 850,000 2,500,000 - - 3,350,000 Roadway cp0611 17 Harvey Rd NE/8th NE Intersection Improvements N/A 2,167,300 86,000 85,600 85,200 84,800 84,400 84,000 657,600 3,334,900 Intersection, Signal & ITS cp1104 18 8th St NE/104th Ave SE Intersection Improvements Secured 378,608 5,000 - - - - - - 383,608 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 19 Auburn Way North/1st Street NE Signal Improvements Unsecured - 50,000 - 550,000 - - - - 600,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cp1024 20 Auburn Way South/M Street SE Intersection Improvements Secured 825,000 5,000 - - - - - - 830,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 21 Main Street Signal Upgrades Secured 465,000 5,000 - - - - - - 470,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 22 Lake Tapps Parkway Preservation (City Limit to Lakeland Hills Way)Unsecured - - 124,380 828,470 - - - - 952,850 Preservation cpxxxx 23 A Street SE Non-Motorized and Access Improvements Unsecured 224,300 89,029 - - - - - - 313,329 Non-Motorized cpxxxx 24 Academy Drive Multi Use Trail Unsecured - - - - 425,000 425,000 - - 850,000 Non-Motorized cpxxxx 25 46th Place S Realignment N/A - - - - - - 825,000 - 825,000 Roadway NA 26 METRO Shuttle: Lakeland Hills Shuttle N/A 240,000 200,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 - 1,165,000 Transit cp1110 27 A Street SE Safety Improvements Study N/A 46,230 5,000 - - - - - - 51,230 Study cp1008 28 Annual Bridge Structure Preservation N/A 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 350,000 Preservation c410a0 29 S 277th Street - Wetland Mitigation N/A 319,084 25,000 - - - - - - 344,084 Miscellaneous Various 30 Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility and Safety Program N/A - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 600,000 Non-Motorized Various 31 Citywide Arterial Bicycle & Safety Imp N/A - - 100,000 - 100,000 - 100,000 - 300,000 Non-Motorized Various 32 Citywide Sidewalk Repairs and Improvements N/A - 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 - 750,000 Non-Motorized cpxxxx 33 BNSF 3rd Rail Expansion Roadway Improvements Unsecured - 25,000 - - - - - - 25,000 Roadway Various 34 Traffic Signal Improvements N/A 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 - 1,225,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS Various 35 Arterial Street Preservation Program N/A 2,620,579 1,700,000 650,000 750,000 1,250,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 10,570,579 Preservation Various 36 Arterial Street Crack Seal N/A 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 700,000 Preservation Various 37 Local Streets Improvement Program N/A 2,545,396 2,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 - 13,145,396 Preservation cp0820 38 37th St NW & B St NW Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements Secured 384,450 5,000 - - - - - - 389,450 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 39 124th Ave SE & SE 320th St Intersection Imp.Unsecured - - - - 100,000 800,000 - - 900,000 Roadway cpxxxx 40 124th Ave SE Corridor Improvements - Phase 2 Unsecured - 500,000 1,100,000 2,500,000 - - - - 4,100,000 Roadway cpxxxx 41 R Street Bypass Unsecured - - - - - - 500,000 5,700,000 6,200,000 Roadway cpxxxx 42 SE 320th St Corridor Improvements Unsecured - 800,000 250,000 4,000,000 - - - - 5,050,000 Roadway cp1218 43 Auburn Way South (SR-164) Corridor Safety Improvements Secured 252,684 2,333,108 - - - - - - 2,585,792 Roadway cpxxxx 44 A Street NE Pedestrian Improvements Unsecured - - - - 150,000 - - - 150,000 Non-Motorized cpxxxx 45 Interurban Trailhead Improvements Unsecured - - - - 210,000 - - - 210,000 Non-Motorized cp1021 46 104th Ave SE & Green River Road Study N/A - 5,000 - - - - - - 5,000 Study cpxxxx 47 Traffic Management Center Improvements N/A - 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 48 A St SE and 6th St SE Safety and Access Improvements N/A - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 49 West Valley Hwy Improvements (15th St NW to W Main St)Unsecured - 100,000 - 600,000 3,000,000 - - - 3,700,000 Roadway cpxxxx 50 ITS Dynamic Message Signs Unsecured - - 100,000 200,000 200,000 - - - 500,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 51 Lake Tapps Parkway ITS Expansion Unsecured - 105,000 900,000 - - - - - 1,005,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 52 8th Street NE and C Street NW ITS Improvements Unsecured 50,000 5,000 - - - - - - 55,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 53 AWS and 12th Street SE Intersection Improvements Unsecured - 50,000 350,000 - - - - - 400,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 54 Kersey Way SE Corridor Study N/A - 50,000 - - - - - - 50,000 Study cpxxxx 55 W Main Street Improvements Unsecured - 946,000 3,494,400 - - - - - 4,440,400 Roadway cp1120 56 Evergreen Heights Safe Routes to School Improvements Unsecured - 790,000 563,000 4,620,000 - - - - 5,973,000 Non-Motorized cpxxxx 57 Arterial Bridge Deck Rehabilitation N/A - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 650,000 Preservation cp1119 58 AWS Corridor Imp (Fir St SE to Hemlock St SE)Secured 2,311,440 200,000 - - - - - - 2,511,440 Roadway cp1023 59 Auburn Ave NE & 3rd St NE Pedestrian & Access Improvements Unsecured 8,778 50,000 - 300,000 - - - - 358,778 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 60 M Street SE Corridor (8th St SE to AWS)Unsecured - - - - 1,925,000 4,750,000 - - 6,675,000 Roadway cpxxxx 61 AWS Bypass Unsecured - - - - - - 6,000,000 54,450,000 60,450,000 Roadway cpxxxx 62 AWS Streetscape Improvements (SR-18 to M St SE)Unsecured - - - - 1,950,000 2,800,000 - - 4,750,000 Roadway cpxxxx 63 29th St SE/R St SE Intersection Improvements Unsecured - - - - 1,800,000 - - - 1,800,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 64 Lea Hill Rd Segment 1 (R St NE to 105th Pl SE) Unsecured 600,000 150,000 - - 2,450,000 10,000,000 - - 13,200,000 Roadway cpxxxx 65 Lea Hill Rd Segment 2 (105th Pl SE to 112th Ave SE) Unsecured - - - - - 3,500,000 8,500,000 - 12,000,000 Roadway cpxxxx 66 Lea Hill Rd Segment 3 (112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE) Unsecured - - - - 1,000,000 3,000,000 - - 4,000,000 Roadway cp1222 67 Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvements Secured 486,916 5,000 - - - - - - 491,916 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 68 37th Street SE and A Street SE Traffic Signal Safety Improvement Unsecured - 176,400 637,500 - - - - - 813,900 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 69 I street NE and 22nd Street NE Roundabout Safety Improvement Unsecured - 200,000 1,175,000 - - - - - 1,375,000 Intersection, Signal & ITS cpxxxx 70 Auburn Way N Preservation (22nd Street NE to 45th Street NE)Unsecured - 120,000 1,300,000 - - - - - 1,420,000 Preservation cpxxxx 71 15th Street NE/NW Preservation (SR-167 to NE 8th Street)Unsecured - - 135,000 1,500,000 - - - - 1,635,000 Preservation cpxxxx 72 West Valley Hwy Improvements (SR-18 to 15th Street SW)Unsecured - 100,000 - 500,000 2,500,000 - - - 3,100,000 Roadway Total 48,624,307 18,916,887 13,753,950 21,377,260 31,741,050 38,210,920 27,469,490 94,269,240 294,413,104 Appendix AACT.A Page 111 of 266 EDGEWOOD PIERCE COUNTY KENT SUMNER PACIFIC ALGONA KING COUNTY LAKETAPPS SUPERM ALL 167 18 18 56TH AVE S 6 0 T H S T S E SE 299TH ST 144TH AVE SE S E 3 1 8 T H WAY 6 4 T H S T S E 61STST S E SE315TH PL M ST SE 37TH ST SE SE 290TH ST 12TH ST SE S E 299TH ST 18TH ST N E A ST SW 4 6 T H P L S T STSE 6TH ST NE 4TH ST SE L ST NE 8TH ST SE E V ERGREEN W A Y SE 26TH ST NE 51 S T P L N E 14TH ST NE SE 295TH ST 56TH AVE S SE 320TH ST 20THST NE 116TH AVE SE 61STAV E S M D R N E 51 S T S T S E S297T H PL S 292ND ST 28TH ST NE 33RD ST SE 66T HST SE 5 0 T HST S E 12TH ST SE SE 296TH ST 17TH ST SE 26TH ST SE BENNETT AVE SE S 292ND ST S 296TH P L 116TH AVE SE 73RD S T S E 63R D PL S E SE 316TH ST S E 314TH PL 56TH ST SE 21ST ST SE 23RD S T SE 6 7 T H S T S E 52ND PLS 5 5 T H W AY S E 67THLN S E SE 316TH PL S K Y W A Y LN S E 4TH ST NE 19 T HPL SE 55THAVE S 22ND ST NE PIKE ST SE SE 307TH PL 4 3 R D ST NE 130TH AVE SE 31ST ST NE SE 301ST ST 30TH ST NE 57TH ST SE 104TH AVE SE MAPLE DR SE 24TH ST NE 5 9 TH ST SE 65TH ST SE 55TH ST SE 19TH DR N E ELM ST SE 116TH AVE SE 26TH ST SE 28TH ST SE 1 9TH ST SE LAKE TAPPSDR SE 57TH PLS 26TH ST SE 2ND ST SE SE 296TH WAY 105THAVE SE O L I V E A V E SE 16TH ST SE C ST SE J ST SE SE 298TH P L H O W A RDRDSE DOGWOOD ST SE 3RD ST NE 9TH ST SE 2ND ST NE K ST NE K ST SE 2ND ST NW 2ND ST E 61ST AV E S OLIVE AV E S E 1 7 T H S T S E V ST SE V ST SE 6 2 N D ST SE 6 3 R D ST SE OSTNE 42ND PLNE G ST SE S DIVISION ST S 296TH ST K ST SE 26THST NE S U P ERMALLDRSW SE298TH P L 7TH ST NE 2ND ST SE E ST SW E ST SE 33RD ST S E 55TH ST SE 11TH ST NE D ST NW S310TH ST S E 321ST PL 64TH ST S E SE 288TH ST ELM LN SE I S A A C A V E S E S 3 1 4 T H S T 20TH ST NW 7TH ST SE 2ND ST SE 51ST S T N E 15TH ST SE E MAIN ST 7 2 N D STSE 1 7TH ST SE I PLNE EST SE 56TH AVE S 15TH ST SE SE307TH PL QUINCY AVE SE 61ST STSE 30TH ST NE 8TH ST SE TSTNW D PLSE D ST SE SE 286TH ST IPL NE 33RD STSE 10TH ST NE N ST SE 22ND ST SE 35TH WAY SE U C T NW 3 2 N D S T S E 25TH ST SE 44TH ST NW R PL NE 12TH ST NE F ST NW GST NW 116TH AVE SE 10TH ST NE SE 295THST 13TH ST SE SE 310TH ST PANOR A M A D R SE 56TH A V E S C STSE N ST NE ASTNE SE 293RD S T K ST NE K ST NE SE288TH PL 107TH A V E S E H ST SE 53RD ST SE JST NE SE 282ND ST 176TH AVE E L ST SE S307TH S T 14THSTSE 21ST ST SE T ST SE SE300TH WAY D ST SE 5T H ST N E 5TH ST N E 31ST ST SE 30TH STSE D ST SE 3 2ND ST SE 4 9 T H S T N E S 331STST 37TH ST S E S 288TH ST S E 3 23RD PL 32ND PL NE 32ND ST NE 25TH ST SE 4 9 T H S T NE T H O M A S AVESE 50T H S T N E 16TH ST SE S E 300TH ST SE 286TH PL S 296TH ST S 324TH ST SE 288TH ST B PL NW 5 5TH ST SE 21ST ST SE 4TH ST SW S 300TH ST 42ND ST NE S 302ND PL O ST SE 107TH PL SE S319TH ST 8TH ST NE S E282ND S T 19TH ST S E W ST NW SE 43RD ST 30TH ST NW D ST NE 24 T H S T SE SE 297TH ST S 303RD PL H S T NE SE 284TH ST A L P I N EDR SE 65T H AVES SE 281ST ST SE 290TH PL SE 42ND ST 4 5 T H S T N E 28TH ST SE WARD AVE SE OLYMPIC ST SE EVE R G R EE N W A Y S E S 288TH ST J ST SE 6TH ST NW 57TH ST SE S E 289TH ST 3 7 T H W A Y S E S 312TH S T SE 285TH ST 42ND ST NE S 2 9 2 N D S T 2 2ND WAYN E 6 9 T H S T S E 20TH ST SE SE 294TH ST 47T H S T S E 23RD ST SE 5 1ST ST S E SE 294TH PL V S T N W 17TH ST NE 16TH ST NE SE 286TH ST SE 3 2 6 T H P L S 318TH ST G ST SE RANDALL AVE SE 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE 24TH ST SE 25TH ST SE HEATHER AVE SE 85THAVE S 42ND ST NW SE 282ND ST LUND RD SW H ST NW 21STSTNE 36TH S TSE SE312TH W A Y 1 0 2 N D AV E S E 3 7TH PLSE 29TH ST NW SE 301ST ST SE 287TH ST 10 8THAVESE 47TH ST SE SE 284TH STSE284THST 1 0 5 T H P L S E H O W A R D R D S E I ST NW 140TH AVE SE SUPERMALLAC R D SW S 287TH ST FOSTER AVE SE MOUN T AIN VIEWD R S W EAST BLVD (BOEING) PAC IFIC AVE S J O H N R EDDINGTO N R D NE K ST SE MONTEV I S TA D R S E F ST NE 109TH PL S E 127THPLSE B ST SE L ST SE R ST NE 55TH AVE S 127TH PL S E M ST NE B ST SE NATHAN AVESE T ST NE 118T H PL SE MILLPONDDRSE 110TH AVE SE 1 2 9TH AVE SE ACADEMY D R SE D ST SE G S T SE PERR Y A VESE HEMLOCK ST SE 1 1 2 T H PL SE 64TH AVE S ELM ST SE 52ND AVE S RSTNW ELM S T S E VSTNW 1 1 1THPL SE 55THPL S D S T S E 128THPLSE R ST NW 6 8 T H S T S E S C E N I C D R S E PIKE ST NE DOGWOOD ST SE V CTSE RI V E R D R SE 111THAVE SE E ST NE 52ND PL S D ST NE 108THAVE SE ALPINESTSE J ST NE L ST NE LST SE 58T H AV E S D ST SE C S T SE C ST SE E ST NE 1ST S T NE 108THAVE SE 58TH AVE S QUINCY AVE S E 69TH S T S E G ST SW 51ST AVE S SE 299TH P L FIR ST SE D ST SE GINKGOST SE J ST NE E ST SE B ST SE G ST SE O ST NE PIKE ST NE HI G H LANDDR S E 59TH AV E S U ST S E I ST SE N ST NE H ST SE L ST NE E V E R G R E E N W A Y S E ZST SE R PL SE 1 7TH D RSE C ST NE H ST NE 54THAVE S W ST NW E ST NE 57 TH P LSE G ST NE TER R ACE VIEW LNSE A ST E SUPERMALL WAY SW PEARL AVE SE F ST SE H ST SE PIKE ST NW 142ND AVE S E A A B YDRNW 1 0 4 T H P L S E 148TH AVE SE SE 295TH ST 54TH AVE S 55TH AVE S BRIDGET AVE SE PERIMETERRDSW U S T N W C ST NE R IV E R V I E W DR NE CLAY ST NW FRONTAGERD 118TH AVE SE M ST NW GRE E N R I VER A CRDS E STUCK RIVER DR SE 51ST AVE S A U B U R N W A Y S PEASLEY C ANYONRDS 8T H ST N E K E R S E Y W A Y S E AU BUR N-BLACK DIAMOND RD SE P E A S L E Y C A N Y O N R D S E M AIN ST A ST SE I ST NE 112TH AVE SE 4TH ST SE SE 281ST ST TE RRA C E DR NW W MAIN ST R ST SE A ST NW R ST SE S 316TH ST SE 304TH ST 29TH ST SE 124TH AVE SE SE 304TH ST SE 312TH ST 15TH ST NW RIVER W A L K DR S E ELLINGSON RD SW SE 304TH ST SE 312TH ST WEST VALLEY HWY N R ST S E 15TH ST SW SE 320TH ST321STSTS 3 7T H S T NW LEAHILL R D S E S E 3 0 4 T H ST BOUNDARY BLVD SW S 277TH ST SE 304TH W A Y DST NE A ST NW A ST SE 51ST AVE S 4 1 S T S T S E C ST SW 132ND AVE SE 132ND AVE SE M ST SE M ST SE 112TH AVE SE 112TH AVE SE A ST NE B ST NW L A K E L A N D H I L L S W A Y S E B ST NW R ST SE M ST NE B S T N W O R A V ET Z RDSE DST NW C ST NW EMERALD DOWNS DRNW 104THAVE SE 12TH ST E S 2 7 2 N D W AY M I L I T A R Y R D S 16 TH S T E AUBURN-BLACK D I A M O N D R D S E 9THST E 214TH AVE E A U B URN WAY N S 288TH ST SUMNER-TAPPS H W Y E FOR E S T C ANYONR D E M I L I TA R Y R D S A U B U R N - E N U M C L A W R D S WEST VA LLEY H W Y S MILITARYRDS 182ND AVE E 2 1 0 T H A V E E 142ND AVE E J O V I T A B L V D E 108TH AVE SE S 277TH ST 116TH AVE SE WEST VALLEY HWY NW PACIFIC AVE S S E 2 7 4 T H S T 124TH AVE SE SE 272ND ST S 272ND ST STEWART RD SE M I L I T A R Y R D S SE 272ND ST SEKENT-KANGL E Y R D STEWART RD SW 8TH ST E S E 2 7 4 TH S T 24TH ST E ELLINGSON RD SW WEST VA L L E Y H W Y 68TH AVE S 38TH AVE S WEST VALLEY H W Y S PACIFIC AVE S 136TH AVE E 140TH AVE E W ES T V A L L E Y HWY E WEST VALLEYHWY S EASTVALLEY H W Y CENTRAL AVE S VALENTINE AVE SE S 277TH S T 53 64 59 62 6014 8 19 21 44 52 65 38 51 41 1 15 39 582 12 11 16 42 10 3 4 7 9 5 40 43 6 55 66 61 22 25 46 54 1817 63 20 27 33 33 23 24 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. City of Auburn 2015 -2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 5,500 FEETRoadwayImprovementsNon-Motorized Improveme nts Prelim Eng and Misc Improvements Preservation Signal &ITS Projects City of Auburn Parks Water Features Appendix B 1ST ST NE A ST SW 4TH ST NE 2ND ST NE 1STSTSW 2ND ST SW 2ND ST NW 2ND STNW 2ND ST NE 1ST ST NE 2ND ST S E B S T NE 1ST ST SW 1ST ST NW 1ST ST SE 5TH ST NE A ST SW S DIVISION ST 3RD ST NE NDIVISION ST 4 THSTS W A ST NE D ST NW B ST NE N DIVISION ST 1ST ST NE 2ND ST SE 6TH ST NE D ST SE PAR K AVE N E D ST SW TRANSIT RDS W D ST NE D ST NE A ST SW A ST NE D ST NW AUBURNAVENE A ST SE AUBURN WAY S 3RD ST NE E M AIN ST 4TH ST SE A ST NW A ST NW CROSSSTSE A U BU R N WAY N C S T S W C ST SW A ST NW C S T SW 598 19 21 21 44 1 3 33 EAST VALLEY HW Y E L A K E T A P PSPKWYSE 68 56 7070 6969 15TH ST NE 15TH ST NW AUBURN WAY N7171 WESTVALLEYHWYS 7272 WESTVALLEYHWY N 4949 4848 AUBURN WAY N Intersection Improvements 33 W MAIN ST 3RD ST NW C ST NW 33 33 ACT.A Page 112 of 266 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 6508 Date: June 5, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Agenda Bill Exhibit A - Ordinance No. 6508 Exhibit B Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: Planning and Community Development Committee to recommend City Council adopt Ordinance No. 6508. Background Summary: See attached Agenda Bill. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development Other: Planning Commission, Legal Councilmember:Holman Staff:Dixon Meeting Date:June 9, 2014 Item Number:ACT.G AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDACT.G Page 113 of 266 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: June 5, 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 and recommend approval to the City Council. 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 the EP, Environmental Park zone. 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: June 9, 2014 Item Number: ACT.G Page 114 of 266 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: June 5, 2014 Page 2 of 9 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 dissolution of the current sales tax revenue mitigation program. The eventual loss of the ACT.G Page 115 of 266 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: June 5, 2014 Page 3 of 9 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. ACT.G Page 116 of 266 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: June 5, 2014 Page 4 of 9 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 Ordinance No. 6508. 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 ACT.G Page 117 of 266 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: June 5, 2014 Page 5 of 9 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 (6 months), 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 (a 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 zoning regulations 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. Under an understanding that the City did not wish to allow further or continued development and construction of new warehousing and distribution uses in the EP, Environmental Park zoning district and that further refinement of the zoning regulations of the EP zone 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, a proposal to allow warehousing and distribution uses only for those buildings that were permitted prior to enacting the EP zone was considered by the Planning Commission. And the Planning Commission recommended approval of the code changes based on this approach. On May 27, 2014 at their regular meeting, the Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) discussed the Planning Commission recommendations and asked that warehousing and distribution uses be allowed in the EP zone and not only for those buildings that were permitted prior to enacting the EP zone. Proposed Zoning Code Change This proposal revises the zoning code to allow those warehousing and distribution uses to be an outright permitted use in the EP, Environmental Park zone. Specifically, the “X” designating: “Prohibited” is proposed to change to “P” to indicate: “Permitted” in Table 18.23.030 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 revise the regulations to allow the use outright in the M1, Light Industrial zone and EP, Environmental Park Zone. 2. To implement the, then policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations affecting industrial zoning districts were changed by Ordinance No. 6433 ACT.G Page 118 of 266 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: June 5, 2014 Page 6 of 9 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 and the EP, Environmental Park zoning district. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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, ACT.G Page 119 of 266 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: June 5, 2014 Page 7 of 9 2014 at their regular meeting. The Council Committee was supportive of the general approach. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. On May 27, 2014 at their regular meeting, the Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) discussed the Planning Commission recommendations and asked that warehousing and distribution uses be allowed in the EP zone and not only for those buildings that were permitted prior to enacting the EP zone; the “X” denoting “not permitted” be changed to “P” denoting “permitted” in Table 18.23.030. 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: 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.” ACT.G Page 120 of 266 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: June 5, 2014 Page 8 of 9 “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 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 ACT.G Page 121 of 266 Agenda Subject: Agenda Subject: Proposed amendment to ACC 18.23 related to warehousing and distribution uses (File No. ZOA14- 0002) Date: June 5, 2014 Page 9 of 9 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. 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 are shown in strike-through and underline. Exhibit B: SEP14-0002 Determination of Non-Significance and completed Environmental Checklist Application. ACT.G Page 122 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 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 ACT.G Page 123 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 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 the Committee modified the proposal to make warehousing and distribution uses a permitted use in the EP, Environmental Park Zoning District and requested the code amendment be brought back to the Committee; and WHEREAS, the code amendments were reviewed by the Planning and Community Development Committee of the City Council on June 9, 2014 and 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. ACT.G Page 124 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 2014 Page 3 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. 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) ACT.G Page 125 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 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 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 P C ACC 18.57.020(C) 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 ACT.G Page 126 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 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 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 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) ACT.G Page 127 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 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 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 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) ACT.G Page 128 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 2014 Page 7 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) 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 ACT.G Page 129 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 2014 Page 8 Kennel, animal boarding X X X A X A X A ACC 18.57.040(C) Government facilities, this excludes offices and related uses that are permitted outright A A A A A A A A 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 terminal 1 X X X X X X X X See Footnote No. 1 Parking facility, public or commercial, surface X P P P P P P X Parking facility, public or commercial, X P P P P P P X ACT.G Page 130 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 2014 Page 9 structured Towing storage yard X X X X X A X P ACC 18.57.045(A) 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 P P P P P P P P ACT.G Page 131 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 2014 Page 10 same general character of the uses permitted. See ACC 18.02.120(C)(6), Unclassified Uses. 1 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: ____________________ ACT.G Page 132 of 266 Ordinance No. 6508 June 5, 2014 Page 11 ___________________________________ ATTEST: NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR _________________________ Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney PUBLISHED: ______________ ACT.G Page 133 of 266 ACT.G Page 134 of 266 ACT.G Page 135 of 266 ACT.G Page 136 of 266 ACT.G Page 137 of 266 ACT.G Page 138 of 266 ACT.G Page 139 of 266 ACT.G Page 140 of 266 ACT.G Page 141 of 266 ACT.G Page 142 of 266 ACT.G Page 143 of 266 ACT.G Page 144 of 266 ACT.G Page 145 of 266 ACT.G Page 146 of 266 ACT.G Page 147 of 266 ACT.G Page 148 of 266 ACT.G Page 149 of 266 ACT.G Page 150 of 266 ACT.G Page 151 of 266 ACT.G Page 152 of 266 ACT.G Page 153 of 266 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 5073 Date: June 4, 2014 Department: Public Works Attachments: Resolution No 5073 Exhibit A & B Staff Report Vicinity Map Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: MW Holdings Auburn SE Block LLC has applied to the City for vacation of the right-of- way of the alley between South Division Street and A Street SE, south of 1st Street SE, shown on Exhibit “B”. The applicant currently owns all of the surrounding parcels and is proposing to incorporate the right-of-way in the development of the adjacent properties. 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. 5073, if adopted by City Council, sets the date of the public hearing for Vacation No. V3-14 for July 21, 2014. Reviewed by Council Committees: Planning And Community Development, Public Works Councilmember:Osborne Staff:Mund Meeting Date:June 9, 2014 Item Number:DI.A AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.A Page 154 of 266 ---------------------------- Resolution No. 5073 ROW Vacation V3-14 May, 19, 2014 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5073 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN SOUTH DIVISION STREET AND A STREET SE, SOUTH OF 1st STREET SE, 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 right-of-way at the location of the Alley between South Division Street and A Street SE, south of 1st Street SE and adjacent to Parcel Nos. 7815700295, 2815700290, 7815700280, 7815700300, 7815700305, 7815700310 and 7815700325, 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 the Alley between South Division Street and A Street SE, south of 1st Street SE, located within the City of Auburn, Washington, legally described as follows: DI.A Page 155 of 266 ---------------------------- Resolution No. 5073 ROW Vacation V3-14 May, 19, 2014 Page 2 THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 6, TOWN OF SLAUGHTER ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 56, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (ALSO KNOWN AS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL B, CITY OF AUBURN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA-0003-95, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9502160960, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON); THENCE SOUTH 00°55’43” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 8 OF SAID BLOCK 6; THENCE NORTH 89°08’16” WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 5 THROUGH 8 OF SAID BLOCK 6 A DISTANCE OF 239.99 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTH 00°56’21” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID BLOCK 6; THENCE SOUTH 89°08’16” EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 OF SAID BLOCK 6 A DISTANCE OF 239.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 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 21st 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 posting notice of such public hearing as required by State law and City Ordinance. DI.A Page 156 of 266 ---------------------------- Resolution No. 5073 ROW Vacation V3-14 May, 19, 2014 Page 3 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 157 of 266 DI.A Page 158 of 266 DI.A Page 159 of 266 1 of 2 6/4/2014 V3-14 Staff Report RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION STAFF REPORT Right-of-Way (ROW) Vacation Number V3-14 Applicant: MW Holdings Auburn SE Block LLC Property Location: Right-of-Way located at the Alley between South Division Street and A Street SE, south of 1st Street SE. Description of right-of-way: This ROW proposed for vacation consists of the Alle y between South Division Street and A Street SE, south of 1st Street SE. The Alley is adjacent to Parcels 7815700295, 7815700290 and 7815700280 on the north side and Parcels 7815700300, 7815700305, 7815700310 and 7815700325 on the south side. All of these parcels are owned by the applicant. The proposed area of ROW for vacation is 4,800(+/-) square feet. The Alley was dedicated for street purposes in 1886 to the City of Auburn from Mary E. and L.W. Ballard through dedication of the original plat of the City also know as the Town of Slaughter. 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. 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. · The street vacation decreases the Right-of-Way maintenance obligation of the City. Discussion: The vacation application was circulated to Puget Sound Energy (PSE), Comcast, CenturyLink, and City staff. 1. PSE – PSE has existing electric and gas facilities in the proposed vacation area and will require easements be reserved. 2. Comcast – Comcast has underground facilities in this alley that feeds the existing building and will be the feed for the new complex as well and will require easements be reserved. 3. CenturyLink – Please be advised that Qwest Corporation (d/b/a CenturyLink) currently has facilities in the area addressed by this action and wishes to retain any and all rights to remain in said area and to add facilities in the future as needed. At this time, Qwest (d/b/a CenturyLink) has no issues with the proposed vacation so long as provisions are made to retain our rights by means of explicit language granting to “Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink QC and its successors” rights that will cover our existing and future facilities. 