HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-2015 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PACKETCITY OF
UB
WASHINGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 21, 2015
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER — 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers
II. ROLL CALL /ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM (Pledge of Allegiance)
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 14, 2015
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comment from the audience on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or public
hearing.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Update on Planning and Development Department activities.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2015 Comprehensive Sewer Plan* (Elwell)
Summary: Conduct a Public Hearing on the 2015 Comprehensive Sewer Plan
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Comprehensive Plan Update* (Tate)
Summary: Staff to bring forward draft Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of the Comprehensive
Plan Update.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The City of Auburn Planning Commission is an eight member advisory body that provides recommendations to the
Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as zoning.
Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to the
City Council who must ultimately make the final decision.
CITY OF
DRAFT
RN
WASHINGTON
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 14, 2015
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
II. ROLL CALL /ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Planning Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice -Chair Copple,
Commissioner Mason, Commissioner Baggett, and Commissioner Smith.
Commissioner Lee is excused.
Staff present included: Assistant Director of Community Development Jeff Tate,
Assistant Director of Engineering /City Engineer Ingrid Gaub, City Attorney Dan Heid,
Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon, Utilities Engineering Manager Lisa Tobin, Water
Utility Engineer Susan Fenhaus, Sewer Utility Engineer Robert Elwell, Planner
Alexandria Teague, Urban Design Planner Lauren Flemister, Planner II Gary Yao, Office
Assistant Jennifer Oliver, and Community Development Secretary Tina Kriss.
Members of the public present: There were no members of the public present.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 17, 2015
Staff informed the Commission that a scrivener's error has been corrected; the date of
the meeting has been changed to March 17, 2015.
Commissioner Copple moved and Commissioner Smith seconded to approve the
minutes from the March 17 meeting as corrected.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5 -0
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or
public hearing.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Assistant Director Tate reported the recommendations of the Planning Commission on
Communal Residences went before Council Study Session on April 13 2015, the Council
recognized the Commissions diligence and work on this item. This item will move
forward to City Council for action.
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 a new Code Compliance Officer will be starting employment
with the City. The City currently has two Code Compliance Officers (working in the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2015
capacity as responders); this position will educate the public to make them more aware
of city code requirements.
Applications will start coming in for the Auburn Community Center & Youth /Teen Center
at the end of April or first part of May, with the internal review going from May into June
in order to be completed by next year..
Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon announced that there is activity on the purchase
of the 3 parcels south of City Hall. He noted also that Development is planned, with a
pre - application meeting, on a project west of Lowes and across A Street NE. The project
has multi family components along with senior apartments.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Utility Engineer Susan Fenhaus presented the staff report on the 2015
Comprehensive Water Plan.
The Commission and staff discussed the current water rates and when the water rates
for the city will be reviewed and if a water rate cost analysis could be done showing the
rate /cost without the City using wholesale water from the Tacoma Public Utilities pipeline
#5.
City Attorney Heid stated there may be some information, short of a cost analysis, that
staff could provide to you prior to the next meeting.
Chair Roland opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the 2015
Comprehensive Water Plan at 6:23 p.m.
Chair Roland invited anyone for or against the proposed code amendments regarding
the Water plan to come forward for testimony:
With no public present for public testimony, Chair Roland closed the public hearing at
623 p.m. With no comments from the public, the Commission deliberated.
Commissioner Copple moved and Commissioner Smith seconded to recommend
moving the 2015 Comprehensive Water Plan forward to City Council for approval,
subject to a report being submitted to the Council, showing the cost of the program
without using wholesale water from the Tacoma Public Utilities purchase.
Motion approved. 5 -0
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. 2015 Comprehensive Sewer Plan
Sewer Utility Engineer Robert Elwell provided a briefing on the 2015 Comprehensive
Sewer Plan. The Commission and Staff discussed the level -of- service policies,
system capacity with the existing and future conditions.
A discussion was held as to the sewer utility assets future improvements,
maintenance and operation, and repair /refurbishment and the timing of replacement.
A brief review of the Capital Improvement Plan was provided.
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 14, 2015
Staff reviewed a sewer system map depicting the county trunk lines, existing system,
and future schematic of extensions.
At the conclusion of the presentation, at 7:16 p.m., Chair Roland recessed the
meeting for a break for 20 minutes. The meeting was reconvened at 7:40 p.m.
B. Comprehensive Plan Update
Assistant Director Jeff Tate introduced new Planner Alex Teague. The Planning staff
provided a PowerPoint presentation to review the Comprehensive Plan update
organization and format. Staff stepped through the contents of each chapter
including A Narrative History; the Existing Conditions which include key
demographics, and population and employment information were discussed. A
general review of the Comprehensive Plan Process was provided along with the
Principles and Goals section format of the update.
The Vision and Core Values, Objectives and Policies outline was discussed. Staff
reviewed Chapter 5, Land Use, and the outline of Chapter 6, Areas of Emphasis.
Chapter 7, Implementation Policies outline was reviewed. Section 4, Other Planning
Documents and the additional appendixes A & B were discussed in order to provide
the Planning Commission with the overall format and outline of the update.
Assistant Director Tate provided a matrix of the Comprehensive Plan update
proposed review schedule. It was determined by the Commission and staff that the
Commission would meet on April 21, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. and review the schedule at
the end of each meeting.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Page 3
13°-U
--.0°° WASHINGTON
To: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Ron Copple, Vice - Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
Memorandum
Engineering Division
From: Bob Elwell, Sewer Utility Engineer
Lisa Tobin, Utilities Engineering Manager
Date: April 14, 2015
Re: 2015 Comprehensive Sewer Plan - Second Review and Public Hearing
The City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Sewer Plan in parallel with the City's
overall Comprehensive Plan. This plan is an update of the existing Sewer Comprehensive Plan
adopted in 2009. Its purpose is to guide the City with respect to future activities and
improvements for the Sanitary Sewer Utility. The final plan will consist of one binder; containing
the Executive Summary, Chapters 1 -9, appendices, and a system map. The City Council
recently completed an initial review of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan at its March 23, 2015
study session.
At the April 14 Planning Commission meeting, Sewer Utility Staff provided an initial briefing of
the plan, highlighted key conclusions, and described the major areas of focus for the Sewer
Utility over the course of the next 6 years.
At the Planning Commission's April 21, 2015 regular meeting a public hearing on the
Comprehensive Sewer Plan is proposed to be conducted. The purpose of this hearing is to
receive public input on the Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and for the Planning Commission to
deliberate and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
The required environmental review process is currently being conducted for the Comprehensive
Sewer Plan. A copy of the environmental checklist application prepared for Comprehensive
Sewer Plan is being provided to the Planning Commission (Exhibit A).
Hard copies of the Draft Comprehensive Sewer Plan have been transmitted to the Planning
Commission. An electronic version of the Draft Comprehensive Sewer Plan can be found on the
City's website at the following link:
http : / /weblink. auburnwa.gov /External /ElectronicFile.aspx? docid= 260927 &dbid =0
1
Exhibit A
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
UPDATED 2014
Purpose of checklist:
Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization
or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental
impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal.
Instructions for applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please
answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult
with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or
"does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown.
You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate
answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision -
making process.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of
time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal
or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your
answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant
adverse impact.
Instructions for Lead Agencies:
Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to
evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse
impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to
make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is
responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable
parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEE FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please
completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or
site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead
agency may exclude (for non - projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements —that do not
contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 1 of 19
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
City of Auburn, 2015 Comprehensive Sewer Plan
2. Name of applicant:
City of Auburn, Community Development & Public Works Department, Sewer Division
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Community Development & Public Works Department
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
253 - 931 -3010
Robert Elwell, Sewer Utility Engineer
253 - 931 -4008
4. Date checklist prepared:
March 26, 2015
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Auburn
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
The Comprehensive Sewer Plan is scheduled for adoption during 2015. It identifies near -
term projects for the next six years, and long -term projects over the next twenty years. It
also provides direction for inspection, maintenance, and operation of the utility.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
None beyond those discussed in this Comprehensive Sewer Plan The next comprehensive
sewer plan update is proposed for the year 2021.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Depending upon the scope of projects proposed in the plan, an individual environmental
checklist and threshold determination would be completed as specified projects are
proposed for construction. There are no environmental or background studies that have
been completed for this sanitary sewer plan.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 2 of 19
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
At this time, there are no known pending applications for general applicability related to the
area covered by the sewer system. There may be applications pending related to
improvements to the sewer system such as various on -going plats and developer
extensions occurring within the sewer service area. The City plans to adopt the capital
improvement plan outlined in this document as part of the City's six -year capital facilities
plan.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
The Comprehensive Water Plan must be approved by the City of Auburn and the
Washington State Department of Ecology.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and
the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that
ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat
those answers on this page.
The proposed non - project action includes adoption of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan as an
element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City of Auburn's 2015 Comprehensive
Sewer Plan replaces the City of Auburn's 2009 Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The plan
examines the existing sewer service area which includes both areas within the city limits and
potential annexation areas for the City of Auburn. It addresses policies, design criteria, and
recommends improvements to the sewer system and its service area. The plan analyzes
the current level of service and identifies important projects necessary to meet City and
State Standards with regard to public health, facility efficiency, operation , and maintenance.
The wide range of facility improvements includes repair and replacement, system
improvements, facility evaluations, and extensions of the utility to meet future sewer
demands. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan is an ongoing element of the city
Comprehensive Plan and serves as a guide for the operation, maintenance and expansion
of the utility within the Sewer Service Area, in accordance with local, County, and State
requirements.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and
section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of
area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site
plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should
submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or
detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The sewer service planning area as established in the plan is defined as the City of Auburn's
existing city limits and potential annexation areas. The City of Auburn's service area has
been modified by several interlocal agreements with neighboring sewer service providers.
Those agreements are included in Appendix A of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The
service area is shown on Figure 2 -2 of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and reflects those
agreements.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 3 of 19
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
A. General description of the site (circle one):
mountainous, other
Flat
, rolling, hilly,
steep slopes
The sewer service area is characterized by a relatively flat valley floor bordered by steep
hillsides and upland plateaus overlooking the valley.
B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The actual land slopes vary throughout the planning area. Steep slopes exist east and north
of the Green River on Lea Hill, south of the White River, and west along the West Valley
Highway toward the West Hill. The steepest slopes are close to 100 percent.
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any agricultural land of long -term commercial significance and whether the
proposal results in removing any of these soils.
The valley floor is made up primarily of soils of the Oridia, Renton, Snohomish, and
Briscott series. These soils are poorly drained and formed in the alluvium (river
sediments) associated with the White and Green rivers. These are considered good
agricultural soils, though in many areas, are not well- drained. There is no designated
farmland within the City of Auburn.
The hillsides and plateaus are made up of primarily Alderwood associated soils and a
small amount of Everett associated soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973).
Alderwood soils are moderately well drained gravelly sandy loams 20 -40 inches deep.
Beneath these soils is glacial till with low permeability. Roots penetrate easily to the
hardpan layer. Runoff potential is slow to medium. Erosion and slippage hazard is
moderate, ranging to severe on steeper slope phases The Everett series consists of
somewhat excessively drained soils that are underlain by very gravelly sand. These soils
formed in very gravelly glacial outwash deposits under conifers. They are found on
terraces and terrace fronts and are gently undulating to moderately steep.
D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
Some steep slopes, in the areas described earlier, are possible locations of unstable soils.
Geologic hazard areas including volcanic, seismic, landslide, and erosion hazard areas are
mapped in the City Comprehensive Plan and sensitive areas maps.
E. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total
affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of
fill.
Does not apply, since the proposed Comprehensive Sewer Plan is a non - project action.