4. Water – Currently there is an existing water line in the alley serving the existing building. As a condition of approval, a public water utility easement within the proposed vacation area shall be granted to the City. DI.A Page 160 of 266 2 of 2 6/4/2014 V3-14 Staff Report 5. Sewer – There is an existing sewer line within the proposed right-of-way vacation. As it stands now, a public sewer utility easement needs to be reserved. The sewer lines installed as part of the Promenade Project were designed so that all the flow from future development of that block would be discharged directly into those new lines, rendering the existing line in the ally unnecessary. When all connections to the line in the alley are eliminated, that line may be abandoned, and the easement either not reserved or extinguished, depending on the timing of redevelopment and the vacation. 6. Storm –No comments. 7. Transportation – No comments. 8. Planning – No comments. 9. Fire – No comments 10. Police – No comments 11. Streets – The Streets Division has no issues with this however there is a PSE owned utility pole in the center of this alley on the south side near the edge of the right of way that contains a street light. PSE Grid #311485-165396, Intolight service tag SLAP2186. 12. Construction –No comments. 13. Innovation and Technology – No comments 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 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 February 28, 1886 at no cost to the City. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the street vacation be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. A public utility easement shall be reserved for City of Auburn sanitary sewer facilities along the entire length and width of the vacated ROW. 2. A public utility easement shall be reserved for City of Auburn water facilities along the entire length and width of the vacated ROW. 3. An easement shall be reserved for Puget Sound Energy electric and gas facilities along the entire length and width of the vacated ROW. 4. An easement shall be reserved for Comcast Cable Corporation cable facilities along the entire length and width of the vacated ROW. 5. An easement shall be reserved for Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink QC and its successors for communications facilities along the entire length and width of the vacated ROW. 6. Staff recommends that compensation for the value of the right-of-way not be required since the right-of- way was originally acquired through dedication of a Plat at no cost to the City. DI.A Page 161 of 266 Proposed ROW Vacaton #V3-14 Printed Date: 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. Map Created by City of Auburn eGIS 5/19/2014 DI . A Pa g e 1 6 2 o f 2 6 6 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 5077 Date: June 4, 2014 Department: Administration Attachments: Resolution No 5077 Regional Coordination Framework Regional Coordination Framework Agreement Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: In December 2002, Auburn City Council adopted the King County Regional Disaster Plan (RDP), a county-wide mutual aid agreement. That plan has sunset and been replaced by the King County Regional Coordination Framework (RCF) for Disasters and Planned Events. The RCF allows public, private, and non-profit organizations to provide mutual aid to one another during disasters and planned events and to seek reimbursement for associated costs. Reviewed by Council Committees: Municipal Services, Planning And Community Development Councilmember:Holman Staff:Miller Meeting Date:June 9, 2014 Item Number:DI.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 163 of 266 -------------------------------------------------- Resolution No.5077 June 4, 2014 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5 0 7 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF AUBURN TO ADOPT THE KING COUNTY REGIONAL COORDINATION FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTERS AND PLANNED EVENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has a responsibility to respond to disasters and planned events within the City Limits; and WHEREAS, Cities and other organizations recognize the need to provide mutual aid to each other in order to provide a comprehensive response to disasters and planned events; and WHEREAS, it is important and appropriate for the City of Auburn to coordinate with surrounding governmental and non-governmental agencies in the case of a regional disaster or planned event; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City of Auburn to adopt the King County Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events , 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 approves the adoption of the King County Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events. Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor of the City of Auburn is hereby authorized to execute the Signatory Documentation Sheet associated with the DI.B Page 164 of 266 -------------------------------------------------- Resolution No.5077 June 4, 2014 Page 2 Regional Coordination Framework, and the “Agreement for Organizations Participating in the Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County” and 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. SIGNED and DATED this _______ day of June 2014. CITY OF AUBURN _________________________ Nancy Backus MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________ Danielle Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney DI.B Page 165 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington DI.B Page 166 of 266 Page 2 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events February 2014 Emergency Management Partners, As we arrive at another milestone in our regional planning efforts here in King County, we would like to share a brief look back on the cornerstone efforts of the ‘Regional Disaster Plan’ and its notable history. It is reality that disasters do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, let alone economic environments. Our citizens throughout King County expect the public, private, non-profit and tribal entities to work together in responding to and recovering from a disaster. Geographical King County is 2,134 square miles of diverse terrain with over 1.9 million people, 39 cities, over 120 special purpose districts, two tribal nations, and over 700 elected officials. With our population density, complex system of governance, and significant hazards we face, disasters present the need to plan for a coordinated response among governments, non-profits and businesses. In 1998, elected officials from Seattle, Suburban Cities and King County passed a motion (#10566) to initiate the planning efforts of a ‘regional response plan and mechanism to share resources.’ That effort was pioneering new territory by establishing a cooperative and voluntary platform linking private businesses, non-profit organizations, government agencies, and special purpose districts. Through collaborative planning and participation, hundreds of entities can behave in a coordinated manner, provide assistance to each other and maintain their authority. The King County Office of Emergency Management (KCOEM) began the ‘regional planning’ effort in 1999 and formed the Regional Disaster Planning Task Force (now the Regional Disaster Planning Work Group). Any and all partnering disciplines, agencies and organizations were invited to the table and actively participated in taking the ground breaking steps to create the ‘Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County.’ Over a two-year period many meetings were held, numerous ideas and concepts discussed and debated, and multitudes of briefings and updates all contributed to a collaborative and transparent regional planning process. Throughout the process the multi-disciplinary groups representing King County Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) and the King County Regional Policy Committee were briefed and engaged. By early 2001, a Basic Plan and legally vetted ‘Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement’ were completed, and then… September 11th occurred. All of us found ourselves in a new era. Our view of the world changed significantly post September 11th and we collectively recognized the need to be even more collaborative in our emergency management efforts. Even the largest of cities would not be able to do it alone. The cumulative efforts of all those engaged partners had moved the regional plan from a concept to the reality of an actual plan ready for signature and implementation. In January 2002, with EMAC endorsement, the EMAC Chair Barb Graff (City of Bellevue Emergency Management) and Co-Chair Bill Wilkinson (Port of Seattle) initiated the inaugural promulgation of the ‘Regional Disaster Plan for Public and Private Organizations in King County.’ By December 2002, 99 cities, fire districts, businesses, schools, water and sewer districts and non-profits were official signatory partners. That same year the 9-11 Commission and the National Association of Counties (NACo) formally awarded and recognized KCOEM for the regional collaboration and planning endeavor – the ‘Regional Disaster Plan.’ DI.B Page 167 of 266 Page 3 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events The original Regional Disaster Plan was designed using the model of the Federal Response Plan, i.e. a basic plan followed by a series of “Emergency Support Functions,” such as communications and transportation. Through the following years and various Presidential Directives (transitions to the National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System), the Regional Disaster Planning effort continued to engage regional partners from public, private, non-profit and tribes and alternations were made to keep the Plan current. Additional promulgations occurred with Plan updates and more signatory partners joined. With the last official promulgation and signatory process in March 2008, and with continued interest since then, there are currently 145 signatories. Over time partners and the region have matured with additional focused planning efforts (mass care, evacuation, regional catastrophic, etc.), putting the Regional Disaster Plan in a good position to evolve. After over a year’s work of transformation, the Plan (along with the associated Agreement, which is the legal and financial document addressing sharing of resources; formerly the ‘Omnibus’) are in a new state. Embodying again true regional coordination, the Plan has transitioned to a new format: ‘Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events.’ In a streamlined form, the new Framework (like the former Plan) facilitates a systematic, coordinated, and effective response to multi-agency or multi-jurisdictional disasters or planned events that occur within the geographic boundaries of King County. By leveraging existing plans, the Framework focuses on five key areas of coordination: Direction and Coordination Information Collection, Analysis and Dissemination Public Information Communications Resource Management All emergency management partners will be provided the opportunity to review and comment on this new and fresh Framework through an identified process. The goal is to roll out the Framework and Agreement to all partners in January 2014 for official promulgation and signature. Regional Disaster Planning Work Group and EMAC members will be active in informing and promoting the intent and benefits of the Framework and Agreement. The efforts put forth by the Work Group have been well coordinated, and the EMAC has been kept apprised and has advised as needed. We look forward to your agency and organization officially joining in supporting this Framework. Through this Framework, together we can assist one another in a more coordinated response, which will ultimately assist in the quicker recovery of our communities and economy. Sincerely, Dominic Marzano, Chair Gail Harris, Vice Chair City of Kent Emergency Management City of Shoreline Emergency Management DI.B Page 168 of 266 Page 4 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) This page intentionally left blank. DI.B Page 169 of 266 Page 5 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Log of Changes Date of Change Description of Change Page # DI.B Page 170 of 266 Page 6 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Introductory Materials Promulgation The Regional Coordination Framework (formerly the Regional Disaster Plan) is intended to embody the true essence of regional collaboration and coordination. From its inception in 1998, by King County Motion #10566, this regional plan “... allows for shared resources and cooperation within existing capabilities and is consistent with emergency management priorities established by the governing body of each jurisdiction, special district, organization or appropriate agency.” The value of the Framework that is that the organizational networking and administrative workload can be coordinated in advance of a disaster, thus expediting the response capability from partner to partner and throughout the region. Approval and Implementation The Regional Disaster Planning Work Group (RDPWG) is the inter-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary group responsible for developing, enhancing, and maintaining the Regional Coordination Framework. The RDPWG consists of representatives from regional partners and serves as a subcommittee to the King County Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC), which in turn serves as an advisory entity to the King County Executive and the King County Office of Emergency Management (OEM). All emergency management partners are included and encouraged to participate throughout the review and vetting process. Modifications to the Framework and its related documents are shared and distributed to all partners. Ongoing reviews and feedback shall occur routinely. When Framework modifications have been vetted through the RDPWG and initial review conducted by partners, the RDPWG Chair/Co-Chair will present them to EMAC for review and endorsement. In accordance with King County Motion #10566, “Any draft regional plan proposed by the Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) should be submitted through each jurisdiction, special district, organization, or appropriate agency governing body for review and comment.” Therefore, all updated documentation is presented for ‘Open Comment’ for at least 30 days. Emergency management partners are responsible for reviewing and vetting through their internal channels for any concerns and/or issues. Those concerns and/or issues that arise may be documented and sent to the King County Office of Emergency Management. All comments will be reviewed and addressed by the RDPWG, which will in turn recommend amendments and/or changes to EMAC for consideration and recommendation. DI.B Page 171 of 266 Page 7 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events The RDPWG holds open meetings, keeps all partners apprised of work and products, and provides reports to EMAC. According to King County Motion #10566, the RDPWG in coordination with EMAC, will “…report to the regional policy committee periodically on its progress in developing the plan, and bring forward to the regional policy committee significant policy issues arising in the process.” Distribution EMAC will formally endorse the Framework and associated Agreement, and through their ‘letter of endorsement,’ begin encouraging adoption by partners (public, private, non-profit) within their respective jurisdiction, agency and/or organization. The King County Office of Emergency Management will be responsible for collecting, gathering and maintaining the emergency contact information for participating partners as well as the signatory sheets for those partners who are signatory to this Framework’s associated Agreement. In recognition of the expanding nature of this Framework and the partnerships it encourages, a comprehensive distribution list cannot be provided within this document. Please visit the King County Office of Emergency Management website for a full and current listing of partners to the Regional Coordination Framework and signatories to the associated Agreement. http://www.kingcounty.gov/safety/prepare/EmergencyManagementProfessionals.aspx DI.B Page 172 of 266 Page 8 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Table of Contents I. Purpose, Scope, Situation Overview and Assumptions ............................................................. 9 II. Concept of Operations ................................................................................................................... 11 III. Responsibilities ............................................................................................................................... 14 IV. Direction and Coordination ........................................................................................................... 18 V. Information Collection, Analysis, and Dissemination ................................................................ 21 VI. Public Information ........................................................................................................................... 23 VII. Communication ............................................................................................................................... 26 VIII. Administration, Finance, and Logistics........................................................................................ 28 IX. Document Development and Maintenance ................................................................................ 31 X. Terms and Definitions .................................................................................................................... 33 XI. Authorities and References ........................................................................................................... 35 DI.B Page 173 of 266 Page 9 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events I. Purpose, Scope, Situation Overview and Assumptions Purpose The Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events facilitates a systematic, coordinated, and effective response to multi-agency or multi-jurisdictional disasters or planned events that occur within the geographic boundaries of King County, Washington. It provides a framework whereby cooperative relationships can be formed among public, private, tribal and non-profit organizations in order to accomplish this common goal. Through the implementation of this framework, the resources and capabilities of the public, private, tribal and non -profit sectors can be more efficiently utilized to minimize the loss of life and property and to protect the environmental and economic health within King County. The Regional Coordination Framework is a voluntary guide to regional response and short term recovery actions. Signatory partners are those organizations from the public, private, tribal, and non-profit sectors in geographic King County that are committed to working together in accordance with this framework and have signed the associated Agreement. There is no preferential treatment or priority given to those partners who are signatory to the Agreement versus those who are not. The benefit of being a signatory partner to the RCF and the Agreement is to save time during a disaster by having decision making authority for jurisdictions already in place and on file. Scope The RCF applies to any disaster or planned event that concurrently challenges multiple jurisdictions or multiple disciplines within King County or affects a single entity to such a degree that it relies upon external assistance. The Framework and the associated Agreement are intended to be utilized in conjunction with other state and local emergency plans, including but not limited to mutual aid agreements such as the Intra- state Mutual Aid System (within Washington State), the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (state-to-state), other public, non-governmental organization, tribal, or private sector agreements, and the Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement (States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington and the Province of British Columbia). The Framework addresses strategic response activities and allocation of incoming scarce resources for those disasters or planned events where normal emergency response processes and capabilities become overtaxed, or where there is a need for regional coordination of response operations shared situational awareness and coordinated public information due to the complexity or duration of the disaster(s). The DI.B Page 174 of 266 Page 10 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events associated Agreement articulates the financial aspects of voluntarily participating in accordance with the Framework. Although the focus is on disaster response, the Framework assumes future coordinated efforts to address regional protection, mitigation, preparedness, and recovery issues. Likewise, while relationships with other counties and neighboring jurisdictions are not specifically included in this Framework, they are not precluded from participating as a partner. The framework describes five key areas of coordination: Direction and Coordination Information Collection, Analysis and Dissemination Public Information Communications Resource Management Situation Overview Disasters and planned events can present unique challenges to the public and private sectors for the efficient and effective use of resources, the protection of lives and property, the protection of the regional economy, and the preservation of the environment or other essential functions. Natural or human-caused hazards may have impacts sufficient to require partners to seek assistance or manage emergency resources and supplies through use of this Framework. Specific information about natural or human-caused hazards may be accessed from emergency management jurisdictions. Planning Assumptions No perfect response is implied by the availability of this framework Local, regional, and state resources may not be sufficient to respond to all needs in a timely fashion Damages to regional infrastructure may result in unreliable communications and slow delivery or distribution of requested resources Impacts to some partners may require assistance from other partners, adjacent counties, the State of Washington, Emergency Management Assistance Compact partners, or the Federal Government and other entities Emergencies may require the establishment and/or multi-jurisdictional coordination of emergency actions Participation in the Regional Coordination Framework is voluntary DI.B Page 175 of 266 Page 11 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Acquisition, use, and return of resources as well as the reimbursement for those resources are guided by the associated Agreement Regional policy decision-making participants will vary from disaster to disaster All partners will comply with federal, state, and local legal obligations The King County Office of Emergency Management (KCOEM) will serve as the lead for regional emergency management activities. KCOEM will activate the Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center (RCECC) in support of disaster response or planned event coordination, during which the RCECC will be the focal point for information sharing and regional resource coordination First responders will continue to be directed by their incident commanders Each partner will retain its own internal policies, processes, authorities, and obligations and organize and direct its internal organization continuity II. Concept of Operations In the event of a disaster or planned event requiring central coordination at the RCECC, operational authority will remain with partners and local incident commanders. Local procedures will be followed and Emergency Operations Centers or Emergency Coordination Centers (EOCs or ECCs) staffed in accordance with partner plans. Procedures governing internal actions will be maintained by the partner. All necessary decisions affecting response, protective actions, and advisories will be made by those officials under their existing authorities, policies, plans, and procedures. Use of and adherence to the Regional Coordination Framework is voluntary. The Framework provides a structure for disaster response operations that: Uses geographic divisions or zones of the county to: o Facilitate coordination of information sharing o Assist in the management of resource request processes, prioritization and tracking Provides centrally coordinated emergency functions within the region utilizing the King County RCECC Provides a mechanism for regional policy decision-making Augments existing mutual aid agreements by providing pre-designated legal and financial ground rules for the sharing of resources Is consistent with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and is based on the Incident Command System (ICS) DI.B Page 176 of 266 Page 12 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Figure 1: King County Emergency Coordination Zones (2012) Geographic Divisions Predetermined geographic divisions of the County have facilitated efficient preplanning efforts as well as the sharing of information and coordination of priorities, operations, and application of resources during a disaster or planned event. The three Regional Emergency Coordination Zones correlate to the existing King County Fire Zones are (see Figure 1): Emergency Coordination Zone 1 – North and East King County Emergency Coordination Zone 3 – South King County Emergency Coordination Zone 5 - the City of Seattle Each Zone may develop protocols and procedures for carrying out inter- and intra-zone coordination and response functions. During the response to a disaster or planned event, these zone coordination functions may operate through a Zone Coordinator from the King County RCECC or in a decentralized location. Organizations that provide services throughout geographic King County (“regional service providers”) may not have the resources to coordinate their service delivery and response activities directly with all three Emergency Coordination Zones simultaneously. Instead, these regional service providers may provide a single point of coordination through the King County RCECC. Examples of regional service providers include: public health/medical, banking and finance, energy, transportation, information DI.B Page 177 of 266 Page 13 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events and telecommunications, agriculture, emergency services, chemical industry, food, water, etc. Regional service providers may provide a representative directly to the affected zone and/or the King County RCECC. Central Coordination Where central coordination of regional emergency actions is needed, the King County RCECC may provide a location from which to coordinate. In accordance with the National Response Framework, the King County RCECC utilizes a hybrid response organization that embeds subject matter experts into the Incident Command System structure through Emergency Support Functions (ESFs). The ESFs, listed below, represent fifteen broad categories that enable subject matter expertise, like resources, and similar capabilities to be aligned into groups to aid coordination. ESF 1 – Transportation ESF 2 – Communications ESF 3 – Public Works & Engineering ESF 4 – Fire Response ESF 5 – Emergency Management ESF 6 – Mass Care, Housing, & Human Services ESF 7 – Resource Management ESF 8 – Public Health, Medical and Mortuary Services ESF 9 – Search & Rescue ESF 10 – Oil & Hazardous Materials ESF 11 – Agriculture & Natural Resources ESF 12 – Energy ESF 13 – Public Safety & Security ESF 14 – Recovery ESF 15 – External Affairs ESF 20 – Military Support to Civil Authorities In its role as an Emergency Coordination Center, the King County RCECC facilitates operational response at the regional level and supports operational response activities that are managed at the local level; the RCECC does not make operational decisions for local jurisdictions or partners unless specifically requested. Rather, the RCECC facilitates regional support activities that have been developed collaboratively amongst the appropriate stakeholders, represented through the ESFs and Zone Coordinators. When the RCECC has been activated, Zone Coordinators and regional service providers may coordinate their efforts from the King County RCECC , via their respective ESF Coordinator, the EOC/ECC of their local emergency management jurisdiction or most impacted partner. Coordination between regional service providers and partners may be from locations remote to the RCECC by electronic means. Healthcare organizations will coordinate