Sewer system construction projects identified in the plan will require excavation and grading
of an undetermined quantity of material. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review prior to construction.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 4 of 19
F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Does not apply, since this actions does not involve site specific development proposals.
H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any:
This is a non - project action, no site specific erosion control is proposed. Specific projects
described by the plan will be subject to individual environmental review before
implementation. Where applicable, erosion and sedimentation control measures together
with best management practices will be used in all areas of potential erosion.
2. Air
A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during
constructionLoperation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any,
generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects, which are subject to
environmental review, will be evaluated for their potential impact and corresponding
mitigation measures prior to implementation.
B. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?
If so, generally describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects, which are subject to
environmental review, will be evaluated for their potential impact and corresponding
mitigation measures prior to implementation.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation. However, standard emission controls for
construction equipment will be utilized during construction of projects recommended by this
plan.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 5 of 19
3. Water
A. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
The major bodies of water within Auburn are the Green River, the White River, Mill Creek,
Bowman Creek, and White Lake. The city has conducted an inventory of wetlands within
the city limits. These are shown on Map 9.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation and compliance with the
City's Shoreline Master Program.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the
site plan.
Several areas within Auburn lie within the 100 -year floodplain of the Green or White River
and Mill Creek. These areas as well as frequently flooded areas as defined by the City of
Auburn Public Works Department are shown on Map 9.5 of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Specific projects described by the plan which lie within these flood plains will be subject to
individual environmental review before implementation and must comply with all applicable
regulations.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 6 of 19
B. Ground Water:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other
purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and
approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to
groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities
if known.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals. .. ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of
houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the
system(s) are expected to serve.
No waste material will be discharged into the ground as a result of this Plan.
C. Water runoff (including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of
the site? If so, describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and
drainage pattern impacts, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 7 of 19
4. Plants
A. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
X grass
X pasture
X crop or grain
X Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops.
X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
X water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
X other types of vegetation
Does not apply to this non - project action. A wide variety of plants exist across the Plan
area. Specific projects described by the plan will be subject to individual environmental
review before implementation.
B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
C. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Any threatened or endangered species on or near
the recommended projects of this Plan will be listed at the time of the environmental review
process for each individual project.
D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
E. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Any noxious weeds or invasive species on or near
the recommended projects of this plan will be listed at the time of environmental review
process for each individual project.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 8 of 19
5. Animals
A. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Adoption of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan does not
involve a specific site. Many of the following species could be present within the project area.
Specific projects will be subject to individual environmental review for the identification of species
present before implementation.
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: geese ducks, 'crows,
, other: urban animals such as 'dogs
squirrels, rodents, 'opossums, raccoons, etc are also present
fish: bass, 'salmon, trout, herring, shellfish
mammals: deer, bear, elk,
beaver
etc.
cats
B. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan identifies the presence of Great Blue Heron and
Bald Eagles within the sewer service area. The Environmental Impact Statement for the
Auburn Thoroughbred Racetrack indicates that peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and the
Aleutian Canadian Goose have been seen in the Auburn area. Chinook Salmon have been
listed as endangered by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Bull Trout have been
listed as endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Chinook are known to use Mill
Creek and the Green and White Rivers. Bull Trout may inhabit the Green and White Rivers.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Adoption of the Comprehensive Water Plan does
not involve a specific site. Specific projects will be subject to individual environmental review
before implementation. Auburn is a portion of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds and
the migration route of a threatened or endangered species on or near the location of
recommended projects of this plan will be listed at the time of the environmental review
process for that particular project.
D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
E. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Any invasive animal species on or near the
recommended projects of this Plan will be listed at the time of environmental review process
for each individual project.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 9 of 19
6. Energy and natural resources
A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Adoption of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan itself
will not result in the direct reduction or control of energy impacts. The policies adopted as
part of this plan do promote sustainability practices within the Sewer Utility.
7. Environmental health
A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past
uses.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals /conditions that might affect project
development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas
transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or
produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time
during the operating life of the project.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 10 of 19
4) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
8. Noise
A. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
B. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project
on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual
environmental review before implementation.
9. Land and shoreline use
A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal
affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.
The sewer service area comprises various land uses including residential, industrial,
commercial, open space, and public land uses.
B. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If
so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long -term commercial
significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If
resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest
land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?
Much of Green River Valley and the City of Auburn were used for agriculture at some time in
the past. Over the last several decades, rapid growth in the area resulted in much of the
agricultural land converting to urban uses. No land within the city is designated as
agricultural, though some parcels continue as that type of use. No change in land use will
result from the adoption of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 11 of 19
1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest
land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the
application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:
No.
C. Describe any structures on the site.
Many types of structures exist in the sewer service area, including residential, commercial,
institutional, manufacturing, and industrial buildings.
D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Does not apply to this non - project action. Projects which are subject to environmental
review will identify any structures proposed for demolition.
E. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
In general, the sewer service area contains various zoning districts in Auburn and
Unincorporated King and Pierce Counties. In general, the zoning includes single - family and
multi - family residential, light and heavy commercial, light and heavy industrial, public, and
open spaces.
F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
The sewer service area contains various Comprehensive Plan designations. The City of Auburn has
jurisdiction over the majority of the service area. Several small portions of the service area, as shown
on Figure 2 -2, lie within King County or Pierce County. Those areas are subject to the land use
designations of the King County and Pierce County Comprehensive Plans.
G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
Portions of the City along the Green and White Rivers fall under the Shoreline Master Program. A
map of the shoreline designations for those areas is Map 9.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan
(CPM #1) and include natural, shoreline residential, and urban conservancy. Shorelines of the State
are reflected in Auburn's Shorelines Master Program, and specific projects described by the plan will
be required to comply with the program.
H. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If
so, specify.
Lands classified as critical areas exist within the sewer service area, including wetland, geologic
hazard areas, aquifer recharge, habitat areas, groundwater protection areas, and frequently flooded
areas. Specific projects described by the plan will be subject to individual environmental review before
implementation.