through the Northwest Healthcare Response Network, which will in turn coordinate with emergency management jurisdictions through ESF 8 , Public Health, Medical and Mortuary Services. DI.B Page 178 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 14 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events When the RCECC has not been staffed by ESFs, partners will continue to coordinate with other partners, contractors, or mutual aid partners and will brief their local EOC/ECC or emergency management office (with emergency management jurisdiction as defined in RCW 38.52) and the King County Office of Emergency Management (KCOEM) Duty Officer if appropriate,. Partners should establish a relationship with their local emergency management jurisdiction in advance. Once the RCECC has been activated, the RCECC will be contacted through the main RCECC email, radio talk group, or phone number. Information and resource requests will be directed to the most appropriate combination of zone coordinator(s), logistics, planning, or operations (ESFs) sections for their actions. The King County RCECC Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center (KC RCECC) facility is located at 3511 NE 2nd Street, Renton, Washington, 98056. Transition from regional response to regional long-term recovery Response efforts at the RCECC entail the immediate actions needed to protect lives and safety of the population, protect or affect temporary repairs to infrastructure, and protect property or the environment. Long-term recovery includes permanent repair, relocation, or replacement of that infrastructure or property. Long-term recovery may take months or many years depending on the nature of impacts. Long-term recovery and potential federal assistance to tribal nations, the public and private sectors is governed by the Stafford Act and other documents with specific terms including the Code of Federal Regulations and Treaties. A separate document addresses regional long-term recovery. III. Responsibilities In accordance with Ordinance 17075, King County Government has the responsibility to foster cooperative planning within regional concepts to its emergency mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts and to serve as the coordinating entity for cities, county governmental departments and other appropriate agencies during incidents and events of regional significance. In addition, King County shall enter into mutual aid agreements in collaboration with private and public entities in an event too great to be managed without assistance. When an emergency impacts regional King County, the King County RCECC and local EOCs or ECCs may be staffed to address the consequences of the emergency impacts to the public, government, and regional partners or to support regional first responders. DI.B Page 179 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 15 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events This section of the framework introduces the concept of a regional coordination process that may be needed to enact emergency powers, suspend or limit civil liberties, coordinate executive decisions, determine strategies for the allocation of scarce resources or transition into long term recovery. The diagram below describes the structure and relationship of regional organizations in response. Also, see Direction and Coordination as well as the Terms and Definitions at the end of this framework. All Signatory Partners will: Identify an Emergency Point of Contact Work with their authorized emergency agency in their operations or coordination centers as identified under RCW 38.52.070 Develop, maintain, and utilize internal emergency plans and procedures Direct information and resource communications to their local Emergency Operations or Coordination Center, or the RCECC Section as appropriate Equip and train a workforce to sustain emergency operations Participate in the development of this framework Seek and secure mutual aid documentation Abide by the caveats of the this Framework’s associated Agreement Request regional decision-making on policy issues as needed The mechanism for regional policy coordination: Collaboration on the execution of emergency powers, suspension or limitation of civil liberties Collaboration to establish strategic priorities for the allocation of limited resources in support of King County strategic goals and regional objectives Communicate with partners and the general public directly or to the public through the RCECC Joint Information Center (JIC) Elected and Appointed Officials will: King County Executive will Serve as the facilitator of the mechanism for regional policy decision-making Establish and work through their authorized Emergency Operations or Coordination Centers Utilize their established emergency and continuity plans Identify Emergency Points of Contact for the jurisdiction with full authority to commit or request resources, personnel, and make decisions on behalf of the jurisdiction DI.B Page 180 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 16 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Work with and through their designated emergency managers for resource needs that cannot be filled within their jurisdiction, mutual aid agreements, available private sector sources, or within the emergency management zone Coordinate with private sector partners through their designated EOC or ECC Issue emergency proclamations and implement authorized emergency powers Coordinate selection and implementation of emergency powers through the mechanism for regional policy decision-making Abide by the caveats of the this Framework’s associated Agreement RCECC Incident Manager will: Direct RCECC coordination activities Recommend formation of and composition of a mechanism for regional policy decision-making Keep the those involved with regional policy decision-making informed of policy issues, incident coordination and progress Communicate regional policy decisions to the RCECC staff Recommend and have drafted a County emergency proclamation as needed Work with and direct the Joint Information Center and functional sections of the activated RCECC Host Zone Coordinators and regional partners as liaisons to the RCECC Establish and adjust regional objectives, identify policy issues, and allocate resources with input from Zone Coordinators and regional service providers Facilitate regional situational awareness, Common Operation Picture and information sharing with regional partners and the public Facilitate an effective and efficient resource management process RCECC Joint Information Center will: Communicate information to the public and partners that may affect their lives, safety, health, property, or services Implement a Joint Information System to assist in coordinating public information Zone Coordinator(s) may: Represent the cities within their designated zone in the RCECC Collect and communicate information to the RCECC and the Incident Manager Collaborate with the Incident Manager to establish and adjust regional objectives, identify policy issues, and allocate resources Direct partner representatives to seek resources within their zone before forwarding requests to the RCECC DI.B Page 181 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 17 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Request regional decision-making on policy issues with notice to the emergency managers Maintain situation awareness on needed policy issues and resource requests Make limited operational decisions on behalf of their designated zone Facilitate information sharing between RCECC and Zone RCECC Sections will: Develop situational awareness and support information sharing throughout the region and up to the state. Receive, allocate, track resource issues from county departments and regional partners. Any resources that cannot be provided from within the geographic county shall be attained via contract or forwarded onto the state for action. Manage and retain documentation in support of the incident. Serve as network control for regional radio communications between regional Emergency Operations or Coordination Centers Local Authorized EOCs and ECCs will: Work within their organization’s and zone’s resources and capabilities before requesting resources from the RCECC Communicate resource requests to the RCECC Logistics Section and their Zone Coordinator in the RCECC when availability within their zone has been exhausted Include private sector, non-governmental sector, and tribal nations in local EOC decisions, information sharing and resource management Utilize the appropriate mechanism for resource requests to the RCECC Support the functions and protocols established in this framework Have or can quickly get the authority to commit available equipment, services, and personnel to the (borrowing) organization Participate in decision making conference calls or physical meetings as appropriate and conditions allow Emergency Contact Points will: Be in an established line of succession that includes names, addresses, and 24 - hour phone numbers for each partner Make emergency contact information available to regional partners, King County OEM, and the RCECC when staffed Have or can quickly get the authority to commit available equipment, services, and personnel to the (borrowing) organization DI.B Page 182 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 18 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Participate in decision-making conference calls or physical meetings as appropriate and conditions allow Resource Lenders will: Make available such resources as will not deter the Lender of the ability to continue efforts toward its own response objectives Abide by the conditions described in the this Framework’s associated Agreement Resource Borrowers will: First seek and exhaust access to resources within their organizational authority Seek mutual aid and commercial resources within their emergency management zone Request resources through the King County RCECC in accordance with the this Framework’s associated Agreement State of Washington will: Seek and accept damage reports and situation reports from the King County RCECC Accept and process resource requests received from the King County RCECC Seek sources of assistance to fill regional King County logistical needs Proclaim a state of emergency, if warranted Federal government will: Provide response assistance to the State of Washington as available and requested under a state proclamation of emergency Direct appropriate federal agencies to lend assistance to the State of Washington where possible As appropriate, declare a state of emergency in support of response and recovery from the impacts of an emergency in Washington State and/or to regional tribal nations IV. Direction and Coordination The Regional Coordination Framework does not carry the authority of code. It is a voluntary agreement between partners to the Regional Coordination Framework and the associated Agreement and any annexes that may be crafted for the benefit of the region. King County and each authorized emergency management agency within King DI.B Page 183 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 19 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events County are required to have, maintain, and implement their own emergency plans in accordance with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 38.52. Similarly, other public entities, private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and tribal nations may maintain plans that describe how they will direct and manage emergencies within their scope of authority. The National Incident Management System (NIMS), National Response Framework and King County Ordinance 17075 are the basis for th e regional direction and coordination function described here. Purpose The purpose of this section is to identify a mechanism for regional policy decision- making, a process for policy coordination and strategies for the allocation of limited resources to regional disasters within established criteria and priorities. Situation and Scope Tactical direction and control of resources available to onsite/on scene incident commanders remains within the established organizational direction of the incident commander. See this Framework’s associated Agreement. Loaned employees remain the employees of the lending organization while under the direction of the borrowing organization during their assignment. Where regional policy decision-making is needed, elected officials may enact emergency powers, suspend or limit civil liberties, coordinate executive decisions, determine strategies for the allocation of scarce resources under proclaimed emergencies. Regional Partners may not be bound by all of the regional decisions made. Decisions may impact regional partners that are not signatories to the Framework’s associated Agreement. All political subdivisions retain the authority to direct requests for assistance to the Washington State Governor’s Office and the State Emergency Management EOC. Establishing Regional Decision-Making Regional policy decision-making may be informed by the King County Executive, Local Health Officer, the legal representative(s) of cities and tribal nations as required by the disaster and subject matters experts, as necessary. Initial coordination between impacted regional partners may occur through the initiation of a conference call by the King County RCECC, the request for such coordination by one or more Zone Coordinators, or at the request of one or more partners. Subsequent meetings, whether at the RCECC or by conference call will be scheduled and announced to all authorized emergency management agencies in sufficient time to allow maximum participation. DI.B Page 184 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 20 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Coordination meetings and call announcements will include representatives from authorized emergency management agencies under RCW 38.52.070 and tribal nations. The interests of private sector and non-governmental organizations should be represented by their most appropriate authorized emergency management agency. The King County Executive or designee will facilitate the meetings whether virtual or conducted at the RCECC. Partners and representatives participating in regional policy decision-making may vary from disaster to disaster depending on the experienced impacts to the region. All partner representatives must have the authority to represent their organization for consensus decision-making and commitment or request resources. Verification of personnel will be conducted internally through local EOCs or ECCs. Figure 2: Information and escalation flow for regional policy decisions Establish regional response priorities, policies, and decisions Information guiding the decision-making process will be made available to all partners prior to the conference call or physical meeting. DI.B Page 185 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 21 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Policy deliberations will occur between the County Executive and whichever cities and tribal nations are needed to participate in regional policy decision-making. When regional decision-making is needed, all attempts will be made to come to consensus on all decisions. General criteria for policy decisions will include doing the most good possible within each category and may include but is not limited to: Preservation of life, safety and preservation of human health Caring for vulnerable populations Preservation of public infrastructure and property Protection of the regional economy Protection of the environment Preservation of private property The King County Incident Manager will assign someone to document the announcement of the conference call and/or physical meeting, the participants and attendees, the agenda, decisions, next steps, and known or anticipated future conference calls or meetings times/dates and locations as may apply. Policy decisions will be communicated through local Emergency Operations and Coordination Centers and disseminated via the Joint Information System. V. Information Collection, Analysis, and Dissemination For the purposes of the Regional Coordination Framework, the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information include Situational Awareness and Public Information. Situational Awareness Situational awareness is knowing what is going on around the region, understanding what needs to be done in the region, and distributing such information to regional partners. Purpose The purpose of this section is to describe the process of how the region establishes and maintains situational awareness during regional incidents and events. This process is critical to effectively create stability, implement response, and undertake recovery within the region. With this process documented, the region will have a major component of its Common Operating Picture (COP) established. DI.B Page 186 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 22 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Situation and Scope Situational awareness is developed by timely and accurate information about the level of impact, resources currently utilized in the response, resources availab le to support the response, and perceived needs of the jurisdiction, partner and public. Each entity manages the information and needs specific to that entity and its area of responsibility. When entities share their specific situational awareness with each other and partners develop an understanding of each other’s impacts and needs, a Common Operating Picture (COP) is created. The development and management of situational awareness and a Common Operating Picture are vital to effective and efficient response and proactive planning on a regional level. Responsibilities It is expected that all partners (public entities, tribal nations, private sector, and non - governmental organizations) manage their own situational awareness streams. When disasters occur, impacted partners will consolidate damage and situational information with their most appropriate emergency management jurisdiction EOC or ECC. Local EOCs and ECCs will relay all appropriate information to the King County RCECC. The region’s situational awareness and Common Operating Picture are dependent on all streams of information. The County Zone Coordinators will play a pivotal role by incorporating information from their related geographic areas into the region’s COP. The King County RCECC will have the responsibility to collate these streams into a shared situational awareness as part of the region’s COP. Concept of Operations Information collection, analysis, and dissemination are critical elements that must be maintained before, during, and after a disaster. Through coordination and collaboration, KCOEM and regional partners support a regional information management strategy through all phases of emergency management with a particular emphasis on both preparedness and response to ensure a smooth transition into a response drive information management cycle. Since situational awareness is part of a larger COP, an information management cycle (often referred as a reporting cycle) will be developed to facilitate regional partners providing their information streams. The cycle will identify when information will be collected and distributed. The 24 hour cycle of the regional planning clock consists of two operational shifts within the RCECC, beginning at 0700 and 1900 respectively. In general, the RCECC will DI.B Page 187 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 23 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events compile information and publish it in a situation report every 12 hours. Additionally, snapshots, brief updates to the more complete situation report, may be generated every three hours. Partners are expected to maintain the capability to share and receive information and to actively participate in information sharing within the region. Recognizing that not every incident will occur on a timetable to easily fit within the 24 hour planning clock established; the King County RCECC may adjust the planning clock as necessary but will always strive to attain a 0700 and 1900 cycle. One benefit of the planning clock is the pre-determined sequence of events that are necessary to best prepare for and inform critical decision making throughout the response coordination. The planning clock recognizes the importance of sequencing events where the collection and analysis of available information is followed by internal briefings, distribution of information to partners and the public, internal and external conference calls, and objective setting for future operational periods. The schedule of these information management steps recognizes the local and national media deadlines for the morning work commute (usually about 0430) and the evening commute deadline (usually about 1500). Fundamental products of situational awareness such as snapshots, situation reports, etc., are designed to represent the current situation and ultimately project the future status of an incident or event. Essential elements of information will be identified for each disaster or planned event. At a minimum the following essential elements of information will be incorporated within snapshots and situation reports: Current situation or situation update Availability of regional services Local operation and coordination center activation status(es) Impact on and response by geographic area (i.e. city or zone) or Emergency Support Function (i.e. transportation, public health, utility, etc) References Zone 1, 3, and 5 Situation Report Templates KC RCECC Situation Report and Snapshot Templates King County CEMP List of Plans-Reference to “Plans Inventory” VI. Public Information A cooperative and technically effective use of the media, Internet, social media channels, and community warning systems will provide the best chance of conveying life-safety and public awareness information to large numbers of at-risk people. DI.B Page 188 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 24 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Purpose The purpose of this section is to establish a regional Joint Information System (JIS) that will support emergency response through the effective development, coordination, and dissemination of emergency public information in the event of a wide -spread emergency or disaster within King County. The expected outcomes of this coordinated planning effort are intended to facilitate: Coordinating communications between agencies, tribal nations, and organizations with the media and public for accurate and consistent messaging Establishing a central point for information distribution on behalf of partners needing public information assistance as well as facilitating regional information coordination Expanding the utility of electronic notification systems to include online multi- organizational systems to intentionally enhance information sharing amongst partners Establishing and/or utilizing redundant community warning systems to ensure messaging is sent to impacted areas by the most expedient means po ssible Situation and Scope When multiple regional partners recognize a need to coordinate the distribution of emergency information to the public, a Joint Information System may provide a process for consistent messaging. A Joint Information System may include a wide range of public, private, non-governmental, or tribal partners to include partners from beyond the geographic boundaries of King County. Responsibilities All partners are invited to contribute to this communication capability. While there are some agencies, prescribed by law or designated authority, that are responsible to enact specific systems, such as the Emergency Alert System and other jurisdictional or community warning systems (i.e. reverse 911 capabilities), it is with the combined and coordinated use of all our collective communication systems that we can reach the broadest number of people with the most accurate information . Public and Tribal Entities E911 Centers in King County, The King County RCECC, Public Health - Seattle & King County, cities, special purpose districts, and Tribal EOC’s, National Weather Service, Washington State Emergency Management Division, are all DI.B Page 189 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 25 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events examples of public sector organizations and Tribal Nations with warning and notification capabilities. These organizations use their access to electronic notification systems, websites, web based systems, reverse dialing from 911 database, social media, PIO’s, media releases, phone banks, trap lines, and volunteers who hand deliver information to disseminate and receive critical information. Private Sector Private partners can aid in warning and notification by coordinating the release of critical information or receiving information through their own internal communication processes and working within the Regional Joint Information System (see below for definition) to disseminate and receive critical information. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Non-government organizational partners also aid in reaching the more vulnerable populations that may not receive warning messages from more traditional means. Ensuring that NGOs support the receipt and dissemination of critical information is critical to meeting the needs of vulnerable community members. Concept of Operations This section assumes that regional partners will establish a public information function to provide emergency information and warning to their respective communities and constituent’s before, during, and after a disaster or planned event. This emergency information function should include the coordination of information with other affected organizations. For the purposes of the Regional Coordination Framework, we are addressing the need to coordinate for a wide scale disaster with regional impacts. Notification and Warning There are multiple warning systems that currently exist throughout all levels of government that provide alert and warning notification to governmental agencies as well as the public. Details on specific systems can be accessed through the appropriate local emergency management jurisdiction. Non-governmental, private and non-profit partners should be familiar with the various systems available through their respective emergency management jurisdiction. All partner organizations should also be familiar with the various systems utilized by partner emergency management jurisdictions to activate support personnel and Emergency Contact Points identified in accordance with this Framework. All partner organizations are encouraged to use their agency’s email, social media sites, and phone systems to pass on appropriate warnings to employees and customers. DI.B Page 190 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 26 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Joint Information Centers/System (JIC/JIS) Joint Information Centers (JICs) are physical and centralized locations from which public affairs and critical emergency information responsibilities are performed. JICs facilitate operation of a Joint Information System (JIS) – the mechanism used to organize, integrate, and coordinate information to ensure timely, accurate, accessible, and consistent messaging across multiple jurisdictions and organizations. The King County RCECC will activate a regional JIC/JIS as needed to verify and align various streams of information, and release timely messages to the media, key stakeholders, and the general public. This information is issued in cooperation with affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations. Regional partners may be asked to send a representative to assist with JIC/JIS operations, either through direct support within the JIC or via remote access (phone, internet, video confe rencing). This does not preclude any jurisdiction, agency, organization, or Tribal Nation from issuing information that pertains to them exclusively; however it is highly recommended that the regional JIC/JIS be informed of those communications. References King County CEMP ESF 15 King County Emergency Coordination Center Operations Manual King County Public Information Officers (PIO) Procedures Guidelines Regional Joint Information Center (JIC) Manual VII. Communication The ability to communicate through a variety of different mediums in order to share timely information and to gain accurate situational awareness is critical during disasters and planned events. During a large scale regional disaster it is paramount to sound decision-making. Purpose The purpose of this section is to establish a communication process where regional partners will have the capability to access information “lines” to the King County RCECC, while establishing one central location to collect, prioritize, and disseminate information. These access modalities can generate from several different technologies. Redundant systems are in place for better odds of gaining access during times when many of these communication modes may not be functional. DI.B Page 191 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 27 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Situation and Scope This section of the Framework describes the communications process and systems needed to manage information collection and distribution during a disaster or planned event as the organizational structure expands and contracts within geographic King County. Responsibilities It is expected that all partner organizations will endeavor to obtain and maintain a variety of ways to communicate their status and resource needs to their respective emergency management jurisdiction and the King County RCECC during disasters and planned events. The King County Office of Emergency Management will test these internal communication systems on a regular basis to ensure communication connectivity with regional partners. Maintaining communication connectivity is critical to successful response during a disaster. It is expected that regional partners will work with KCOEM to maintain their internal communications systems, test them, and improve upon them as resources allow. King County RCECC may act as a network control manager for radio frequencies and talk groups used to maintain situation awareness, support decision-making, manage resources, or to continue regional services. Concept of Operations To facilitate internal communication for situational awareness, partners have a variety of means at their disposal to give and receive information. Emergency communications includes tools, processes, interoperability, and redundancy that govern the management of information, warning and notifications, decision -making, and resource management. Survivable infrastructure is an important element of the support needed to ensure continuous communications within and between regional partners. Available tools may include email, regular phone service, cell phones, 800 MHz radios and talk groups, VHF radio frequencies, amateur radio, facsimiles, the internet, social media, reverse 911 programs, or other technology. King County, in cooperation with other local jurisdictions and organizations, will support regional collaboration and information sharing. The RCECC will serve as the primary information hub for regional communications including a regional Common Operating Picture. Information on operational or policy topics may be posted as available. DI.B Page 192 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 28 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events References King County Communications Plan Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan VIII. Administration, Finance, and Logistics This section to the Regional Coordination Framework describes the maintenance of the document and the management of resources in response to emergency impacts to geographic King County. The financial management of costs and expenses incurred during an emergency is covered in the associated Agreement to this Framework. Resource Management Mutual Aid is considered the pre-agreed sharing of resources between entities to support response activities. During a disaster or planned event, requests for mutual aid within the zone should be the first call for help. During a disaster or when requests for mutual aid cannot be granted, any threatened participating organization can request resources from other participating organizations. This document facilitates the sharing of resources amongst regional partners willing and able to share resources. The Resources section of the Regional Coordination Framework Agreement addresses resource lending and borrowing protocols. When a disaster is large or complex enough to initiate an emergency proclamation from the city, county or state level; various emergency powers may be enacted to aid and support resource management . Only jurisdictional cities, counties and tribal nations can sign an emergency proclamation. If further support is needed, the chief elected official or their successor/designee of the affected partner will proclaim an emergency, and then contact their designated Zone Coordinator or other Point of Contact and/or the King County RCECC to request further assistance. Assistance may be requested by using one of the following mechanisms: A request or supply of resources under the auspices of this Framework’s associated Agreement, or A request or supply of resources under the auspices of Intra-State Mutual Aid or Emergency Management Assistance Compact, or A request or supply of resources under the auspices of another form of mutual aid or other assistance. DI.B Page 193 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 29 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Resource management involves knowing what resources are available to the region or county (inventory), identifying them based on what they are and what they can do (type and kind) and developing procedures and protocols for their use (request, dispatch, demobilization/recall). Purpose The purpose of this section is to describe a resource management process which regional partners within King County will follow in a disaster. Situation and Scope This section of the Framework describes the processes for management of regional finance and logistics during and after a disaster impacting regional partners to the Regional Coordination Framework and associated Agreement. This Framework expands on those principals described under Intra-State Mutual Aid RCW 38.56 for sharing resources. Responsibilities Regional partners will endeavor to obtain the ability identify, inventory, request, deploy, track and recall the critical resources needed to respond to, and recover from, any disaster. Logistical and resource coordination will be through the three King County Emergency Coordination Zones and the King County Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center (RCECC). The staff of the activated RCECC will coordinate and support regional resource management activities in collaboration with the region’s Resource Management Workgroup through all phases of emergency management. Since resource management is critical to a successful resolution during a disaster, it is important that each regional partner commits to establish a process to describe, inventory, request, deploy and track resources within their jurisdictions and to work in a cooperative effort with the King County RCECC. Equipment, supplies, and personnel needed by partner organizations should be sought first from within their own agency/jurisdictions/organization, other local sources, mutual aid agreements, then within the King County Fire/Emergency Management zone, and then from King County RCECC. Resource needs beyond the capacity of the local level and King County will be forwarded to the State of Washington or through the State to the Federal Government. DI.B Page 194 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 30 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events Regional Coordination Framework partners will follow the legal and financial guidelines established in the associated Agreement. In situations where important resources are scarce, the regional decision-making mechanism may be utilized to recommend strategies for resource management. The King County Executive, or designee, still retains the authority for King County government resource priorities and distribution. As noted earlier and also reflected in the Framework’s associated Agreement, all entities retain authority over their resources, and respective elected officials retain authority over their government resource priorities and distribution. See Direction and Coordination. Concept of Operations King County Office of Emergency Management maintains a 24/7 duty officer capability to assist partners during events when coordination needs arise. When activated for disasters or planned events, the RCECC will be the focal point for resource management for all regional partners within King County, King County government and unincorporated areas. KC RCECC, in cooperation with other local jurisdictions, will Provide technology to assist with the primary tasks associated with resource management Manage a process to describe, inventory, request and track resources Activate these systems before and during a disaster/event Dispatch resources before and during a disaster/event Deactivate/demobilize or recall resources during or after a disaster/event The KC RCECC will accept resource requests utilizing information provided on accepted forms. The resource requests will be accepted by: phone, email, radio, facsimile, hardcopy or any verifiable electronic method. Confirmation of receipt with the requestor will be made as soon as possible. Requests for resources should be stated in terms of need (i.e. type and kind, mission requirements, etc.) and the particular resource if known. Should clarification of the request be required, follow-up may be conducted by a RCECC Logistics Section staff member, appropriate Zone Coordinator, or appropriate ESF representative. The KC RCECC will update the resource request status, ensuring full disclosure of where the request is within the process. All requested resources will be tracked through completion of assignment as many resources will be in high demand amongst the many regional partners within King County. Effective and efficient response coordination is DI.B Page 195 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 31 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events aided by expeditious reassignment of resources from partner to partner rather than having a high demand resource is completely demobilized from the disaster and returned to its parent organization prior to reassignment to another requesting partner. The borrowing organization will maintain status and resource information for effective and efficient resource use. Resources committed to a disaster will remain available to that incident site until they are released by the on -scene command structure or re-called by their own organization. When resources are no longer needed, they will be released and demobilized by the on - scene Incident Commander/Manager, the organization that made the initial request, or the RCECC Incident Manager. The requestor must ensure that the resource is in the agreed upon condition prior to returning to the lending agency or vendor. In addition, the requestor must communicate the resource status to the KC RCECC for tracking. References Memorandum of Understanding for Coordinated Policy and Decision Making During an Emergency Resource Typing System Governance Document King County CEMP ESF 7 Resource Support KC RCECC Resource Request Process Revised Code of Washington 38.56 IX. Document Development and Maintenance Planning Limitations This Framework and associated Agreement forge new territory as a cooperative agreement among public and private organizations, and as such, may not have completely anticipated the issues in public/private cooperation and resource sharing. During simulations, exercises, or real disaster, interactions may occur that illustrate shortcomings in the design that would require modifications or clarifications in this Framework. In a situation where the King County RCECC cannot perform the duties o utlined in this document, those duties could be assumed by the Washington State EOC. Regional partners to this Framework will make every reasonable effort to prepare for their responsibilities identified within this document in the event of a disaster. However, all resources and systems are vulnerable to natural, technological and human caused DI.B Page 196 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 32 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events disasters and may be overwhelmed. Regional partners can only attempt to respond based on the situation, information and resources available at the time. There is no guarantee implied by this Framework that a perfect response to a disaster or planned event will be practical or possible. Regional partners, including their officials and employees, shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise of, or failure to exercise or perform a public duty or a discretionary function or duty while carrying out the provisions of this Framework. Training and Exercises Training Training is a vital component to helping all regional partners understand the purpose and scope of the document. Collaboratively, regional partners are responsible for training their organizations to the purpose, scope and operations of the Framework. The King County Office of Emergency Management is responsible for assisting potential partners with training their community or organization. The training effort can be accomplished through presentations to public, private and non-profit organizations on the benefits of working within the auspices of the Regional Coordination Framework. Exercises Exercises are conducted to determine if the Framework is operationally sound. Exercises of the Regional Coordination Framework may be conducted collectively as a county region, by zone or by individual partner. Evaluations of exercises will identify strengths and weaknesses encountered during the exercise and may identify necessary changes to the document and components. In conjunction, training may also be identified to facilitate in overall effectiveness of the Framework and its support documents. Ongoing Document Development and Maintenance This framework has been developed and will be regularly updated by the Regional Disaster Planning Work Group. The Work Group consists of representatives from regional partners and serves as a subcommittee to the King County Emergency Management Advisory Committee (EMAC), which in turn serves as an advisory entity to the King County Executive and the King County Office of Emergency Management (OEM). The King County OEM will ensure continuity of the Regional Disaster Planning Work Group, which will coordinate updates to this document. King County OEM will maintain DI.B Page 197 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 33 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events and publish the Framework and supporting materials on the King County OEM web site at http://www.kingcounty.gov/prepare. Suggested changes will be considered yearly and can be mailed to: King County Office of Emergency Management, 3511 NE 2nd Street, Renton WA 98056. Faxes will be received at (206) 205-4056. Telephone messages can be left at OEM’s general number: (206) 296-3830. The King County OEM Plans Manager is the staff person specifically tasked with the maintenance of the Regional Coordination Framework, its associated Agreement and any annexes to the Framework. Modifications to this Regional Coordination Framework and its associated Agreement will be developed by the Regional Disaster Planning Work Group and then submitted to the Emergency Management Advisory Committee for review and comment. Further vetting with regional partners beyond the membership of EMAC will also be conducted. X. Terms and Definitions ‘Agreement’ – refers to identical agreements executed in counterparts which bind the executing signatory partners to its terms and conditions to provide and receive Emergency Assistance. The terms and conditions of the Agreement are all identical and the execution of the Agreement binds a signatory partner to all other signatory partners who have executed identical Agreements in counterparts. To be effective for purposes of receiving Emergency Assistance, this Agreement and the Regional Coordination Framework must be fully executed and received by the King County Office of Emergency Management. ‘Borrower’ – refers to a signatory partner who has adopted, signed and subscribes to the associated Agreement, and has made a request for emergency assistance and has received commitment(s) to deliver emergency assistance pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. ‘Disaster’ – refers to but is not limited to, a human-caused or natural event or circumstance within the area of operation of any participating partner causing or threatening loss of life, damage to the environment, injury to person or property, human suffering or financial loss, such as: fire, explosion, flood, severe weather, drought, earthquake, volcanic activity, spills or releases of hazardous materials, contamination, utility or transportation emergencies, disease, infestation, civil disturbance, riots, act of terrorism or sabotage; said event being or is likely to be beyond the capacity of the affected signatory partner, in terms of personnel, equipment and facilities, thereby requiring emergency assistance. DI.B Page 198 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 34 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events ‘Emergency Contact Points’ – refers to the persons, in a line of succession, listed on the Emergency Contact Information Form to be submitted to the Zone Coordinator and the King County Office of Emergency Management by each partner. The list includes names, addresses, and 24-hour phone numbers of the Emergency Contact Points of each partner. The people listed as Emergency Contact Points will have (or can quickly get) the authority of the partner to commit available equipment, services, and personnel for the organization. Note: The phone number of a dispatch office staffed 24 hours a day that is capable of contacting the Emergency Contact Point(s) is acceptable. ‘Emergency Operations or Coordination Center (EOC/ECC)’ – refers to a location from which coordination of emergency response and recovery functions can be hosted. ‘Framework’ – ‘Regional Coordination Framework for Public and Private Organizations in King County’ (“Framework”) means an all-hazards architecture for collaboration and coordination among jurisdictional, organizational and business entities during emergencies in King County. ‘Lender’ – refers to a signatory partner who has signed the Agreement and has agreed to deliver Emergency Assistance to another signatory partner pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. ‘Long-term Recovery’ – (FEMA description) refers to the phase of recovery that may continue for months or years and addresses complete redevelopment and revitalization of the impacted area. ‘National Incident Management System’ (NIMS) – (FEMA description) refers to the systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work seamlessly to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life and property and harm to the environment. ‘RCECC’ – refers to the King County Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center; the location from which information and resource management is conducted in support of disasters or planned events. ‘Region’ – refers to geographic King County and its adjacent jurisdictions. ‘Regional Partners’ – refers to all public, private, non-governmental, or tribal organizations that may or may not be signatory/subscribing organizations to the Regional Coordination Framework, the associated Agreement and its annexes. DI.B Page 199 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 35 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events ‘Regional Policy Decision-Making’ – refers to the mechanism established to enact emergency powers, suspend or limit civil liberties, coordinate executive decisions, and/or determine strategies for the allocation of scarce resources under proclaimed emergencies. ‘Regional Service Providers’ – refers to those organizations, both public and private, that provide services to the region. These may include but are not limited to: adult and juvenile detention facilities, water and sewer utilities, power companies, transit, food distribution, or other services. ‘Response’ - (FEMA description) refers those capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs after a disaster has occurred. ‘Short Term Recovery’ – (FEMA description) refers to the phase of recovery which addresses the health and safety needs beyond rescue, the assessment of the scope of damages and needs, the restoration of basic infrastructure and the mobilization of recovery organizations and resources including restarting and/or restoring essential services for recovery decision-making. ‘Signatory Partners’ – refers to those organizations signatory to the associated Agreement of the current Regional Coordination Framework. ‘Zone(s)’ – refers to those geographic areas conforming to the fire response zones in King County and designated Zone 1 (north and northeast county), Zone 3 (south and southeast county to include Vashon Island), and Zone 5 (the City of Seattle). ‘Zone Coordination Function’ – refers to those activities that may include pre-planning, training, or information collection and resource status activities within a particular Zone. ‘Zone Coordinators’ – refers to those individuals who may perform the Zone Coordination Function. XI. Authorities and References RCW 38.52.070 (summary) Incorporated jurisdictions in King County are mandated by RCW 38.52.070 to perform emergency management functions within their jurisdictional boundaries. Although DI.B Page 200 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework Page 36 Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events special purpose jurisdictions and private businesses are not mandated under RCW 38.52, this framework allows such entities to participate in this regional response plan. RCW 38.56 Intrastate Mutual Aid System (summary) Code that describes the sharing of resources between political subdivisions of Washington State, documents like mutual aid agreements, and others governing the terms under which resource may be borrowed, loaned, and reimbursement protocols. King County Ordinance 17075, May 2, 2011 The King County Office of Emergency Management is tasked with regional coordination in disaster preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation by King County ordinance 17075. Excerpts: “The mission of the office of emergency management shall be to p rovide for the effective direction, control, and coordination of county government emergency services functional units, to coordinate with other governments and the private, non - governmental sector, in compliance with a state -approved comprehensive emergency management plan, and to serve as the coordinating entity for cities, county governmental departments, and other appropriate agencies during incidents and events of regional significance. And, “Foster cooperative planning at all levels to enable a unifo rm and rational approach to the coordination of multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional actions for all regional mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts.” The Washington Mutual Aid Compact (WAMAC) The Washington Mutual Aid Compact (WAMAC) is the operational implementation of the Intrastate Mutual Aid System and provides for resource sharing between governments in response to a disaster which overwhelms local and mutual aid resources. The elements of this Regional Coordination Framework are designed to work in conjunction with the operational elements of WAMAC. Mutual Aid Agreements Any participating organization may enter into separate emergency assistance or mutual aid agreements with any other entity. No such separate agreement shall terminate any responsibility under the Regional Coordination Framework or associated Agreement. DI.B Page 201 of 266 AGREEMENT Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington February 2014 DI.B Page 202 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 2 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework Updating Process of former “Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement” As the development of the ‘Regional Disaster Plan’ began in 1999, there was also a need to create a ‘mechanism to share resources.’ The Plan focused on establishing a cooperative and voluntary platform linking private businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and special purpose districts. A legal document was needed to address emergency assistance covering the legal and financial obligations of partners sharing personnel, equipment materials and/or support during a disaster. Back in 1999 to 2001, legal advisors from King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and several other public and private entities worked together to frame the appropriate legal and liability language forming the ‘Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement.’ The Agreement withstood the legal review and approval of many public, private and nonprofit organizations that thereafter signed onto the Plan and Omnibus. As the Plan transitioned and evolved into the ‘Framework,’ the time was also appropriate to revisit the Omnibus. Over the twelve year tenure of the Omnibus, mutual aid methodology and practices had evolved at the regional, State and Federal levels; as well as alterations in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) public assistance arena. In 2012 a subcommittee of the Regional Disaster Planning Work Group began the process to revisit the Omnibus language. The subcommittee existed of legal advisors from King County, City of Auburn and City of Seattle and emergency managers from King County, Seattle, Bellevue, Zone 1, Zone 3 and Washington State. Through several meetings leveraging the guidance and expertise of the legal and mutual aid subject matter experts involved, the subcommittee finalized the current draft of the ‘AGREEMENT for Organizations Participating in the Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Event for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington.’ A large percentage of the original language has stayed the same with a few language and terminology updates. The key areas of adjustment include: New Changes Document re-titled to ‘Agreement’ – simpler title; Replaced ‘Omnibus Legal and Financial Agreement’ Replaced ‘Plan’ wording throughout document with ‘Framework’ Replaced ‘Omnibus’ wording throughout document with ‘Agreement’ Terminology changes made by replacing ‘borrower’ and ‘lender’ with ‘requester’ and ‘responder’ Adjusted language in ‘Article I – Applicability’ to say “…located in King County.”; Replaced “…in and bordering geographic King County.” Updated verbiage in ‘Article II – Definitions’ on ‘Basic Plan’ and ‘Package’ since it is now a ‘Framework’ Cleaned-up language in ‘Article II – Definitions’ on ‘Emergency’ DI.B Page 203 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 3 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework Cleaned-up language in ‘Article II – Definitions’ on ‘Emergency Contact Points’ Updated respective sections with correct King County Office of Emergency Management address; Former ‘7300 Perimeter Road’ address Updated verbiage in ‘Article IV – Role of Emergency Contact Point for Signatory Partners Renaming to and cleaned-up language in ‘Article VI – Payment and Billing’; Formerly titled ‘Article VI – Payment for Services and Assistance’ Cleaned-up language in ‘Article VIII – Requests for Emergency Assistance’ Removed section ‘IX – General Nature of Emergency Assistance’; Repetitive of existing language Renaming to ‘Article IX – Provision of Equipment’; Formerly ‘Article X – Loans of Equipment’ Renaming to ‘Article X – Provision of Materials and Supplies’; Formerly ‘Article XI – Exchange of Materials and Supplies’ Renaming to ‘Article XI – Provision of Personnel’; Formerly ‘Article XII – Loans of Personnel’ Renaming to and cleaned-up language ‘Article XII – Record Keeping’; Formerly ‘Article XIII – Record keeping’ Renaming to and cleaned-up language ‘Article XIII – Indemnification, Limitation of Liability, and Dispute Resolution’; Formerly ‘Article XIV – Indemnification and Limitation of Liability’ Articles following have been renumbered and renamed appropriately DI.B Page 204 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 4 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT for organizations participating in the Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington This AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into by the public and private organizations who become signatories hereto (“Signatory Partners”) to facilitate the provision of Emergency Assistance to each other during times of emergency. WHEREAS, the Signatory Partners have expressed a mutual interest in the establishment of an Agreement to facilitate and encourage Emergency Assistance among participants; and WHEREAS, the Signatory Partners do not intend for this Agreement to replace or infringe on the authority granted by any federal, state, or local governments, statutes, ordinances, or regulations; and WHEREAS, in the event of an emergency, a Signatory Partner may need Emergency Assistance in the form of supplemental personnel, equipment, materials or other support; and WHEREAS, each Signatory Partner may own and maintain equipment, stocks materials, and employs trained personnel for a variety of services and is willing, under certain conditions, to provide its supplies, equipment and services to other Signatory Partners in the event of an emergency; and WHEREAS, the proximity of the Signatory Partners to each other enables them to provide Emergency Assistance to each other in emergency situations. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, each Signatory Partner agrees as follows: Article I - APPLICABILITY. A private or public organization located in King County, Washington, may become a Signatory Partner by signing this Agreement and becoming bound thereby. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts. DI.B Page 205 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 5 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework Article II - DEFINITIONS. A. ‘Assistance Costs’ means any direct material costs, equipment costs, equipment rental fees, fuel, and the labor costs that are incurred by the Responder in providing any asset, service, or assistance requested. B. ‘Emergency’ means an event or set of circumstances that qualifies as an emergency under any applicable statute, ordinance, or regulation. C. ‘Emergency Assistance’ means employees, services, equipment, materials, or supplies provided by a Responder in response to a request from a Requester. D. ‘Emergency Contact Points’ means persons designated by each Signatory Partner who will have (or can quickly get) the authority to commit available equipment, services, and personnel for their organization. E. ‘King County Emergency Management Advisory Committee (“EMAC”)’ is the Committee established in King County Code 2.36.055. F. ‘Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events for Public and Private Organizations in King County’ (“Framework”) means an all hazards architecture for collaboration and coordination among jurisdictional, organizational, and business entities during emergencies in King County. G. ‘Requester’ means a Signatory Partner that has made a request for Emergency Assistance. H. ‘Responder’ means a Signatory Partner providing or intending to provide Emergency Assistance to a Requester. I. ‘Signatory Partner means any public or private organization in King County, WA, that enters into this Agreement by signature of a person authorized to sign. J. ‘Termination Date’ is the date upon which this agreement terminates pursuant to Article V. DI.B Page 206 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 6 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework Article III - PARTICIPATION. Participation in this Agreement, and the provision of personnel or resources, is purely voluntary and at the sole discretion of the requested Responder. Signatory Partners that execute the Agreement are expected to: A. Identify and furnish to all other Signatory Partners a list of the Organization’s current Emergency Contact Points together with all contact information; and . B. Participate in scheduled meetings to coordinate operational and implementation issues to the maximum extent possible. Article IV - ROLE OF EMERGENCY CONTACT POINT FOR SIGNATORY PARTNERS. Signatory Partners agree that their Emergency Contact Points or their designees can serve as representatives of the Signatory Partner in any meeting to work out the language or implementation issues of this Agreement. The Emergency Contact Points of a Signatory Partner shall: A. Act as a single point of contact for information about the availability of resources when other Signatory Partners seek assistance. B. Maintain a manual containing the Framework, including a master copy of this Agreement (as amended), and a list of Signatory Partners who have executed this Agreement. C. Each Signatory Partner will submit its Emergency Contact Information Form to the King County Office of Emergency Management (“KCOEM”). KCOEM will maintain a list showing the succession in all the Signatory Partners. This list will include names, addresses, and 24-hour phone numbers of the Emergency contact points (2-3 deep) of each Signatory Partner. Note: the phone number of a dispatch office staffed 24 hours a day that is capable of contacting the Emergency contact point(s) is acceptable. Article V - TERM AND TERMINATION. A. This Agreement is effective upon execution by a Signatory Partner. DI.B Page 207 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 7 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework B. A Signatory Partner may terminate its participation in this Agreement by providing written termination notification to the EMAC, care of the KCOEM, 3211 NE 2nd Street, Renton WA 98056, or by Fax at 206- 205-4056. Notice of termination becomes effective upon receipt by EMAC which shall, in turn, notify all Signatory Partners. Any terminating Signatory Partner shall remain liable for all obligations incurred during its period of participation, until the obligation is satisfied. Article VI - PAYMENT AND BILLING. a. Requester shall pay to Responder all valid and invoiced Assistance Costs within 60 days of receipt of Responder’s invoice, for the Emergency Assistance services provided by Responder. Invoices shall include, as applicable, specific details regarding labor costs, including but not limited to the base rate, fringe benefits rate, overhead, and the basis for each element; equipment usage detail and, material cost breakdown. b. In the event Responder provides supplies or parts, Responder shall have the option to accept payment of cash or in-kind for the supplies or parts provided. c. Reimbursement for use of equipment requested under the terms of this Agreement, such as construction equipment, road barricades, vehicles, and tools, shall be at the rate mutually agreed between Requester and Responder. The rate may reflect the rate approved and adopted by the Responder, a rate set forth in an industry standard publication, or other rate. Article VII - INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Responder shall be and operate as an independent contractor of Requester in the performance of any Emergency Assistance. Employees of Responder shall at all times while performing Emergency Assistance continue to be employees of Responder and shall not be deemed employees of Requester for any purpose. Wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of Responder shall remain applicable to all of its employees who perform Emergency Assistance. Responder shall be solely responsible for payment of its employees’ wages, any required payroll taxes and any benefits or other compensation. Requester shall not be responsible for paying any wages, benefits, taxes, or other compensation directly to the Responder’s employees. The costs associated with requested personnel are subject to the reimbursement process outlined in Article XI. In no event shall Responder or its officers, employees, agents, or representatives be authorized (or DI.B Page 208 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 8 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework represent that they are authorized) to make any representation, enter into any agreement, waive any right or incur any obligation in the name of, on behalf of or as agent for Requester under or by virtue of this Agreement. Article VIII - REQUESTS FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE. Requests for Emergency Assistance shall be made by a person authorized by the Requester to make such requests and approved by a person authorized by Responder to approve such requests. If this request is verbal, it must be confirmed in writing within thirty days after the date of the request. Article IX - PROVISION OF EQUIPMENT. Provision of equipment and tools loans is subject to the following conditions: 1. At the option of Responder, equipment may be provided with an operator. See Article XI for terms and conditions applicable to use of personnel. 2. Provided equipment shall be returned to Responder upon release by Requester, or immediately upon Requester’s receipt of an oral or written notice from Responder for the return of the equipment. When notified to return equipment to Responder, Requester shall make every effort to return the equipment to Responder’s possession within 24 hours following notification. Equipment shall be returned in the same condition as when it was provided to Requester. 3. During the time the equipment has been provided, Requester shall, at its own expense, supply all fuel, lubrication and maintenance for Responder’s equipment. Requester shall take proper precaution in its operation, storage and maintenance of Responder’s equipment. Equipment shall be used only by properly trained and supervised operators. Responder shall endeavor to provide equipment in good working order. All equipment is provided “as is”, with no representations or warranties as to its condition, fitness for a particular purpose, or merchantability. 4. Responder’s cost related to the transportation, handling, and loading/unloading of equipment shall be chargeable to Requester. Responder shall submit copies of invoices from outside sources that perform such services and shall provide accounting of time and hourly costs for Responder’s employees who perform such services. DI.B Page 209 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 9 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework 5. Without prejudice to Responder’s right to indemnification under Article XIII herein, in the event equipment is lost, stolen or damaged from the point the Requestor has the beneficial use of the equipment , or while in the custody and use of Requester, or until the Requestor no longer has the beneficial use of the equipment, Requester shall reimburse Responder for the reasonable cost of repairing or replacing said damaged equipment. If the equipment cannot be repaired within a time period required by Responder, then Requester shall reimburse Responder for the cost of replacing such equipment with equipment which is of equal condition and capability. Any determinations of what constitutes “equal condition and capability” shall be at the discretion of Responder. If Responder must lease or rent a piece of equipment while Responder’s equipment is being repaired or replaced, Requester shall reimburse Responder for such costs. Requester shall have the right of subrogation for all claims against persons other than parties to this Agreement that may be responsible in whole or in part for damage to the equipment. Requester shall not be liable for damage caused by the sole negligence of Responder’s operator(s). Article X - PROVISION OF MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES. Requester shall reimburse Responder in kind or at Responder’s actual replacement cost, plus handling charges, for use of partially consumed , fully consumed, or non- returnable materials and supplies, as mutually agreed between Requester and Responder. Other reusable materials and supplies which are returned to Responder in clean, damage-free condition shall not be charged to the Requester and no rental fee will be charged. Responder shall determine whether returned materials and supplies are “clean and damage-free” and shall treat material and supplies as “partially consumed” or “non-returnable” if found to be damaged. Article XI - PROVISION OF PERSONNEL. Responder may, at its option, make such employees as are willing to participate available to Requester at Requester’s expense equal to Responder’s full cost, including employee’s salary or hourly wages, call back or overtime costs, benefits and overhead, and consistent with Responder’s personnel union contracts, if any, or other conditions of employment. Costs to feed and house Responder’s personnel, if necessary, shall be chargeable to and paid by Requester. Requester is responsible for assuring such arrangements as may be necessary for the safety, housing, meals, and transportation to and from job sites/housing sites (if necessary) for Responder’s personnel. Responder shall bill all costs to Requester, who is responsible for paying DI.B Page 210 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 10 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework all billed costs. Responder may require that its personnel providing Emergency Assistance shall be under the control of their regular leaders, but the organizational units will come under the operational control of the command structure of Requester. Responder’s employees may decline to perform any assigned tasks if said employees judge such task to be unsafe. A request for Responder’s personnel to direct the activities of others during a particular response operation does not relieve Requester of any responsibility or create any liability on the part of Responder for decisions and/or consequences of the response operation. Responder’s personnel may refuse to direct the activities of others. Responder’s personnel holding a license, certificate, or other permit evidencing qualification in a professiona l, mechanical, or other skill, issued by the state of Washington or a political subdivision thereof, is deemed to be licensed, certified, or permitted in any Signatory Partner’s jurisdiction for the duration of the emergency, subject to any limitations and conditions the chief executive officer and/or elected and appointed officials of the applicable Signatory Partners jurisdiction may prescribe in writing. When notified to return personnel to Responder, Requester shall make every effort to return the personnel to Responder promptly after notification. Article XII - RECORD KEEPING. Time sheets and/or daily logs showing hours worked and equipment and materials used or provided by Responder will be recorded on a shift-by-shift basis by the Responder and will be submitted to Requester as needed. If no personnel are provided, Responder will submit shipping records for materials and equipment, and Requester is responsible for any required documentation of use of material and equipment for state or federal reimbursement. Under all circumstances, Requester remains responsible for ensuring that the amount and quality of all documentation is adequate to enable reimbursement. Article XIII – INDEMNIFICATION, LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION. A. INDEMNIFICATION. Except as provided in section B., to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Requester releases and shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend each Responder, its officers, employees and agents from and against any and all costs, including costs of defense, claims, judgments or awards of damages asserted or arising directly or indirectly from, on account of, or in connection with providing, or declining to provide, or not being asked to provide, Emergency Assistance to Requester, whether arising before, during, or after performance of the Emergency Assistance and whether suffered by any of the Signatory Partners or any other person or entity. DI.B Page 211 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 11 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework Requester agrees that its obligation under this section extends to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees, or agents. For this purpose, Requester, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, as respects any indemnitee only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions of Title 51 RCW of the State of Washington and similar laws of other states. B. ACTIVITIES IN BAD FAITH OR BEYOND SCOPE. Any Signatory Partner shall not be required under this Agreement to indemnify, hold harmless and defend any other Signatory Partner from any claim, loss, harm, liability, damage, cost or expense caused by or resulting from the activities of any Signatory Partners’ officers, employees, or agents acting in bad faith or performing activities beyond the scope of their duties. C. LIABILITY FOR PARTICIPATION. In the event of any liability, claim, demand, action or proceeding, of whatever kind or nature arising out of rendering of Emergency Assistance through this Agreement, Requester agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend, to the fullest extent of the law, each Signatory Partner, whose only involvement in the transaction or occurrence which is the subject of such claim, action, demand, or other proceeding, is the execution and approval of this Agreement. D. DELAY/FAILURE TO RESPOND. No Signatory Partner shall be liable to another Signatory Partner for, or be considered to be in breach of or default under, this Agreement on account of any delay in or failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement, except to make payment as specified in this Agreement. E. MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION. If a dispute arises under the terms of this Agreement, the Signatory Partners involved in the dispute shall first attempt to resolve the matter by direct negotiation. If the dispute cannot be settled through direct discussions, the parties agree to first endeavor to settle the dispute in an amicable manner by mediation. Thereafter, any unresolved controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Contract, or breach thereof, may be settled by arbitration, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. F. SIGNATORY PARTNERS LITIGATION PROCEDURES. Each Signatory Partner seeking to be released, indemnified, held harmless or defended under this Article with respect to any claim shall promptly notify Requester of such claim and shall not settle such claim without the prior consent of Requester. Such Signatory Partners shall have the right to DI.B Page 212 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 12 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework participate in the defense of said claim to the extent of its own interest. Signatory Partners’ personnel shall cooperate and participate in legal proceedings if so requested by Requester, and/or required by a court of competent jurisdiction. Article XIV - SUBROGATION. A. REQUESTER’S WAIVER. Requester expressly waives any rights of subrogation against Responder, which it may have on account of, or in connection with, Responder providing Emergency Assistance to Requester under this Agreement. B. RESPONDER’S RESERVATION AND WAIVER. Responder expressly reserves its right to subrogation against Requester to the extent Responder incurs any self-insured, self-insured retention or deductible loss. Responder expressly waives its rights to subrogation for all insured losses only to the extent Responder’s insurance policies, then in force, permit such waiver. Article XV - WORKER’S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYEE CLAIMS. Responder’s employees, officers or agents, made available to Requester, shall remain the general employees of Responder while engaged in carrying out duties, functions or activities pursuant to this Agreement, and each Signatory Partner shall remain fully responsible as employer for all taxes, assessments, fees, premiums, wages, withholdings, workers’ compensation, and other direct and indirect compensation, benefits, and related obligations with respect to its own employees. Likewise, each Signatory Partner shall provide worker’s compensation in compliance with statutory requirements of the state of residency. Ar ticle XVI - MODIFICATIONS. Modifications to this Agreement must be in writing and will become effective upon approval by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the Signatory Partners. Modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of each Signatory Partner. EMAC will be the coordinating body for facilitating modifications of this Agreement. Article XVII- NON-EXCLUSIVENESS AND PRIOR AGREEMENTS. DI.B Page 213 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 13 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework This Agreement shall not supersede any existing mutual aid agreement or agreements between two or more governmental agencies, and as to assistance requested by a party to such mutual aid agreement within the scope of the mutual aid agreement, such assistance shall be governed by the terms of the mutual aid agreement and not by this Agreement. This Agreement shall, however, apply to all requests for assistance beyond the scope of any mutual aid agreement or agreements in place prior to the event. Article XVIII - GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. This Agreement is subject to laws, rules, regulations, orders, and other requirements, now or hereafter in effect, of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the emergencies covered by this Agreement or the Signatory Partner. Provided that a governmental authority may alter its obligations under this Agreement only as to future obligations, not obligations already incurred. Article XIX - NO DEDICATION OF FACILITIES. No undertaking by one Signatory Partner to the other Signatory Partners under any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a dedication of the facilities or assets of such Signatory Partners, or any portion thereof, to the public or to the other Signatory Partners. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give a Signatory Partner any right of ownership, possession, use or control of the facilities or assets of the other Signatory Partners. Article XX - NO PARTNERSHIP. This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed to create an association, joint venture or partnership among the Signatory Partners or to impose any partnership obligation or liability upon any Signatory Partner. Further, no Signatory Partner shall have any undertaking for or on behalf of, or to act as or be an agent or representative of, or to otherwise bind any other Signatory Partner. Article XXI - NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create any rights in or duties to any third party, nor any liability to or standard of care with reference to any third party. This Agreement shall not confer any right, or remedy upon any person other than the Signatory Partners. This Agreement shall not release or discharge any obligation or liability of any third party to any Signatory Partners. DI.B Page 214 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 14 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework Article XXII - ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes any and all prior agreements of the Parties, with respect to the subject matters hereof. Article XXIII - SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Agreement is not transferable or assignable, in whole or in part, and any Signatory Partner may terminate its participation in this Agreement subject to Article V. Article XXIV - GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, and enforced in accordance with the laws of Washington State. Article XXV - VENUE. Any action which may arise out of this Agreement shall be brought in Washington State and King County. Provided, that any action against a participating County may be brought in accordance with RCW 36.01.050. Article XXVI - TORT CLAIMS. It is not the intention of this Agreement to remove from any of the Signatory Partners any protection provided by any applicable Tort Claims Act. However, between Requester and Responder, Requester retains full liability to Responder for any claims brought against Responder as described in other provisions of this agreement. Article XXVII - WAIVER OF RIGHTS. Any waiver at any time by any Signatory Partner of its rights with respect to a default under this Agreement, or with respect to any other matter arising in connection with this Agreement, shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver with respect to any subsequent default or other matter arising in connection with this Agreement. Any delay short of the statutory period of limitations, in asserting or enforcing any right, shall not constitute or be deemed a waiver. DI.B Page 215 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 15 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework Article XXVIII - INVALID PROVISION. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provisions were omitted. Article XXIX - NOTICES. Any notice, demand, information, report, or item otherwise required, authorized, or provided for in this Agreement shall be conveyed and facilitated by EMAC, care of the KCOEM, 3511 NE 2nd Street, Renton WA 98056, Phone: 206-296-3830, Fax: 206-205-4056. Such notices, given in writing, and shall be deemed properly given if (i) delivered personally, (ii) transmitted and received by telephone facsimile device and confirmed by telephone, (iii) transmitted by electronic mail, or (iv) sent by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the EMAC. DI.B Page 216 of 266 Regional Coordination Framework AGREEMENT 16 AGREEMENT, Regional Coordination Framework Signatory Documentation Sheet The Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events for Public and Private Organizations in King County, Washington is intended to be adopted as the framework for participating organizations, within King County, to assist each other in disaster situations when their response capabilities have been overloaded. Components, as of January 2014, are the following: Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events for Public and Private Organizations in King County Agreement (legal and financial) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Signatory Partner hereto has caused this Regional Coordination Framework for Disasters and Planned Events to be executed by duly authorized representatives as of the date of their signature: ORGANIZATION: ADDRESS: __________________________________ AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Please submit this form to the King County Office of Emergency Management 3511 NE 2nd Street Renton, WA 98056 DI.B Page 217 of 266 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Communal Housing Follow-Up Report Date: June 4, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum 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:June 9, 2014 Item Number:DI.C AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 218 of 266 MEMORANDUM 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 FROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development Services DATE: June 3, 2014 RE: Communal Housing Follow Up Report Background Ordinance 6477, passed by City Council on September 3, 2013, establishes rules and procedures that regulate the renting of homes within residential zoning designations. Highlights of the ordinance include: · Definition of a communal residence – a dwelling, without an owner occupant, that is rented to a group of unrelated individuals. · Communal residences within residential zones with 4 or fewer unrelated individuals are permitted with a City of Auburn Business License; Communal residences with more than 4 unrelated individuals may be permitted as a conditional use. · No grandfather clause. Rentals operating as a communal residence were to become compliant by December 31, 2013. · Communal residences are subject to an annual inspection. Early in 2014 the Permit Center received two Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications for communal residences located on separate properties. The same owner owns both properties which are located approximately on same street approximately 1,000 feet from each other (and separated by 12 other single family residences). Both CUP’s requested permission to allow up to 7 unrelated individuals to live together in each home. The applicant disclosed that their intention is to rent out individual rooms to separate parties who would likely be students at Green River Community College. Per the requirements of City code, public notification was provided (mailed to property owners within 300’, posting of the property with a sign, and notification published in the newspaper), a public comment period was established, a public hearing scheduled, and a public hearing held before the Hearing Examiner on Wednesday, May 28th. During the public comment period the City received approximately 15 comment letters for each property that expressed concern and opposition to the approval of the CUP’s. At the public DI.C Page 219 of 266 hearing approximately 35 people attended of which most expressed concern and opposition. Staff read through all of the comment letters with the intent of understanding all concerns raised and to help formulate any appropriate mitigating conditions. Staff felt that some of the comments could be addressed through conditions while others were outside the scope and authority of zoning and development regulations. Staff visited both properties and inspected both residences. The site inspections included a life safety inspection by a building inspector and a site inspection by a planner. Staff also evaluated the “house rules” that were prepared and submitted by the applicant which are intended to govern the conduct and activities of the occupants. Ultimately, staff passed the life safety inspection and determined that the “house rules”, if abided by, would adequately address potential nuisance concerns related to noise, parking, garbage, etc. As a result, staff prepared and transmitted a recommendation of approval of both CUP’s to the Hearing Examiner subject to a list of conditions. The recommended conditions of approval hold the property owner accountable for how they manage property and include likely revocation of the CUP if there are violations of those conditions. The Hearing Examiner is currently evaluating the record, city code and the legislative history associated with Ordinance 6477 and is expected to render a decision later this month. Discussion and Questions: In 2013, when PCDC was first faced with questions about the regulation of renting out houses and bedrooms there was a heavy emphasis on making sure that the City was adequately regulating and inspecting buildings to ensure that living conditions were clean, safe, and code compliant. There was also a heavy emphasis on reinforcing a number of other existing city code requirements pertaining to management of garbage, recycling, parking, noise, and property maintenance. The City code standards do not limit the number of Conditional Use Permits that may be issued in a neighborhood, the number of communal residences that may be licensed, the density of communal residences, or the proximity of one communal residence to another. 