I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Does not apply to this non - project action. No specific development is proposed.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 12 of 19
J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Does not apply to this non - project action. The Plan's programs and project are not intended to
displace any people.
K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action.
L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
The Comprehensive Sewer Plan is written in accordance with all existing local, county, and state
regulations. This includes the City Comprehensive Plan developed under the Growth Management
Act policies, the King County Comprehensive Plan, the King County Regional Wastewater Services
Plan, and the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan.
M. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural
and forest lands of long -term commercial significance, if any:
The Comprehensive Sewer Plan includes policies consistent with King County policies to
not extend sanitary sewer service to King County rural zoned properties.
10. Housing
A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low- income housing.
Does not apply to this non - project action.
B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low- income housing.
Does not apply to this non - project action.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action.
11. Aesthetics
A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation..
B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 13 of 19
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
12. Light and glare
A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
13. Recreation
A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
The City of Auburn provides a full range of parks and recreational facilities. Map 11.1 of the
City's Comprehensive Plan shows the location of these facilities.
B. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 14 of 19
14. Historic and cultural preservation
A. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are
over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local
preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe.
Although this non - project action will not directly affect any of these structures, there are
several such buildings located within the sewer service area within the City of Auburn.
Those sites are identified on Map 10.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
B. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or
occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any
material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site?
Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such
resources.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
C. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and
historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with
tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological
surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
D. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and
disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that
may be required.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
15. Transportation
A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area
and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans,
if any.
Figure 2 -1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the
City's current and future classified street system..
B. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so,
generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit
stop?
Figure 4 -1 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (transportation element) shows the
location of public transit routes within the City. Also, a commuter rail station exists along the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad right -of -way just south of West Main Street and east
of C Street SW.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 15 of 19
C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non - project
proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan will be
subject to individual environmental review before implementation.
D. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets,
pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If
so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
No
E. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail,
or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action. Specific projects described by the plan may be in
the vicinity of water, rail, or air transportation and will be subject to individual environmental
review before implementation.
F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or
proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what
percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and
nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make
these estimates?
Does not apply to this non - project action.
G. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of
agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally
describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action.
H. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Does not apply to this non - project action.
16. Public services
A. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so,
generally describe.
Does not apply to this non - project action.
B. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Does not apply to this non - project action.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 16 of 19
17. Utilities
A. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
service
telephone
sanitary sewer
septic system
electricityj,
, other
natural gas
Cable TV
Various levels of service are available throughout the service area.
water
refuse
B. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
The recommended repairs, replacements, improvements, or extensions to sewer system
facilities are required to meet the level of service criteria set forth by local, county, and state
governments. The facilities include sewer mains, manholes, pump stations, force mains and
related appurtenances. Each recommended project will be subject to its own environmental
review process.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Name of signee Robert Elwell
Position and Agency /Organization Sewer Utility Engineer, City of Auburn
Date Submitted: March 27, 2015
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 17 of 19
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT ACTIONS
(IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or
at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in
general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
The proposed non - project action consists of adoption of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan,
which will not itself increase discharge to water or air. Implementation of some elements of
the Comprehensive Sewer Plan has the potential to result in discharges to water and air.
For example construction projects identified in the Plan have the potential to result in
increased noise and exhaust from construction equipment and dust from exposed soils.
A. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
No specific mitigation is proposed for the Plan adoption. The potential for discharge to air or
water will be minimized through the use of best management practices and through the
design and construction and operation consistent with the applicable local, state, and federal
laws. Proposed projects will be reviewed and addressed on an individual basis by the
appropriate agencies prior to implementation.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
It is not anticipated that the proposed projects will have a significant impact upon fish or
wildlife. Improvements to the system described by the plan are intended to increase
reliability, thereby reducing the risk of environmental contamination and, thereby reducing
potential harmful effects on wildlife.
A. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life
are:
No such measures are proposed for the plan adoption. Proposed projects will be reviewed
on an individual basis and addressed by the appropriate agencies as they commence.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
It is not anticipated that any of the proposed projects will have significant impact on the use
of or need for energy or natural resources. Specific projects described by the plan will
reviewed for their potential impact to energy and resource use as part of individual
environmental reviews prior to implementation.
A. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
None specifically, as this is a non - project action. However, the proposed Sewer
Comprehensive Plan includes a policy to evaluate activities to emphasize "sustainability
practices." Specific projects described by the plan will reviewed for their potential impact to
energy and resource use as part of individual environmental reviews prior to implementation.
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 18 of 19
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as
parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
It is not anticipated that the proposed projects will have a significant impact upon
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection.
Improvements to the system described by the plan are intended to increase reliability,
thereby reducing the risk of impacts to sensitive areas..
A. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts
are:
The Plan does not increase the ability of any person, company, or agency to develop
projects that would affect sensitive areas. Proposed projects identified as part of the plan
will be reviewed on an individual basis and addressed by the appropriate agencies prior to
implementation. Conformance with the applicable local, state, and federal guidelines and
regulations will be required.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The Comprehensive Sewer Plan does not allow or encourage uses incompatible with
existing plans. Specific projects will be subject to individual environmental review before
implementation.
A. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
None specifically, as this is a non - project action. However, specific projects described by
the plan will reviewed for their potential impact to shoreline use and land use as part of
individual environmental reviews prior to implementation.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposal will not result in an increase in demands on transportation and public services.
The Comprehensive Sewer Plan responds to growth by identifying the public facilities and
improvement needed to address future growth addressed by the City Comprehensive Plan.
A. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
The Comprehensive Sewer Plan identifies sewer facilities required to accommodate growth.
Any proposal to construct those facilities will be subject to environmental review which will
identify specific impacts to transportation, public services or other utilities.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal
laws or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The Sewer Comprehensive Plan does not appear to present any conflict with local, state, or
federal laws or requirements..
SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197 -11 -960) May 2014 Page 19 of 19
Chapter 1- History of Auburn
1.1 The City - An Overview
The Green, White, and Stuck Rivers once converged on the valley floor, where the Southern Coast
Salish people (now collectively known as the Muckleshoot Tribe) lived on the river and vicinity's
bounty. Eventually, others also settled the valley, which was made accessible by military roads in
the 1850s and railroad in the 1880s.
Many of these settlers, including Americans from the East and Midwest, as well as immigrants of
European and Japanese descent, took advantage of the river in a different way than the
Muckleshoot; these newcomers farmed a valley rendered fertile from regular flooding. Farming
thrived for many decades in Auburn and its surrounds, following incorporation in 1891. However,
agriculture was not the only driver of the economic engine.
Construction of the Northern Pacific Railroad's Auburn Yard facilities in the early 1910s ushered in
the City's first population boom. Businesses serving the burgeoning railroad worker population
expanded and business prospects continued through the 1920s. The favorable business
environment came to an abrupt halt when the Great Depression hit in 1929.
World War II and the associated war effort, with plentiful employment for non - draftees, brought the
City out of its economic slump, though not for the City's and surrounds' substantial Japanese -
American population. For the Japanese- American residents, war did not bring economic stability,
but far away federal internment camps and lost homes, farms, and businesses instead. Many of the
City's Japanese- American residents never returned.
Those who did return were veterans starting families. Along with an influx of middle class workers
moving away from larger cities, Auburn's population once again ballooned and would grow at an
unprecedented pace until the late 1960s. This time around, the development pattern was
significantly less centralized. While some businesses set up shop or expanded in downtown
Auburn, many more stores, beginning with automobile dealerships, moved into the surrounding
farmland along Auburn Way and other auto - oriented corridors.
The surrounding farmland was also prime (and affordable) real estate for industrial redevelopment.
With construction of the Howard Hanson Dam in 1962, catastrophic flooding was no longer a
regular threat. Access to State Route 18 and State Route 167, constructed in the 1960s and 1970s,
also added to the appeal. As a result, large employers such as Boeing, as well as a plethora of
warehousing and distribution centers and various light industrial enterprises, began to supersede
farms in the valley.
The "Boeing Bust" in 1971 slowed, but did not stop, redevelopment of the once - agricultural valley.
While population growth slowed in the 1970s, an accelerated local and regional economic
recovery beginning in the 1980s set the foundation for rapid residential development on Lea Hill
and West Hill in the 1980s through 1990s (then unincorporated) and in Lakeland Hills in the 1990s
and 2000s.
Not just a regional destination for businesses and homes, construction of the SuperMall (now The
Outlet Collection), Emerald Downs Thoroughbred Racetrack, and Muckleshoot Casino in the 1990s
provided attractions for leisure in Auburn. Since 2000, the portfolio of attractions has been
expanded with Green River Community College (now Green River College), which was annexed
into City limits during the Lea Hill and West Hill annexations in 2008, the construction of the
downtown Auburn Transit Center, and ongoing revitalization of downtown Auburn that aims to be
the enduring business, government, and cultural focal point of the City. Further, with a population
that has increased from less than 300 at incorporation to more than 74,860 currently, Auburn
continues to be a place where diverse cross sections of people live, work, and play.
1.2 The City - A Timeline
The First Settlers
Pre- 1850s: Semi - nomadic Southern Coast Salish tribal groups, such as the Skopamish,
Smalhkamish, and Stkamish, lived in winter villages along the Green, White, and Stuck Rivers,
which is present -day Auburn. In these winter villages, such as Ilalko, which was located where the
Green and White Rivers once converged (near where 8 ST NE crosses the Green River today), the
tribal groups relied upon stored foods and local resources. In the spring and summer, the Southern
Coast Salish hunted, fished, clammed, and gathered berries and other plant life.
1853: Military roads traversed the White River Valley, the first east -west overland routes from
eastern Washington Territory to Puget Sound. Shortly thereafter, Americans from the Eastern and
Midwestern United States, as well as many European and Japanese immigrants, began to settle
the area, lured by the "free" and fertile land.
1854 -56: The Treaties of Medicine Creek and Point Elliott were negotiated with Puget Sound -area
Native Americans and signed, establishing reservation lands and the right to off - reservation
resources. The Southern Coast Salish tribal groups living along the Green, White, and Stuck Rivers
were not associated or recognized as a single tribe and were to be relocated onto the Nisqually
Reservation. Following the treaties, a series of clashes, commonly known as the Puget Sound
Treaty Wars or Indian Wars, occurred between Native Americans territory-wide and non - Native
settlers.
Page 1 2
1856/74: Following the clashes, the Muckleshoot Reservation was recommended for
establishment in 1856. An 1874 executive order issued by Washington Territory Governor Isaac
Stevens established the Muckleshoot Reservation for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, which included
the riverbank - dwelling Southern Coast Salish tribal groups.
1883 -84: The Northern Pacific's Transcontinental Railroad line between Seattle and Tacoma began
operation allowing people to travel to Auburn and the White River Valley from across the region
and country by rail.
1890s
1891: The Town of Slaughter, named after Lieutenant William Slaughter, who was killed in the
Puget Sound Treaty Wars, was incorporated. At the time of incorporation, the town was home to a
wooden boardwalk Main Street that had two restaurants, saloons, a few of specialty stores, and the
Ohio House Hotel, often - called "Slaughter House" by the locals. The town's name, liked Lieutenant
Slaughter, was short - lived.
1893: The Town of Slaughter was officially renamed the City of Auburn when it was officially
incorporated. That was not the only major change that occurred in that year. The Auburn area's
industries around the time of incorporation included charcoal and terra cotta kilns, lumber mills,
dairies, berry and other produce farms, and above all, booming hops farms. In quick succession,
there were hops- destroying aphid plague in 1891 and the Panic of 1893, which brought down
prices for hops and brought about the hops industry's eventual collapse. As a result, many hops
farms became dairy farms. Without access to loans, the Panic of 1893 also resulted in foreclosures
and abandoned properties. However, agriculture as a whole survived the nationwide economic
depression of 1893 and continued to thrive in the Auburn area.