1. Should staff develop a range of options that restrict the number of communal residences and/or CUP’s that may be permitted within a community? 2. If yes, should staff delineate a geographic area in which these standards apply, e.g. a specified distance from Green River Community College? 3. Should staff develop regulations that limit the number of communal residences near Green River Community College? Or that limit the number of CUP’s that can be approved? Should communal residences of more than 4 people be allowed at all? 4. Would PCDC prefer to view the Hearing Examiner’s decision prior to answering questions #1 and #2? Or should staff package the list of options with the Hearing Examiner’s decision for further discussion during the first PCDC meeting in July? The following data may be useful in facilitating this discussion. · GRCC Fall Quarter data identifies 999 international students that live in the Lea Hill neighborhood. This does not include domestic students that live in the area. DI.C Page 220 of 266 · GRCC Spring Quarter data identifies 537 international students that live in the Lea Hill neighborhood. This does not include students who are enrolled in the homestay program (students living with resident families) or domestic students that live in the area. When GRCC provided their spring data they removed homestay students with a statement that there were federal laws that exempted release of this information. As a result, staff is assuming that there are approximately 450 students enrolled in the homestay program which GRCC currently advertises a limit of 3 students per home. · Using the GRCC Fall Quarter data, staff has been able to identify 43 houses that are likely candidates that currently meet the definition of a communal residence. 4 are licensed and 3 are under review for consideration of issuing a license. · There are approximately 1,200 single family homes within a half mile of Green River Community College. DI.C Page 221 of 266 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Urban Land Institute Report "Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places", November, 2013 Date: June 4, 2014 Department: Planning and Development Attachments: Memorandum Attachment A - Urban Land Institute Report Budget Impact: $0 Administrative Recommendation: For discussion only. Background Summary: See attached memorandum. Reviewed by Council Committees: Councilmember:Holman Staff:Tate Meeting Date:June 9, 2014 Item Number:DI.D AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.D Page 222 of 266 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: June 3, 2014 RE: ULI Report – 10 Principles for Building Healthy Places Overview: The attached 2013 report was prepared by the Urban Land Institute as part of their Building Healthy Places Initiative. The report provides a descriptive and visual tool for City leaders to utilize when developing land use policy, prioritizing capital project expenditures, and implementing economic development strategies. When compared to the previous reports prepared by the APA (Investing in Place) and the AARP (Is this a Good Place to Live) there are striking similarities between the elements of a community that is physically healthy and economically healthy. In the past couple of conversations about the APA and AARP report there has been a strong emphasis on the amenities, facilities, and features of a community that make it attractive to live, work, shop, and play. The effect is a community that is economically sustainable, vibrant, and diverse. The ULI report builds upon the conclusions of those other reports but expands the discussion to reinforce that many of those same amenities also create a public health benefit because people are more likely to be active and healthier. Discussion: 1. Should the 10 principles outlined in this report be factored into the ideals that are used to develop our next Comprehensive Plan? 2. Should there be a greater connection between City capital program priorities and the types of public amenities that are described in all three of the reports? 3. Should there be an emphasis on identifying and creating more non-motorized corridors and connections throughout Auburn? DI.D Page 223 of 266 4. Should there be a greater emphasis on developing creative and inexpensive ways of activating/programming unused or underutilized public spaces? Attachment: ULI “10 Principles for Building Healthy Places” Report DI.D Page 224 of 266 Ten Principles forBuilding Healthy Places Building Healthy Places Initiative DI.D Page 225 of 266 10P_BHP.indd 2 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 226 of 266 1 Ten Principles forBuilding Healthy Places Thomas W. Eitler Edward T. McMahon Theodore C. Thoerig This project was made possible through the generous financial support of James and Sharon Todd. ULI also wishes to acknowledge the following organizations for their help, support, and involvement with this effort: The Colorado Health Foundation, Denver, Colorado The Center for Active Design, New York City The University of Virginia School of Architecture, Center for Design and Health, Charlottesville, Virginia 10P_BHP.indd 1 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 227 of 266 2 About the Urban Land Institute The mission of the Urban Land Institute is to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. Established in 1936, the Institute today has nearly 30,000 mem- bers, representing the entire spectrum of land use and develop- ment disciplines. Professionals represented include develop- ers, builders, property owners, investors, architects, planners, public officials, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers, academics, and students. ULI is committed to Bringing together leaders from across the fields of real estate and land use policy to exchange best practices and serve community needs; Fostering collaboration within and beyond ULI’s membership through mentoring, dialogue, and problem solving; Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation, regeneration, land use, capital formation, and sustainable development; Advancing land use policies and design practices that respect the uniqueness of both the built and natural environment; Sharing knowledge through education, applied research, publishing, and electronic media; and Sustaining a diverse global network of local practice and advisory efforts that address current and future challenges. Recommended bibliographic listing: Eitler, Thomas W., Edward T. McMahon, and Theodore C.Thoerig. Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2013. ISBN: 978-0-87420-283-0 ©2013 Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20007-5201 All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copyright holder is prohibited. About the Building Healthy Places Initiative Leveraging the power of ULI’s global networks to shape proj- ects and places in ways that improve the health of people and communities. Around the world, communities face pressing health challenges related to the built environment. For many years, ULI and its members have been active players in discussions and projects that make the link between human health and development; we know that health is a core component of thriving communities. In January 2013, ULI’s Board of Directors approved a focus on healthy communities as a cross-disciplinary theme for the organization. Through the Building Healthy Places Initiative, launched in late July 2013, ULI will work over two years to pro- mote health in projects and places across the globe. ULI is focusing on four main areas of impact: Awareness—raising awareness of the connections between health and the built environment in the real estate community and working to make sure health is a mainstream consideration; Tools—developing or widely sharing tools, including best practices, criteria, and other materials that define and advance approaches to healthy buildings, projects, and communities; Value—building understanding of the market and nonmarket factors at play in building healthy places and of the value proposition of building and operating in health-promoting ways; and Commitments—gaining commitments from members and others, including local governments, to work, build, and oper- ate in more health-promoting ways. Learn more and connect with Building Healthy Places at www.uli.org/health. 10P_BHP.indd 2 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 228 of 266 3 Contents ULI Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. Put People First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Recognize the Economic Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3. Empower Champions for Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Energize Shared Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Make Healthy Choices Easy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Ensure Equitable Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Mix It Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. Embrace Unique Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9. Promote Access to Healthy Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10. Make It Active . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 10P_BHP.indd 3 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 229 of 266 4 ULI Project Staff Thomas W. Eitler Vice President, Advisory Services Edward T. McMahon Senior Resident Fellow/Charles Fraser Chair for Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy Gayle Berens Senior Vice President, Education and Advisory Group Rachel MacCleery Senior Vice President, Content Basil Hallberg Senior Research Associate Alison Johnson Program Manager, ULI Rose Center for Public Leadership Graham Stroh Director, District Council Programs Kathryn Craig Associate, Education and Advisory Group Caroline Dietrich Logistics Manager, Advisory Services Program James Mulligan Senior Editor Laura Glassman, Publications Professionals LLC Manuscript Editor Betsy VanBuskirk Creative Director Craig Chapman Senior Director, Publishing Operations ULI Senior Executives Patrick Phillips Chief Executive Officer Cheryl Cummins Executive Officer Michael Terseck Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrative Officer Lela Agnew Executive Vice President, Communications Kathleen B. Carey Executive Vice President/Chief Content Officer David Howard Executive Vice President, Development and ULI Foundation Joe Montgomery Chief Executive, Europe John Fitzgerald Chief Executive, Asia Pacific Marilee Utter Executive Vice President, District Councils ULI Staff 10P_BHP.indd 4 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 230 of 266 5 Participants Chair David Scheuer President The Retrovest Companies Burlington, Vermont Workshop Participants Ellen Bassett Associate Professor, Urban and Environmental Planning University of Virginia School of Architecture Charlottesville, Virginia Mary Borgia President The Borgia Company Newport Beach, California Laura Burnett Principal Burnett Land & Water San Diego, California Suzanne Cameron Principal Suzanne Cameron LLC Washington, D.C. Debra Campbell Planning Director Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department Charlotte, North Carolina Erin Christensen Associate Principal Mithun Seattle, Washington Joanna Frank Executive Director Center for Active Design New York, New York Brian T. Guenzel Director, Institute of Urban Studies University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, Texas Kamuron Gurol Director of Community Development City of Sammamish Sammamish, Washington Andrew Irvine Principal RNL Design Denver, Colorado Dr. Richard J. Jackson Professor/Chair, Environmental Health Sciences UCLA Fielding School of Public Health Los Angeles, California Debbie Lou Program Analyst Active Living Research San Diego, California Mary Lydon Executive Director ULI San Diego/Tijuana Jana Lynott Senior Strategic Policy Adviser PPI Livable Communities Team AARP Inc. Washington, D.C. James A. Moore Senior Vice President HDR Inc. Tampa, Florida Marja Preston President Asani Development Corp. Bainbridge Island, Washington Anna Ricklin Manager, Planning and Community Health Research Center American Planning Association Washington, D.C. Peter Rummell Rummell Company LLC Jacksonville, Florida Brad Segal President P.U.M.A Denver, Colorado Ed Starkie Principal Urban Advisors Ltd. Portland, Oregon Bob Taunton President Taunton Group LLC Boise, Idaho Ross Tilghman Director Tilghman Group Seattle, Washington Tamara Zahn President Zahn Associates Indianapolis, Indiana 10P_BHP.indd 5 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 231 of 266 6 Introduction his is a publication about healthy places. Physical design affects human behavior at all scales— buildings, neighborhoods, communities, and regions. The places in which we live, work, and play can affect both our men- tal and physical well-being. Today, communities across the United States are facing obesity and chronic disease rates of epic proportions. Our built environ- ment offers both opportunities for and barriers to improving public health and increasing active living. Communities designed in a way that supports physi- cal activity—wide sidewalks, safe bike lanes, attractive stairways, accessible recreation areas—encourage residents to make healthy choices and live healthy lives. Healthy places in turn create economic value by attracting both younger and older workers and appeal to a skilled workforce and innovative companies. One challenge to building healthy places is the lack of a common language be- tween the medical and land use community. To that end, the Urban Land Institute convened a group of interdisciplinary experts at an August 5–6, 2013, workshop as part of its Building Healthy Places Initiative. The team—purposely drawn from a variety of fields and perspectives, including health care, architecture, plan- ning, development, finance, academia, and research—was asked to develop ten principles for building healthy communities around the globe. Team members devoted two days of intensive study and collaboration, ultimately consolidating and refining their conclusions as the ten principles presented in this booklet. In spring 2013, the Colorado Health Foundation commissioned three ULI Advisory Services panels with a specific focus on evaluating three communities with very different land use typologies. The three panels were held in Arvada (suburban), Lamar (rural), and Westwood in Denver (urban), thereby allowing ULI to compare and contrast local actions based on these different land use forms. The Colorado Health Foundation has been an excellent partner in exploring this important subject and was instrumental in ULI’s decision to conduct this Ten Principles workshop. 10P_BHP.indd 6 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 232 of 266 7 Obesity and other health problems, including asthma, diabetes, and depression, have very real costs, according to Dr. Richard J. Jackson, chair of Environmental Health Sciences at UCLA’s School of Public Health and former director of the National Center for Environmental Health of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to the CDC, health care expenditures in 2007 represented 16.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and are projected to grow to 19 percent of GDP by 2017, said Jackson, quoted in the Urban Land article “Healthy Communities: A New Direction in Development.” In 2010, more than one-third of adults in the United States and almost 17 percent of youths were obese. Medical costs associated with obesity were estimated at $147 billion per year; on average, annual medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than for individuals of normal weight. One of the more important determinants of physical activity is a person’s im- mediate environment. Most people who live in neighborhoods with parks, trails, and greenways are twice as healthy as people who live in neighborhoods without such facilities, said Kimball Crangle, a senior developer with the Denver Housing Authority, quoted in the same Urban Land article, citing the American Journal of Preventive Medicine (http://activelivingresearch.org/files/Bedimo- Rung_AJPM_2005.pdf). Those who participate in regular physical activity experi- ence lower mortality rates; lower risk for heart disease, stroke, and diabetes; and improvement in emotional well-being. Although people with more healthy lifestyles often seek out such locations, proximity and access to such areas for a wider segment of the population is likely to improve overall community health. Changes in physical design over the past 50 years have led to lifestyle changes, which have led to health impacts. Once part of our normal lives, physical activity has been designed out of daily living. Desk jobs have taken the place of manual labor, driving has replaced walking and biking, elevators and escalators have “We now know that developers can be more effective in achieving public health than the doctors in white coats.” — Dr. Richard J. Jackson, chair of Environmental Health Sciences at UCLA’s School of Public Health and former director of the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health 10P_BHP.indd 7 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 233 of 266 8 supplanted stair climbing, and television and video games have displaced out- door recreation—especially among children. “There is a connection, for example, between the fact that the urban sprawl we live with daily makes no room for side- walks or bike paths and the fact that we are an overweight, heart disease–ridden society,” said Jackson. Emerging research is increasingly making the connection between transit-rich communities and better health outcomes. A knowledge gap exists, however, between research and implementation, with health and land use practitioners uncertain of how to apply the mounting body of evidence that shows the relation- ship between our built environment and our health. This gap represents a tremendous opportunity for the development community— if it is addressed properly. Today, ample evidence supports the idea that consumer demand for healthy communities—walkable, vibrant places designed around transit and green spaces—has never been higher. Numerous studies show that demand for compact, mixed-use, transit-accessible development far outstrips current supply. Walkable communities are in such high demand, in fact, that they achieve from 40 to 100 percent more than traditional, automobile-oriented com- munities in terms of sales and lease price. Consumer demand for healthy communities is particularly prominent among millen- nials, a demographic that is increasingly rejecting the automobile-centric land use patterns of the generations before them. Integrating health into planning and devel- opment policy can become an economic development strategy—a tool to attract a skilled workforce and to build an innovative and sustainable economic base. The development community now faces the challenge of making the healthy choice the easy and affordable one. The premium command- ed by walkable, transit-oriented development could price out senior citizens, people with disabilities, or low-to-moderate-income indi- viduals—the very groups most at risk for health problems. In small towns and rural areas not served by transit, creative low-cost tools to increase physical activity will be needed to promote healthy living. This booklet sets out ten important principles that can be used to create a new approach to building healthy communities. It is an approach that will help people live longer, more productive lives, re- duce unhealthy lifestyles, help improve a community’s competitive advantages, and allow developers, investors, local governments, and citizens to prosper in the 21st century. Whether the setting is urban, suburban, or rural, the design of the physical environment affects residents’ health. 10P_BHP.indd 8 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 234 of 266 9 Put People First Recognize the Economic Value Empower Champions for Health Energize Shared Spaces Make Healthy Choices Easy Ensure Equitable Access Mix It Up Embrace Unique Character Promote Access to Healthy Food Make It Active Ten Principles for Building Healthy Places 10P_BHP.indd 9 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 235 of 266 10 or decades, planners and developers inadvertently designed places for cars, not people. The results—separation of uses, acres of parking, and long com- mutes. These have all contributed to the decline in our country’s health. One of the strongest health/land use correlations is between obesity and the automobile: one California study showed each additional hour spent in a car per day is as- sociated with a 6 percent increase in body weight, whereas every kilometer (0.6 miles) walked each day is associated with a 5 percent decrease, according to a study in British Columbia. Similarly, educators say that an active student is a better learner. In the past, most children walked to school because schools were designed and located at the center of our neighborhoods. Today, however, only a very small percentage of children walk to school because we changed our school siting and design standards. Today, typical new elementary and high schools are located on the outskirts of our towns rather than in the center. A healthy urban community is one where basic necessities and community ame- nities are accessible by walking or biking. Access to space for physical activity, such as walking paths and exercise facilities near work and home, is associ- ated with increased physical activity, as is proximity to parks and playgrounds. Countries with strong bicycle infrastructure report higher levels of bicycle use and lower rates of obesity. Building design significantly affects health as well. Recent health studies have linked increased stair use with better health outcomes: men who climbed three to five flights of stairs a day had a 29 percent lower risk of stroke. Daylight and views of nature are associated with reduced pain and depression, and high-quality air-ventilation systems are associated with lower incidence of respiratory disease and increased worker productivity. Complete Streets Make Roads Better for Everyone Historically, traffic engineers took as their primary charge the need to move traffic swiftly and smoothly from one location to the next, with relatively little focus on pedestrians. Studies show that pedestrian injuries and deaths are more than twice as likely to occur in places without sidewalks, and more than 40 percent of pedestrian fatalities occur where no crosswalk is available. Complete Streets is a transportation policy that provides safe access for all road users—pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and motorists—of all ages and abilities. It requires that transporta- tion agencies routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users and engage the public to identify the most desired and active transportation solutions. Although design features vary based on local context, basic elements should include wide sidewalks, well-marked or raised crosswalks, traffic- calming measures, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian safety islands. To date, more than 500 jurisdictions in the United States have adopted a Complete Streets policy. Data from Charlotte, North Carolina, show that the cost of construct- ing a Complete Street was only 2.5 to 8 percent more than that of a traditional four-lane road with 12-foot-wide lanes— well within the normal annual variation in construction costs. Complete Streets can help reduce costs and improve health by significantly reducing crash rates, injuries, and fatalities. In addition, Complete Streets are often better designed than conventional streets, with features such as park strips, street trees, and street fur- niture that enhance economic opportunity and social interaction. 1 Put People First Individuals are more likely to be active in a community designed around their needs. 10P_BHP.indd 10 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 236 of 266 11 Consider health upfront Communities make decisions every day that affect public health; incorporating health early in decision making sets a community up for achieving strong results. Instead of being tacked on at the end, health should be incorporated intentionally at the outset of policy or investment decisions. The first step toward building healthy places is creating a physical environment that encourages walking and other physical activity by everyone. But to create that environment, traffic engineers, schools boards, and land use regulators must prioritize people over cars. Integrate health into planning Many communities adopt comprehensive plans, master plans, and general plans that local governments use to guide development and investment decisions. Cities, counties, and towns rely on their adopted comprehensive plan to evalu- ate development proposals and to focus public resources such as infrastructure, schools, parks, and libraries to best serve the public. According to a 2011 survey by the American Planning Association, fewer than 10 percent of respondents said their plan explicitly addressed health conditions such as obesity prevention, and just 3 percent reported that their community’s comprehensive plan had a stand-alone chapter addressing public health. All comprehensive plans should incorporate health. It can even be included as a stand-alone chapter that is connected to more traditional plan sections. A stand- alone chapter provides the opportunity to make explicit the connection between development and health, to elevate health among planning considerations, and to lay the groundwork for a healthy community for generations to come. A broad spectrum of stakeholders should be engaged to create the vision for each healthy community and identify priority issues. Consider health impacts A health impact assessment (HIA) is another tool that considers health upfront. An HIA is a planning tool that helps evaluate the potential health effects of a plan, project, or policy before it is built or implemented. HIAs bring potential public health impacts and considerations to the decision-making process for plans, projects, and policies that fall outside the traditional public health arenas, such as transportation and land use. It is a “health lens” that can help increase positive health outcomes and minimize adverse health outcomes. San Francisco has been an early adopter of HIAs, using the tool on diverse projects, such as neighborhood plans, affordable housing, and highway projects. The development community, local government, or both in cooperation can develop HIAs. Doctors advise their patients on how they can stay healthy, and in many ways, an HIA provides the same advice to communities. This guidance helps communities make informed choices about improving public health through community design. Incorporating health into a community’s public planning process lays the groundwork for a community for generations to come. 10P_BHP.indd 11 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 237 of 266 12 ecent demographic and lifestyle shifts show that consumers of all ages increasingly want to live in walkable, mixed-use, transit-rich communities. The economic downturn confirmed this trend: the places that best held their value were compact areas that offered mobility choices, local parks, and nearby retail and tran- sit. Banks and insurers, once hesitant to underwrite unproven development models, are now increasingly aware of the value premium of these neighborhoods. The preference shift toward healthy places and walkable communities represents an enormous opportunity for the development community. Compact, walkable communities provide economic benefits to developers through higher home sale prices, enhanced marketability, and faster sales or leases than conventional Walkable Retail Enlivens Complete Streets and Improves Economic Value In 2012, New York City’s Measuring the Street report quantified the economic im- pact of safe, walkable, and more attrac- tive streetscapes. Using a cross section of recent New York City Department of Transportation street design projects, the project found that Complete Street strate- gies such as protected bicycle lanes, pedestrian safety islands, new pedestrian plazas, and simplified intersections could reduce the number of vehicle and pedestrian accidents as well as raise commercial rents and retail sales. These improvements served the dual purpose of strengthening the economic vitality of a neighborhood and allowing its citizens to be more physically active. Walkable retail environments have been shown to have significant economic return. Automobile-dependent retail must depend on drive-by traffic alone, sacrificing leasable area for on-site park- ing. These businesses must have long frontages and large signs to be seen by drivers. The result for the investor is a product that must be quickly amortized; for the community, it is property of low community value and high traffic impact. 2 Recognize the Economic Value Healthy places can create enhanced economic value for both the private and public sectors. 10P_BHP.indd 12 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 238 of 266 13 development, according to a 2010 report by Active Living Research. These ben- efits accrue to healthy communities in suburban or rural locations as well, where developments that preserve land for open space, trails, and greenways have sold more quickly and often have a higher rate of presold units than conventional suburban developments. Two of the largest and most sought-after market segments—millennials and baby boomers—are increasingly choosing vibrant, walkable communities. Since 2000, the number of college-educated 25- to 34-year-olds has increased twice as fast in the close-in neighborhoods of the nation’s large cities than in the remainder of these metropolitan areas. Study after study shows that millennials place less value in cars or car ownership, instead spending money on shared experiences such as food, and music and art. A cycling culture has emerged among millennials, who make up the primary market of popular bike-share programs. The American Community Sur- vey recently noted that the bicycle community grew by 10 percent between 2011 and 2012. In addition, when New York City opened registration for its bike-share program in April 2013, more than 5,000 people signed up on the first day. Today, college graduates are clustering in America’s most vibrant and active metropolitan areas. Active cities have become magnets for skilled workers and the millennial generation. Those cities’ ability to attract and retain the highly skilled workforce coveted by the high-tech industry can in turn become a powerful eco- nomic development tool to recruit and retain innovative companies. In fact, these clusters of highly active knowledge workers are triggering new markets, new op- portunities, and new products and services. In a global economy where capital is footloose and the natural resources or geo- graphic location of a city have become less important, a key concept for econom- ic development has become community differentiation: in short, a community’s unique appeal drives economic prosperity. A healthy community can provide economic advantage by appealing to millennials who, as a generation, place more value on active lifestyles, and older generation X families that are seeking a variety of amenities, such as parks, trails, and recreation, in which to raise their children. The appeal also extends to baby boomers. Although surveys show that the major- ity of the 55- to 64-year-old demographic prefers to “age in place,” those who do move increasingly want to live in areas where they can walk and bike to ameni- ties such as restaurants, libraries, and cultural activities. Developers can create enduring value by meeting these demands all along the age curve. The economic opportunity of healthy places is not limited to large cities. As the tide of the housing collapse recedes, many suburbs, small towns, and rural com- munities find themselves in competition with one another. Outer-ring communities that can reinvent themselves as healthy mixed-use places will gain a competitive advantage, using active living as a way to attract investment in the community, foster growth, and increase revenues. A healthy population can also reduce the cost of health care, safety, education, and operations. 10P_BHP.indd 13 10/21/13 1:32 PM DI.D Page 239 of 266 14 ommunity engagement is a powerful vehicle for bringing about changes that improve the health of a community and its residents. But for many towns and cities, the connection between the built environment and personal health may not yet be apparent. A shared vision of a healthy community must take root before it can be cultivated and brought to bear on land development. Passionate and respected leaders can bring credibility to the concept of build- ing healthy places. This grassroots leadership is critical to attract resources and energy and to secure “buy-in” throughout the community. Selecting and cultivat- ing the messenger, therefore, becomes as important as the message. Without respected leaders to elevate and promote the concept of healthy places across the stakeholder spectrum, the vision will not be achieved. A number of strategies can be used to cultivate a shared vision of a healthy community: Communicate the benefits. Conveying the full scope of benefits— economic, social, and personal—of healthy places to all stakeholders is essential. Denver’s Healthy Living Initiative Brings New Life to Mariposa The Denver Housing Authority (DHA) and its partners are in the process of redeveloping nearly 900 new mixed-income housing units in the Mariposa neighborhood near downtown Denver. Starting in 2009, the DHA and its master planning team, Seattle-based Mithun, established physical, mental, and community health as a proxy to understand how redevelopment actions would change the quality of life for residents. The initiative, designed to be a living imple- mentation tool for designers, developers, and practitioners, uses a responsive and rigorous approach to address environmental and social determinants of health. Extensive public engagement helped identify the changes needed to make a healthier community. The process itself helped identify champions within the community. The initiative set priority areas: increase physical activity; improve pedestrian and bike opportunities; increase mobility and traffic safety; improve access to healthy foods; increase safety and security; and improve access to health care. The team, using a health mea- surement tool, established services to help improve health determi- nants for residents and policies that incentivize healthy behavior and opportunities. Monitoring has shown positive trends in many of the indicators of a healthy community, such as the total crime rate, which has dropped from 246 crimes per 1,000 people in 2005, to 157 in 2011, or the average transit commute time, which has dropped from 24 minutes in 2010 to 20 minutes in 2012. In the first phase of development, Tapiz, a 100-unit multifamily building, several elements were incorporated to improve health of residents, such as an eight-story building-integrated mural that celebrates the cultural diversity and history of the neighbor- hood and the community gardens available to residents to grow their own fresh foods in partnership with Denver Urban Gardens. 3 Empower Champions for Health Every movement needs its champions. Mariposa is an example of how champions such as the housing authority and the residents combined their efforts to achieve a positive outcome in terms of health. Together, they focused on building the Mariposa brand, encouraging grassroots actions, and communicating the benefits of an improved community. 10P_BHP.indd 14 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 240 of 266 15 Champions must ask themselves: How will each segment of the community benefit? Will these changes bring economic vitality; help our children; improve resilience, jobs, and revenue? Will they create an environment that attracts young and working families? Will they improve the choices of people with low or moderate incomes, persons with disabilities, or senior citizens? Encourage grassroots action. The business case for healthy communities is a powerful motivator for both private and public sector leadership and the poli- cies they will adopt. However, creating and sustaining healthy places requires a bottom-up approach. Community members must be identified and empow- ered to lead the effort, identify areas of need, set priorities, and take part in implementation. Leadership must come from the local community—business owners, health practitioners, community organizers, or faith-based leaders— rather than just the government in order to build credibility. Grassroots champi- ons must value collaboration, represent a diverse array of community interests, and be unafraid to take action and learn from it. Broaden the base. Cultivating a vision of health and wellness requires early, frequent, and broad public participation. Champions must be careful not to isolate target audiences; rather, the language and message must appeal to a broad mix of ages, races, and incomes. Active living may be an opportunity to engage younger, less traditionally involved demographics who value health as a lifestyle choice. Creating a broad base of constituents is not easy: it often requires building trust between groups that may not have a history of working together. Build a brand. Health is an aspirational and, ultimately, personal issue— everyone cares about their personal well-being and that of their loved ones. Extending that personal concept of wellness to the community level is a power- ful branding opportunity. A communication plan should focus on educating people about the importance of engaging in healthy activities and programs, ultimately creating a sense of neighborhood or community identity around an active lifestyle. Forge unlikely partnerships. Historically, doctors and developers have had little reason to collaborate. As the connection between land use and health be- comes well understood, partnerships that merge development and health inter- ests should be formed. The Colorado Health Foundation, for example, recently invited a prominent group of real estate professionals, including developers, architects, and planners, to help design a new “health-positive” building for the foundation’s headquarters. Similarly, Cooper Green Mercy Hospital in Birming- ham, Alabama, recently created a partnership between doctors and nurses, and local contractors, landscape architects, public officials, and former pa- tients to create an organic community garden in an underserved neighborhood near the hospital. In the future, many more opportunities will no doubt arise for partnerships between the development and public health communities. Empower Champions for Health Every movement needs its champions. 10P_BHP.indd 15 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 241 of 266 16 laces with high levels of social isolation, which can be exacerbated by the lack of public spaces and transit options, are correlated with declines in well-being and higher health costs. Loneliness, depression, and anxiety can stem from social isolation. Symptoms can affect those of any age, but often older adults are particularly vulnerable because of the loss of friends and family and their own mobility challenges. A healthy community is one that engages all its residents. Vibrant community places can offer opportunities for people to socialize with their friends and family as well as engage with people they might not otherwise meet. A well-designed public and semi-public realm can foster this serendipitous social interaction, and good programming can draw people out of their homes and into their community. Map community assets A scan conducted across the community and region can identify existing assets and gaps related to opportunities for physical activity and social engagement. This mapping process can document areas of need and help target and prioritize capital improvements and programs; for instance, a survey of vacant downtown land can identify sites for temporary public space. Take back the street The residential street should be regarded as a primary public space, not merely a conduit to meet travel needs. Communities should use the “living street” concept where appropriate. A living street is a street primarily designed for pedestrians and cyclists and a social space where people can meet and children can play safely and legally. This does not mean that vehicles cannot use the street. It means that vehicular access is subordinated to pedestrian use. Living streets can reclaim public space for community and commercial activity, and in some cases they have been shown to increase storefront rents. For smaller or less urban com- munities, a temporary living street can be a solution, for example, closing select streets to traffic on Sunday afternoons. Best practices include the following: Zero-grade separation between sidewalk and street right-of-way creates a plazalike feel. Wide sidewalks accommodate both pedestrian and retail activity. Trees, planters, and public art slow cars and make streets more attractive for shoppers and pedestrians. Active and at-grade ground-floor uses and street furni- ture create an inviting and accessible atmosphere. Gateway treatments, removal of striping, and pavement changes announce a low-speed environment. 4 Energize Shared Spaces Public gathering places have a direct, positive impact on human health. New York City Creates Pedestrian Plazas from Street Space Streets make up about 25 percent of New York City’s land area, and yet, outside of parks, streets provide few places to sit, rest, socialize, and enjoy public life. To improve the quality of life for New Yorkers and create more opportunities for social engagement, the city created more public open space by reclaiming underused street space and transforming it into pedestrian plazas. To date, the city has 26 new plazas that are in some phase of planning, design, or construction, with three additional plazas expected each year for the next ten years. The most high-profile pedestrian plazas are improving quality of life and safety for New Yorkers and visitors. A prime example is Times Square, where the city and the busi- ness improvement district are preparing to make permanent the public space enhance- ments that were installed as part of a six- month pilot during the summer of 2009. Communities large and small have under- used or leftover spaces along central inter- sections or corridors. Creating pop-up plazas can be a low-cost solution to fostering social engagement and enlivening public space. A Public Plaza Plan for underused space in New York City. 10P_BHP.indd 16 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 242 of 266 17 Rethink public places Ample and flexible space of all sizes should be avail- able for public gathering. Most parks should not be passive, single-use recreation areas. Some cities are creating pop-up parks to enliven underused public spaces. A pop-up park is a temporary use of vacant or underused space: a parking lot can become a farmers market; an urban square that is a lunch spot by day can host concerts or outdoor films at night. Program- ming, often through a dedicated manager or business improvement district (BID), helps keep the public spaces active and inviting at all times and in all seasons. Program early and often Improvements to the built environment can take years to bring to fruition and require substantial capital investment; programming is often a quick and inex- pensive solution that can produce instant results. Simple programming, such as street festivals, health fairs, and athletic events, can get people outside and into the community. Social engagement can be both spontaneous and planned, but in most cases, to sustain social interaction, spaces must be energized and programmed. Explore fail-fast initiatives Because of the inexpensive nature of programming, localities should not be afraid to try new ideas and tactics, some of which may end in failure. Pilot projects or spontaneous interventions—such as San Francisco’s Park(ing) Day, where artists and designers occupy metered parking spaces for a day, transforming them into a temporary public space—can serve as test cases at the local level. While Park(ing) Day was a success, other similar projects may fail. Failure should not be punished, merely discovered early and fixed quickly. Encourage public/private cooperation Because community places involve a mix of public and private realms, coopera- tion between property owners and local government is crucial. Public/private partnerships, often in the form of BIDs, are necessary to finance programs and recruit vendors for business opportunities. Existing regulations often need to be amended to allow temporary use permits or rezone land to permit mixed-use ac- tivities. Community foundations or nonprofit organizations can offer mini-grants to jump-start grassroots or pilot programming. Also, public school partnerships with local government and private organizations regarding curriculums, fresh-food production, and in-school consumption should be explored. Pop-up parks are temporary public spaces that allow cities to test-drive new concepts for public spaces. Examples of possible activities include play streets, movies in the park, yoga classes, food streets, art festivals, chess tournaments, and soapbox lectures. The concept behind pop-up parks is to explore which activities best suit the citizens of a particular area and how those activities can energize these public spaces, thereby leading to a more healthy local population. 10P_BHP.indd 17 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 243 of 266 18 revailing land use practices often present real and perceived barriers to change. Planning and design can create the hardware—cleaner, safer, more beautiful streets with a variety of transportation options—to overcome the physical barriers to an active lifestyle. And programming—easy, fun, and inclusive oppor- tunities available to all—can serve as the software to surmount the perceptions that keep people from changing their behavior. Health is about individual choices. To overcome inertia—after all, human nature is to do what is easy and what one knows—communities must make the healthy op- tion the easy option. By providing a menu of choices that are easy and accessible to all, a community can lower the barriers to entry for an active life. For example, if you want children to walk to school, make sure they have sidewalks and safe pedestrian crossings between their neighborhoods and schools. When planning their communities, practitioners should ask themselves the follow- ing questions. Do people feel safe? Traffic conditions or poor street design can deter the hardiest cyclist, let alone a novice biker. And dimly lit and dirty streets can feel unsafe and uninviting to pe- destrians. The National Association of City Transportation Officials has guidelines for designing safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities that can help foster a safe and secure environment. Key elements include the following: Sidewalks designed with appropriate width, lighting, shade, trees, buffers from moving vehicles, street furniture, and public art; Bikeways and bike crossings at intersections well marked for maximum visibility; Bikeways protected from traffic through strip- ing, planters, street parking, and curbs; Refuges for pedestrians through raised and buffered islands at wide or complex intersec- tions; and Raised planter boxes or bollards as tem- porary and low-cost solution for unsafe or unattractive areas. How accessible are the transportation options? Can people walk to their destinations? Can they bike to them? Can they use transit? How many users would reasonably have these choices? 5 Make Healthy Choices Easy Communities should make the healthy choice the one that is SAFE—safe, accessible, fun, and easy. The Indianapolis Cultural Trail Leads the Way The Indianapolis Cultural Trail is an eight-mile protected bike and pedestrian path that connects downtown Indianapolis with a half-dozen emerging cultural and entertainment districts. A 1.5-mile portion runs along the restored Indianapolis Canal, and alongside the path are sidewalks and swales designed to capture and filter storm- water runoff and to provide greenery and shade. Custom-designed benches, signs, and trash receptacles, along with extensive public art, contribute to the overall impres- sion of safety, beauty, and quality. The city timed a major programming rollout—a downtown-wide effort to stage 75 cultural and entertainment events along the trail—to coincide with the trail’s May 2013 opening. The $55 million trail was made possible through a combination of federal funds and philanthropic donations. The previously automobile-dominated city hopes the trail will play a major role in talent attraction and retention for the region and signifi- cantly improve economic development and quality of life in central Indiana. The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides numerous options for bikeways, focusing on safe and efficient sharing of public roadways. 10P_BHP.indd 18 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 244 of 266 19 Healthy communities provide multiple, often overlapping, means of addressing key needs and providing key services. Roads carry cars, buses, transit, bicyclists, and pedestri- ans in a safe and equitable manner; very few travel elements are purely mono-functional. This approach reduces the costs to provide infrastructure and services and enhances the utility of systems by ensuring backups. To pursue this approach, do the following: Assess gaps and areas of mono-functional travel service through asset mapping. Develop pedestrian and biking plans that promote connectivity to a regional transit system. Improve and make clear local bus access to and from regional stations. Will the experience of getting there be fun and interesting? Public art and whimsical design can encour- age people to walk and bicycle, creating a memorable and positive experience. Varied color, material, and signage can double as wayfinding devices and differentiate neigh- borhoods or communities. Enhancing and emphasizing beauty can be a key source of community pride and social cohesion. The intangible benefits of public art—aesthetic beauty, cultural interpretation, education, inspiration, and general improvement of the urban environment—are apparent to us all. But the tangible benefits are less known. If done right, investing in public art can generate publicity, public recognition, and marketing cachet, a potential source of positive financial returns for property owners. Will it be easy? Newcomers as well as existing residents may be unaware of community ameni- ties or confused about directions or routes. Mass transit and bus systems can often be daunting for the uninitiated. Address wayfinding needs and develop a system of signage for pedestrians and cyclists. Neighborhood gateway markers, with appropriate scaled signage or public art, can orient people and strengthen neighborhood identity. Can we get more people to do the healthy thing by making it fun? Installed in 2009 at a subway stairwell in Stockholm, Sweden, as a fun musical experience for pedestrians, the original Piano Stairs project succeeded in attracting 66 percent more pedestrians to use the stairs instead of the escalator. (The project’s success was described by the RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service of the University of Texas at Austin.) 10P_BHP.indd 19 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 245 of 266 20 or school-age children, seniors on fixed incomes, people with disabilities, and those with social and economic disadvantages, the healthy choice is not always the easiest choice. Racial and ethnic minorities and low-income individu- als tend to face greater disease burdens and have shorter lifespans than their nonminority and wealthier counterparts. The physical isolation and lack of access suffered by older people and those with disabilities are linked to early death and disease, and chronic exposure to stress may exacerbate these health disparities. Increasing access to healthier living choices among these groups should not be seen as a cost burden. Designing for a variety of abilities and ages, especially in light of America’s aging population, can generate value from both a real estate and a community health perspective. In the next 40 years, the number of Ameri- cans over the age of 65 will double from 40 million to 80 million. From 2010 to 2030, the number of U.S. homeowners over 65 will increase 70 percent, and the number of renters of the same age will increase 100 percent. The current lack of housing catering to the growing numbers in the older population segments repre- sents a tremendous potential market for residential developers. Improving the location and design of both public schools and affordable housing can also have very real benefits in terms of health costs and public expenditure. Low-income residents who often feel unsafe in their neighborhoods may be less likely to walk or exercise, and those in substandard housing may be exposed to poor air quality and environmentally hazardous materials like asbestos or lead paint. Areas near current or planned public transit stations represent a particu- larly favorable opportunity to integrate new affordable units by taking advantage of cross-subsidization opportunities presented by the rising demand and cost premium for transit-oriented development. Design for all ages and abilities Universal design principles can and should be used to ensure access for all while accommodating the market realities of the aging curve. Sixty to 70 percent of Americans say they want to age in place, either in their current home or in their neighborhood. But most homes and communities are not set up to house the older population. A healthy community is a sustainable community—one where a person who is 20, 40, 60, or even 80 can live without any loss in quality of life. The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University publishes a set of principles for designing for all ages and abilities. They include the following: Equitable in use: open floor plans; first-floor bedrooms; stepless entries; easy- entry showers, handrails, and grab bars; higher electrical outlets; lower light switches; Flexible in use: adjustable countertops and shelves; varied cabinet heights; redundant systems that use both audio and video displays; Intuitive to use: pebbled or textured walkways; high-contrast color and surface texture schemes; and 6 Ensure Equitable Access Many segments of the population would benefit from better access to services, amenities, and opportunities. 