1900s
1900 -10: The first full decade since incorporation saw modest population growth, from 740 to 960
people.
1902: The Puget Sound Electric Railway, more commonly known as the Interurban, inaugurated
service with speeds of up to sixty miles per hour and up to thirty -six daily roundtrips between
Seattle and Tacoma at its peak. The Interurban provided Auburn and the White River Valley, and its
people and produce, a fast and frequent connection to Seattle and Tacoma. In addition, it fostered
the growth of businesses serving railroad workers and commuters traveling through the City.
1903: Dairy farming's continued prominence culminated in the opening of the Borden Condensed
Milk Company (formerly Borden's Pioneer Milk Company) facility near 4 and D ST NW. During this
Page 13
period, Borden was Auburn's second - largest employer, second only to the railroads. In addition to
Borden, many other dairy- related companies were located in Auburn.
1906: The problems of a growing population, associated development, and heavy rains culminated
in a record flood this year. During the flood, as in years past, debris choked the White River and
diverted its northward course southward, into the Stuck River. The record flood resulted in a
decision to permanently seal off the White River channel and divert all water into the Stuck River, in
an effort to curb flooding of the White River. Over the ensuing years, though the diversion dam was
built and former channel of the White River was filled and developed, seasonal flooding did not
cease in the valley.
1910s
1910 -20: Downtown Auburn evolved from wooden boardwalks to concrete sidewalks and from
horse -drawn carts to automobiles. Businesses grew in numbers and diversity to keep pace with the
population. Since Auburn Yard's arrival in 1910, the City had expanded more than three -fold, from
960 to 3,160 people.
1910 -13: The Northern Pacific Railroad constructed Auburn Yard, its western freight terminal, which
included a 24 -stall roundhouse, car repair shops, and a yard office. The construction and
subsequent operation of Auburn Yard ushered in the City's first population boom.
1917: The railroads were nationalized as the United States joined the Allies in World War I. This
translated into better wages for railroad workers and employment of women as railroad machinist
and cleaner. While the higher wages continued into the 1920s, most women were laid off and
those remaining transitioned into railroad clerical positions.
1920s
1920 -30: Though the majority of the 1920s were prosperous, Auburn's population of 3,906 just after
the Great Depression's onset reflects an increase of only about 24 %, a modest amount compared
to the large increase between 1910 and 1920.
1921: Auburn General Hospital (now MultiCare Auburn Medical Center) opened in downtown
Auburn, providing modern medical services to the City's growing population.
1921/1923/1925: The state legislature adopted laws prohibiting non - citizens from land ownership
and use of land through sharecropping, leasing, or renting. The laws disproportionately affected
the large population of Japanese farmers and other non -white ethnicities in the Auburn area. While
in 1925, the State Supreme Court ruled that minority American -born citizens could hold title to land
Page 1 4
formerly belonging to his or her parents, many were forced to make changes. Some of the Auburn
area's significant Japanese population returned to Japan and others changed to commercial
professions less /not dependent upon land cultivation. Many others toiled on land they had
previously owned.
1928: As the automobile became the preferred mode of travel, the Interurban ceased service and
regular passenger rail service to Seattle and Tacoma by rail would not return for 72 years.
1929: The Great Depression set in, downsizing or closing many Auburn businesses; a lack of
financing impeded the establishment of new businesses to take their place. The crash was
manifested in general unemployment and poverty, and more viscerally, in the homeless
encampments of jobless laborers around the Auburn area.
1930s
1930 -40: Growing to 4,211, Auburn's population was more or less stagnant throughout the 1930s.
1930: Public utility districts, such as water and sewer districts beyond City limits, authorized by the
State, laid the groundwork for unincorporated areas around Auburn to absorb some of the
exponential population growth in the 1950 and 1960s.
1940s
1940 -50: Growing to 6,497 people, Auburn's population gain in the 1940s was almost twice that
gained between the two decades from 1920 to 1940. There was marked population and business
growth post -World War II.
1941: Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States entered into World War II. With the
labor pool decreased by the drafting of young men and increased government spending for the
war effort, unemployment plummeted. The employed now counted amongst its ranks older
children helping with the harvest. The employed also included for the first time since World War I,
women working in retail and manufacturing, both within the City and at Boeing's factories in nearby
cities.
1942: The entirety of the sizable Japanese- American population in the Auburn area, along with
other Japanese- Americans living on the West Coast, was relocated by the federal government to
distant internment camps for the duration of the war. Many families lost homes, farms, and
businesses. Most never returned.
Page 15
1943: The U.S. Army Air Force depot, including multiple warehouses (and an administrative
building in 1956), opened where General Services Administration (GSA) Region 10 headquarters is
now located.
1943: The Auburn Ave Theatre, a former bus terminal, opened its doors in downtown Auburn. The
theatre provided a venue for cinematic escape from wartime realities and since the 1970s, has
become a venue for live music and theatre performances.
1945: The end of World War II brought veterans and a baby boom to Auburn. Transportation
improvements also brought middle -class workers who wanted to relocate from larger cities to a
slice of suburbia. Existing businesses expanded and brand new businesses opened in Auburn,
catering to the growing population - and the automobiles they used to get around. Though much
of Auburn and the area around it remained primarily agricultural, change was apace.
1948: Scarff Motors relocated to 501 Auburn Way N, then the outskirts of town. The move prompted
other car dealerships to follow suit, mirroring Scarff Motors' lead northward into the farmlands
around Auburn. The resultant cluster of car dealerships along Auburn Way N, as they continue to
exist today, earned Auburn the moniker "Little Detroit of the West ", and strong car sales contributed
sales tax revenue to fund City services.