10P_BHP.indd 20 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 246 of 266 21 Easy to use: components that require less than five pounds of force; easy-open hinges for doors and cabinets; lever handles rather than doorknobs. Integrate land use and transit Prosperous and sustainable communities deploy adequate infra- structure to support all modes of travel, connecting all people to ser- vices and amenities. A transportation plan should focus on moving people, not cars, and include a wide array of stakeholders to ensure that transit needs are met. The more travel choices that are available to at-risk groups, the more likely they can pick the healthy choice. In automobile-dependent communities, providing choice can be difficult. Many suburbs lack the density to support light rail or sub- way systems and may feature only limited bus service. For those places, connectivity is paramount: a complete sidewalk system, safe bicycle and pedestrian connections, and clear routes to safe and clean bus stations can increase travel choice. Similarly, school siting and design decisions can have both eco- nomic and health impacts. Schools in walkable settings require smaller school transportation expenditures and allow more children to get exercise walking to and from school. This is particularly important today because many school districts have eliminated physical education from their curriculum. A holistic transit plan will succeed only if it is accompanied by supportive land uses. For example, Charlotte, North Carolina, has for years linked its transportation and land use policies to create a regional transit vision. Focusing on its five major transportation corridors, the city implemented community-responsive mass-transit solutions—rapid bus transit to the southeast, light rail to the south, commuter rail to the north—that were paired with an investment strategy and regulatory framework to encourage development around future transit stations. Focus on schools Public schools are a place where health disparities across income levels can be addressed. Public schools have increasingly been built on large sites away from the residential neighborhoods they serve. This trend is a significant predictor of how children travel to school: a study of South Carolina schools shows that students are four times more likely to walk to schools built before 1983 than those built after that date. Schools can be the center of a neigh- borhood not just for families with school-age children, but for all residents if the school also serves as a community center and recreation center. Lamar Loop A walk down Main Street in Lamar, Colorado, with a late winter storm blowing in tells a lot about the challenges of trying to exercise in this rural city on the southeastern Colo- rado plains. Conditions may include 50-mile-per-hour sand- storms, 18-wheelers blasting past at similar speeds, and for pedestrians, a dangerous situation caused by the lack of sidewalks, bike lanes, and safe crossings on this five-lane roadway, which also serves as U.S. Highway 50/287. “The biggest barrier we hear about is the inability to walk or bike to work, to home, or to the grocery store,” said Karen Bryant, chief operating officer of the Prowers Medical Center and a member of Lamar’s Healthy Places Steering Committee. “There’s nothing connecting the north and south sides of town. You have to cross the railroad tracks.” When completed, the Lamar Loop will be a seven-mile multi- use loop trail for walking, biking, and equestrian use as a central organizing feature that would connect the north side’s Escondido Park and the south side’s parks and recreation facilities to an existing greenway along the west side and an existing canal trail on the east side of the city. The rural town promotes the use of the trail as a safe route to school and work, as well as for city events and sports activities. 10P_BHP.indd 21 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 247 of 266 22 ixed-use development is any development or building that physically or functionally integrates a combination of residential, office, commercial, cul- tural, or institutional uses. ULI has concluded that mixed-use development makes people much more likely to walk or use transit to run errands, go shopping, or go to lunch than does spread- out, automobile-oriented, single-use development. Researchers have found that even a base minimum of physical activity can help combat obesity. A simple walk to the transit stop or bus station can do wonders: a study of transit-oriented neighbor- hoods in Charlotte, North Carolina, found that light-rail users weighed on average six pounds less than those who do not use light rail. People are more likely to walk to destinations such as home, transit, shopping, or restaurants if these places are located within a quarter-mile to half-mile of their workplace. Our land use patterns, however, often encourage a lifestyle where our only walk is from our home to the car in the driveway or from the parking garage to work. A dense and fine-grain mix of uses can support a variety of transportation options that increase access to essential goods and services and reduce health and envi- ronmental costs. In communities where this density is not possible, developers and planners can avoid monoculture by designing flexibility into the built environ- ment and concentrating development in nodes. Mixed-use development has dimensions beyond land use. Healthy places also mix incomes, generations, and housing type. This requires creative public/private partnerships: communities with a broad mix of housing and incomes, particularly around transit, often require incentives or financing programs to attain economic feasibility. ULI has encouraged the development of mixed-use centers in documents including Ten Principles for Reinventing America’s Suburban Strips and Ten Principles for Successful Development around Transit. One challenge to “mixing it up” is that the real estate industry tends toward simplicity: developers often prefer build- ings to contain either a single use or at minimum a strong leading use. Some lenders are hesitant to finance unproven concepts, especially vertical mixed use, and municipalities have not always had success trying to regulate the mix of uses—for instance, requiring ground- floor retail where the market may not support it. How can towns and cities overcome these challenges? 7 Mix It Up A variety of land uses, building types, and public spaces can be used to improve physical and social activity. CityPlace in West Palm Beach, Florida, combines higher-density residential space with main-street retailing and active public gathering places. 10P_BHP.indd 22 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 248 of 266 23 Incentivize the mix Local governments should match incentives to areas that lack certain amenities. Other tools to entice desired mixes and densi- ties include floor/area ratio bonuses; affordable housing bonuses; density exclusions or tax abatements for preferred uses, such as a grocery stores or daycare centers; tax abatements; and impact- based development fees, among others. Remove regulatory barriers Outdated zoning ordinances and building codes can deter mixed-use development even if planning guidance recommends it. For example, many zoning codes do not allow accessory dwelling units, which increase density, offer more housing options, and encour- age intergenerational and mixed-income environments. Localities should update the regulatory framework to attract the right mix of development. Rethink parking Parking often makes the difference be- tween smart growth and sprawl. But the problem of parking demand remains an important lever in the development process: too little parking leads to lost revenue; too much parking can raise the cost of housing or office rents. Com- munities large and small should revisit their parking policies to achieve the right balance. The city of Sacramento’s parking ordinance, for instance, divides the city into areas based on parking need and eliminates parking minimums in transit-rich areas. The use of “district parking,” where developers pay a fee in lieu of provid- ing parking spaces, can provide centralized parking for multiple users and frees valuable ground for development as well as social interaction and recreational activities. Optimize uses Retail uses should have high bay space and be configured to engage and en- liven the public environment; residences at upper levels should be designed to be livable with appropriate privacy and amenities; office components should have a clear address and identity; public spaces should be flexible and programmed. No use should seem secondary, no matter its footprint. A multigenerational mixed-use community located near Portland, Oregon, Bridge Meadows is designed to bring together three generations to support families adopting children from foster care and to create an opportunity for older residents to have a sense of community and purpose. Bridge Meadows works at the intersection of child welfare, aging, and affordable housing issues that affect each of us, not just socially and emotionally, but economically as well. 10P_BHP.indd 23 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 249 of 266 24 n 2010, the Knight Foundation partnered with the Gallup organization to survey 43,000 residents of 26 U.S. cities to determine what attracts people to a place and keeps them there. The study found that the most important factors that cre- ate emotional bonds between people and their communities were not jobs, but rather “physical beauty, opportunities for socializing, and a city’s openness to all people.” The Knight Foundation also found that communities with the highest levels of attachment to place also had the strongest economies. Cohesive com- munities also report higher levels of safety and security, community activity, and emotional health and well-being. Community involvement and political participa- tion are associated with improved health outcomes; for instance, one study found a direct link between group membership and reduced mortality rates. Often, the unique features that contribute to a deep-rooted sense of place are ecological, architectural, historic, or geographic. Proximity to natural places has a direct, positive effect on physical and mental health, as well as stress reduc- tion. Studies have shown that children, in particular, have higher rates of physical activity the closer they live to parks and green space and report lower levels of stress and adversity. 8 Embrace Unique Character Places that are different, unusual, or unique can be helpful in promoting physical activity. Greenville Uncovers the Falls on the Reedy The Reedy River Falls once powered Greenville, South Carolina’s early grist mills, bringing industry and growth to the city. But by the mid-20th century, the river had become polluted by upstream textile mills, its banks littered with debris and trash. In 1960, a four-lane vehicular bridge was constructed over and across the falls, obstructing views and blocking public access to one of the city’s most treasured natural features. Using funds generated through a local hospitality tax, the vehicu- lar bridge was removed and the $13 million Falls on the Reedy Park opened in 2004. The park, located just off Main Street in the heart of downtown and within walking distance for many of the city’s 19,000 workers, boasts a seamless alignment of architec- ture, art, and nature. The park is anchored by its most distinctive feature: the Liberty Bridge, a curving pedestrian bridge that spans 355 feet across the river, giving pedestrians unobstructed views of the falls below. Falls Park also plays a prominent role in Greenville’s growth and quality of life. It helped accelerate development along the Reedy River, forging the West End Historic District and sparking multiple mixed-use projects, and generated private investment in the immediate area, as evidenced by the $65 million RiverPlace mixed-use development, incorporating residential, office, restau- rant, retail, and hotel uses and located directly across Main Street from the park. In addition, a new $29 million mixed-use baseball stadium, residential, office, restaurant, and retail development came online after the park’s opening. Greenville leaders often emphasize that success can be found in the special attributes of a community. Although that particular attribute is different in each city—in Greenville’s case, it was a 60-foot waterfall located right off Main Street—capitalizing on those existing assets is crucial for economic development. Falls Park on the Reedy. 10P_BHP.indd 24 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 250 of 266 25 Embracing the unique character of a site, neighborhood, or community can economically differentiate a project or place in the market, supporting asset value and bestowing a competitive ad- vantage. The concept of authenticity is a slippery one, and artificial attempts to create it are often rejected by consum- ers. The following are some successful strategies for crafting a unique identity. Rediscover assets Many towns and cities have had suc- cess by rediscovering their waterfronts or historic neighborhoods. Washington, D.C.’s initiative to reclaim the Anacostia River, for example, has resulted in more than $7 billion in private investment in neighborhoods, offices, and parks near the river. A community-driven process can help identify the key assets of a place and prioritize development. Special charac- teristics can be identified, celebrated, and expressed through programming, art, and design, thus creating a focal point upon which to build community identity. A strong communication plan can translate the economic and health benefits to residents, developers, and decision makers. Integrate natural systems Connecting to nature often means reconnecting natural features or environments, such as native forests or streams that may have been cut off by development or paved over. A healthy natural environment can reduce costs and contribute to the quality of life for residents, workers, and visitors. Smaller cities such as Greenville, South Carolina, have had great success: the city’s Falls Park on the Reedy—a winding downtown park that uncovered a waterfall that for decades was covered by a concrete overpass—has helped generate more than $100 million in down- town investment. Cities and towns should link new investment to its benefits for natural ecosystems and use it to prioritize development. This strategy applies at all scales—from a simple bench under a tree, to an open window in the office, to a countywide reduction in greenhouse gases. A broad and consistent effort contributes to a unique feel of a community. The Yards Park on the Anacostia River blends active and passive activities with the heritage of an industrial waterfront. 10P_BHP.indd 25 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 251 of 266 26 hen considering what constitutes a healthy community, planners and de- velopers have often failed to assign food the same prominence as transit, open space, or housing mix. When food does enter the conversation, it is often in a fragmented way—where a restaurant should be located or how to attract a grocery store tenant, for example. The role of healthy food in our communities, however, is much more comprehensive: it is a real estate amenity, community builder, and project differentiator. Building healthy communities starts with physical access to food. Many inner-city and rural families have little to no access to fresh, healthy, or affordable foods. For example, Detroit, a city of 139 square miles, has just five grocery stores. Although Detroit may be an extreme case, many poor inner-city neighborhoods have long been underserved by full-service grocery stores. Likewise, residents of rural ar- eas, some in the most productive agricultural regions of the country, are often 25 to 50 miles from the nearest full-service supermarket. The distance to the nearest supermarket or grocery store has been found by studies to predict healthier eat- ing and lower risk of obesity and chronic disease. But access to healthy food goes beyond a brick-and-mortar problem. Communi- ties should strive to integrate the full spectrum of healthy food cultivation, retailing, and consumption into everyday life. Rethink the grocery store The assumption of most planners and developers—that trips to the grocery store are infrequent, driving is the only mode of travel, and the amount of goods purchased requires the use of a car—dominates the economics of grocery retail- ers. Supermarkets, it is thought, require large physical footprints and even larger market areas to support them. In 2007, the Food Marketing Institute noted that the median grocery store size was 47,500 square feet. A growing body of research, however, is showing that these assumptions may no longer be valid. A University of Washing- ton study has discovered that more and more shoppers are traveling by foot or by bicycle and that shoppers are making more visits and buying fewer items on each visit. Other studies indicate that the retail model is “fracturing”—more con- sumers are shopping for groceries online or in nontraditional or fresh-format stores. Developers and planners should rethink the modern grocery store in light of changing consumer patterns. In some Chicago neighborhoods, for example, 9 Promote Access to Healthy Food Because diet affects human health, access to healthy food should be a considered as part of any development proposal. Fresh Moves mobile produce market in Chicago brings affordable, healthy food to neighborhoods that cannot initially support a full-service grocery store. 10P_BHP.indd 26 10/21/13 1:33 PM DI.D Page 252 of 266 27 the grocery store can come to you: Fresh Moves, a mobile food market, uses a converted Chicago Transit Authority bus to offer fresh food, often at prices more affordable than retail chains located in affluent neighborhoods, to urban areas underserved by traditional groceries. Make food a destination In major cities, historic markets have become destinations for food, both creating economic development opportunities and encouraging healthy eating. Food is a place-making tool for neighborhood and ethnic identity. The Ferry Building in San Francisco draws more than 1 million visitors a year and generates $1,250 per square foot. Detroit’s Eastern Market 360 program is turning a historic market- place into a community development anchor, addressing food access, workforce training, and job creation. Outside urban areas, agricultural parks, food belts, and preservation districts can promote a history of agriculture and take advantage of growing awareness and popularity of farm-to-table food. In Maryland’s Montgomery County, county offi- cials match aspiring farmers with unused land in its Agriculture Reserve, returning the land to productivity and linking urban and rural areas. Incorporate access to healthy food into local land use and economic policy Communities small and large should invest in natural lands, just as they identify where to invest in development. Cities and close-in suburbs can institute urban agricultural policies and allow vacant land to be used for community gardens. Community centers can be retrofitted with enhanced kitchen facilities to enable community cooking or nutrition programs. Less dense areas, especially those with a farming past, can create agricultural preservation districts that preserve open space and arable land. By promoting agricultural tourism and rediscover- ing their agrarian history, communities can further differentiate themselves and engage diverse populations through the sustainable agriculture movement. Detroit’s Eastern Market Turns 360 Degrees In 2008, a full renovation of Detroit’s East- ern Market was commissioned by the city. The master plan went beyond the physical rebuilding of the 1891 market, envisioning a dynamic food hub that would serve as a community development engine for the city and help “relocalize” the region’s food system. The plan, known as Eastern Market 360, adopted the food cycle as its model, using production, processing, and retail sale of food as a way to teach nutrition, train workers, and create new jobs in a dis- tressed community. The program includes plans for a 2.5-acre “starter” greenhouse to seed community gardens throughout the city, a commissary for local mobile markets, classroom space for nutrition education and use by local schools, and an incubator kitchen for local food-related processing or catering businesses. The ultimate goal of the program is to create a new local economy in Detroit, le- veraging the market to create a robust food district that strengthens local communities through job creation and access to healthy food. The city estimates that recapturing just 20 percent of food production from areas outside the city would generate more than 4,000 jobs and $19 million in tax revenue. 10P_BHP.indd 27 10/21/13 1:34 PM DI.D Page 253 of 266 28 n the time since its widespread adoption in the 1950s, the automobile has com- pletely reorganized the land use patterns of the United States. Physical activity was designed almost completely out of everyday life. Social commentator Walter Lippmann once said: “We have changed the environment more quickly than we know how to change ourselves.” Communities should strive to create environments that encourage healthy life- styles and maximize the opportunities for all residents to get the physical activity they need to stay healthy. Decisions regarding the built environment should al- ways include consideration for making the physical improvements consistent with active design. The CDC recommends that adults need 150 minutes of moderate aerobic activity a week; children need even more—at least one hour of physi- cal activity each day. Less than half of adults and children, however, meet those baseline requirements. Colocate activities Recreational opportunities should provide universal appeal. For instance, provide adult exercise equipment or walking tracks near children’s playgrounds to offer an opportunity for parents and guardians to exercise while they are supervising their children. Senior center activities could be colocated with libraries and schools, taking advantage of older adults’ experience and time to engage in educational opportunities for children. Access to safe neighborhood play spaces for children is associated with higher rates of physical activity and lower rates of time spent watching television and Make It Active Urban design can be employed to create an active community.10 Physical activity has almost been completely designed out of everyday life. Adding colors to playgrounds encourages activity. 10P_BHP.indd 28 10/21/13 1:34 PM DI.D Page 254 of 266 29 playing video games. Colocation can be used at offices as well: workplace physi- cal activity programs in the United States have been shown to reduce short-term sick leave and health care costs and to increase productivity. Begin every trip with a walk Prioritize walking and biking as safe, viable, and enjoyable modes of transpor- tation and recreation throughout the community. A New York City initiative, for example, is a plan to ensure that all New Yorkers live within a ten-minute walk of a park. The city also is incorporating active design ideas—encouraging stair use and colocating recreation areas—into the request for proposals process. Implement active-living guidelines Studies show that vehicle-pedestrian traffic accidents are more than twice as likely to occur in places without sidewalks, and more than 40 percent of pedestri- an fatalities occur where no crosswalk is available. Active-living design guidelines can help fill gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network to create a continuous, interconnected system. Regional bike plans and bike sharing can help promote contiguous access and enhance multimodal transportation. Design for flexibility Land efficiency should be maximized for human engagement. The era of single- use districts and public buildings is over: multifunctional is the future. This is especially true in suburban or rural areas, where single-use buildings cannot be justified in a time of tight capital budgets. School buildings, sports facilities, and playgrounds should be open to the public through scheduled programming and for appropriate informal use. This joint use of public facilities may require rethink- ing of code or local laws to promote active lifestyles. Successful bike-share programs have become increasingly popular, providing urban dwellers and visitors with an alternative, healthy option in transportation. The High Line in New York City provides both active and passive amenities for residents and visitors. 10P_BHP.indd 29 10/21/13 1:34 PM DI.D Page 255 of 266 30 upported by current demographic and socioeconomic trends, market de- mand in cities, suburbs, and rural areas is undergoing fundamental shifts in response to concerns about community health. Today, physical inactivity and unhealthy diet are second only to tobacco use as the main causes of premature death in the United States. A growing body of research indicates that properly designed buildings, appropriate placement of structures, easy-to-reach parks, programming of community spaces, and access to healthy foods can have an extraordinary impact on community health. Communities need to leverage their health advantage and reimagine how property is developed and how people live so they can stay competitive and relevant. Although it would be gratifying if all the preceding suggestions were adopted by every community, movement toward even a few would be beneficial. Many communities consider using “baby steps” or one step at a time. This incremen- tal adoption of one or a few principles that are digestible and actionable would improve the community’s appetite for more. Conclusion 10P_BHP.indd 30 10/21/13 1:34 PM DI.D Page 256 of 266 31 It is also important to understand that any community has many moving parts and that different constituencies can expect to benefit in different ways from these Ten Principles. The local government benefits because local economic development improves, the developer and investor benefit because they can create viable projects and add value, and the individual citizen benefits because the physical and cultural environment becomes more livable. Everyone benefits when people are healthier. This booklet is one of a series of publications, research, programs, and convoca- tions on the issue of human health and the built environment. Over the next two years, ULI will continue to research and explore health and health-related issues as they relate to the built environment, land use, and the real estate industry. For continuing information on this subject, visit www.uli.org/health. 10P_BHP.indd 31 10/21/13 1:34 PM DI.D Page 257 of 266 32 10P_BHP.indd 32 10/21/13 1:34 PM DI.D Page 258 of 266 10P_BHP.indd 3 10/21/13 1:34 PM DI.D Page 259 of 266 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20007 www.uli.org ISBN 978-0-87420-283-0 9780874202830 52495 10P_BHP.indd 4 10/21/13 1:34 PM DI.D Page 260 of 266 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: PCDC Matrix Date: June 4, 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:June 9, 2014 Item Number:DI.F AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.F Page 261 of 266 PC D C W o r k P l a n M a t r i x – J u n e 9 , 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 . Ju n e 9 , 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 Ju n e 9 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 . A P u b l ic Hearing was co n d u c t e d 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 M a y 6 , 2 0 1 4, staff reviewed the it e m w i t h t h e P C D C o n M a y 2 7 , 2 0 1 4 , a n d w i l l r e t u r n with a draft Ordinance at th e J u n e 9 , 2 0 1 4 m e e t i n g . · 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 2 6 2 o f 2 6 6 Ju n e 9 , 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 2 6 3 o f 2 6 6 Ju n e 9 , 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 Co 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 e r e h e l d t h e w e e k o f March 11-13 and March 18 - 2 0 w i t h g r o c e r y s t o r e i n t e r c e p t e v e n t s h e l d A p r i l 7-9. Report back to the co m m u n i t y o f t h e v i s i o n t h e m e s w a s h e l d M a y 2 1 st. Next step a draft report to be p r e s e n t e d a t t h e J u n e 3 0 th C O W m e e t i n g . · 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 . J o i n t P C D C a n d P W C m e e t i n g h e l d on June 2nd to review th e d r a f t p o l i c i e s f o r 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 ive plans. · 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 9 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 t h e f i n a l T I P f o r a c t i o n a t P C DC on June 9, 2014. 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 2 6 4 o f 2 6 6 Ju n e 9 , 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 2 6 5 o f 2 6 6 Ju n e 9 , 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 J u n e 9 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 6-9-14 meeting. DI . F Pa g e 2 6 6 o f 2 6 6