1949: A 7.1- magnitude earthquake felt from Seattle to Chehalis also changed the commercial
landscape, damaging brick and masonry facades in downtown. Many of these facades were
rebuilt in more modern styles reflecting preferences of the era.
1950s
1950 -60: Growing to 11,933, Auburn's population had almost doubled in the 1950s. Growth in
population and businesses continued and spurred annexations that pushed City limits just north of
40« ST NE and south to the foot of the Muckleshoot Reservation plateau and almost to the White
River.
1956: Lakehaven Utility District was established, providing water and sewer service to the West Hill
area of the City, then located in unincorporated King County. The presence of these services
spurred westward growth.
1960s
1960 -70: At 21,653, Auburn's population had once again almost doubled since 1960. Expansion of
City limits continued in the 1960s, incorporating the slopes of West Hill, portions of the Muckleshoot
Reservation plateau, and areas past the White River to the King- Pierce County line.
Page 1 6
Early 1960s: Water District 111 was established, providing water service to the Lea Hill area of the
City, then located in unincorporated King County.
1961: The General Services Administration (GSA) Region 10 headquarters moved to Auburn, taking
over facilities constructed as a depot for the U.S. Army Air Force in the 1940s and 1950s. GSA
continues to be a large employer in the City.
1962: The Howard Hanson Dam was completed, significantly decreasing the size and frequency of
seasonal flooding in the valley. With significant seasonal flooding no longer a threat, the one -time
agricultural valley attracted, in addition to the already - present GSA, large employers such as the
Federal Aviation Administration (1962) and Boeing (1966), as well as a plethora of warehousing and
distribution centers and various light industrial enterprises.
1964: The Auburn portion of State Route 18 opened, eventually connecting downtown Auburn and
the Lea Hill area to Interstate 5 to the west and Interstate 90 to the northeast. Access to the
interstate highway system continued the momentum of redeveloping the one -time agricultural
valley into an industrial breadbasket.
1965: Green River Community College (now Green River College) opened on Lea Hill. Located in
unincorporated King County, the school provided adult education courses for both the growing City
and burgeoning Lea Hill area.
1965: Downtown Auburn hosted its first Veterans Day Parade, now one of the largest in the nation.
The parade honored veterans and active military personnel, both of which continue to comprise a
sizeable portion of the City's population.
1966: Les Gove Park opened. Over the ensuing years, the park evolved into a recreational and
educational campus encompassing a library (1964), the White River Valley Museum (1970), senior
center (1977), the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Administration Building (1977), and a gymnasium
(2011).
1969: Auburn Municipal Airport opened, capitalizing on the Boeing boom and serving general
aviation purposes.
1970s
1970 -80: Auburn grew to a population of 26,417, which paled in comparison to preceding years.
The factors affecting the growth rate were the "Boeing Bust" and the slow recovery that followed
and less- than -rosy local and national economic climate through much of the 1970s. However,
Page 17
continued redevelopment of the valley into warehousing and light industry and the Auburn General
Hospital (now MultiCare Medical Center) expansion provided some relief in a dismal economic
period. Nevertheless, the City expanded northward to S 277^ ST and for the first time, across the
Green River by annexing the Auburn Golf Course at the base of Lea Hill.
1971: Citing noise and environmental concerns, federal funding for developing supersonic
transport was suspended. The subsequent "Boeing Bust" led to layoffs for over 2/3s of Boeing's
100,000 -plus workforce in the Puget Sound region, which included workers at Boeing's Auburn
manufacturing facility. Boeing and the region slowly rebounded through the late 1970s.
1972: The Auburn portion of State Route 167 (a.k.a. the Valley Freeway) opened, providing a north -
south route paralleling Interstate 5 through the valley. Capitalizing on the east -west connection
provided with the
earlier - completed State Route 18, the valley continued to be redeveloped with warehousing and
distribution centers and light industrial enterprises taking advantage of the Auburn's convenient
access to the region and beyond.
1975: The half- century old building that had housed Auburn General Hospital (now MultiCare
Auburn Medical Center) since the 1920s was replaced with a larger and more efficient building.
1979: Microsoft moved from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Bellevue, Washington. The move
reinvigorated the region by attracting other technology companies to the region, which diversified
an economy that was rebounding from a surplus of skilled and educated workers laid off by
Boeing.
1980s
1980 -90: Growing to 33,102 by 1990, the City's population grew in the 1980s at a rate similar to its
growth in the 1970s, which is significantly slower than between the end of World War II and 1970.
During the 1980s, while the City became an employment hub, it also became more suburban, with
many of its residents commuting to employment beyond its borders.
1981: The City adopted its first floodplain regulations. While construction of the Howard Hanson
Dam in 1962 eliminated significant seasonal flooding of the valley, areas along river banks were still
subject to flooding during significant storm events.
1983/87: Burlington Northern -Santa Fe (BNSF) relocated most of its operations from Auburn Yard,
at one time one of the City's largest employers, to its Seattle and Tacoma facilities. Several years
later, BNSF demolished most of the buildings related to operations at Auburn Yard.
Page 1 8
1988: City Council adopted the Lakeland Hills Plan for the King County portion of the Lakeland Hills
area in the City. The plan set the stage for a planned residential community as demand for housing
grew with the local and regional economy.
1990s
1990 -2000: Growing to 40,314 by 2000, the City grew steadily in the 1990s, at a pace similar to the
1970s and 1980s.
1990: The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted in response to rapid
growth in the Puget Sound Region's population and employment. The GMA mandated that local
jurisdictions conduct comprehensive planning in accordance with statewide goals and the City
subsequently updated its Comprehensive Plan for consistency. See Chapter 3 of this
Comprehensive Plan for more information regarding the GMA.
1990: The Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan was adopted and subsequently updated in 2001.
See Chapter 6 of this Comprehensive Plan for more information.
1991: The Auburn Adventist Academy Plan was adopted. See Chapter 6 of this Comprehensive
Plan for more information.
1992: The Auburn North Business Area Plan was adopted. See Chapter 6 of this Comprehensive
Plan for more information.
1995: The previous Comprehensive Plan was adopted, which included substantial amendments to
the 1986 plan for consistency with the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and King
County Countywide Planning Policies. The Comprehensive Plan has been updated in annual
increments since 1995.
1995/1996: The Muckleshoot Casino, Supermall (now The Outlet Collection), and Emerald Downs
opened, adding regional entertainment and shopping destinations to the City.
1996: Burlington Northern -Santa Fe reopened the Stampede Pass to freight traffic. BNSF trains
once again rumbled through the valley, creating challenges for travel east -west across a valley
transformed from farms to a home for regional attractions, warehousing and light industry, and
more than 10 times the number of people when Auburn Yard was constructed. Several grade -
separation projects between City streets (S 277« Street, 3-d Street SW, and M Street SE) and railroad
right -of -way are constructed as a result in the ensuing decades.
Page 19
1998: Keeping pace with the local and regional economic boom, City Council adopted the
Lakeland Hills South Plan and annexed the Pierce County portion of the Lakeland Hills area, which
had been established as the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit Development (PUD). Subsequently,
this area expanded and was mostly built out in the 2000s. Unlike the King County portion of
Lakeland Hills, the Lakeland Hills South PUD also established commercial areas within the planned
residential community.
2000s
2000 -10: Growing to 70,180 in 2010, the City's population nearly doubled in the 2000s, though a
portion of the growth stems from annexation of the Lea Hill and West Hill areas.
2000/2001: Completion of the Auburn Transit Center and commencement of Sounder commuter
rail service to Seattle and Tacoma kicked off renewed interest in maintaining downtown Auburn. As
"the physical and cultural heart of the Auburn community ", policy was aimed toward its renewal, as
espoused by the updated Auburn Downtown Plan adopted in 2001.
2002: Auburn General Hospital (now MultiCare Medical Center) expanded again, with a four -story
patient tower added to its downtown Auburn facilities.
2005: The City adopted its first Critical Areas Ordinance. While already regulating critical areas,
such as wetlands, streams, and landslide hazard areas, the ordinance clarifies more specifically
how critical areas are regulated within the City.
2006: In recognition of its ecological and economic development value, approximately 114 acres of
wetland on the east side of State Route 167, between 15- Street NW and W Main Street, were set
aside and the Auburn Environmental Park was established. Construction of a bird tower and
wetland boardwalk trail followed. An associated zoning district between the park and the
Interurban Trail was established with the intent of attracting medical, biotech and "green"
technology businesses, including those in the fields of energy conservation, engineering, and water
quality.
2008: The City annexed the Lea Hill and West Hill areas from King County, bringing in a substantial
residential population along with Green River Community College (now Green River College).
2008: The Northeast Auburn /Robertson Properties Special Area Plan was adopted. See Chapter 6
of this Comprehensive Plan for more information.
2010s
Page 1 10
2012: The S Division Street promenade opened, serving as the catalyst for redeveloping the four
Auburn Junction blocks south of Main Street between the two A Streets. The Auburn Junction
blocks are currently redeveloping with a four -story commercial - residential mixed use building and
a five -story senior housing community.
2013: The M Street underpass project was completed.
2014: The City's first significant mixed used transit oriented development (Trek) breaks ground.
Imagine Auburn visioning process.
Page 111
The 1940s
rqy: Following the attack on Pearl HarboWitedWritered into World War II. With the
labor pool decreased by the drafting of young men and increased government spending for the war
effort, unemployment plummeted. The employed now counted amongst its ranks older children
helping with the harvest. The employed also included for the first time since World War I, women
working in retail and manufacturing, both within the City and at Boeing's factories in nearby cities.
1.94z: The entirety of the sizable Japanese - American population in the Auburn area, along with
other Japanese - Americans living on the West Coast, was relocated by the federal government to
distant internment camps for the duration of the war. Many families lost homes, farms, and busi-
nesses. Most never returned.
1945: The end of World War II brought veterans and a baby boom to Auburn. Transportation im-
provements also brought middle -class workers who wanted to relocate from larger cities to a slice
of suburbia. Existing businesses expanded and brand new businesses opened inAubum, catering
to the growing population - and the automobiles they used to get around. Though much of Auburn
and the area around it remained primarily agricultural, change was apace.
r949:A 7.1- magnitude earthquake felt from Seattle to Chehalis also changed the commercial land-
scape, damaging brick and masonry facades in downtown. Many of these facades were rebuilt in
more modem styles reflecting preferences of the era.
.943: The U.S. ArmyAir Force depot, including multiple warehouses (and an administrative build-
ing in 5956), opened where General Services Administration (GSA) Region so headquarters is now
located.
1943: The Auburn Ave Theatre, aformer bus terminal, opened its doors in downtown Auburn. The
theatre provided avenue for cinematic escape from wartime realities and since the 197os, avenue for
live music and theatre performances.
1948: Scarff Motors relocated to SosAubum Way N, then the outskirts of town. The move prompted
other car dealerships within and without the City to follow suit, mirroring Scarff Motors' lead
northward into the farmlands around Auburn. The resultant cluster of car dealerships along Auburn
Way N, as they continue to exist today, earned Auburn the moniker "Little Detroit of the West'', and
strong car sales contributed sales tax revenue to fund City services.
5940 -50: Growing to 6,497 people, Auburn's population gain in the 194os was almost twice that
gained between the two decades from r9zo to s94o, with marked population and business growth
post -World War II.
PET PREMIER
R PRESENTATION
STAGE SNOW
NOTION PICTURE
Chapter 2 - Existing Conditions
Understanding how Auburn has grown and changed over time not only tells a story, but also helps
clarify the direction of development. The data included in this chapter, taken from the 2010 United
States Census, provide insight into trends and tendencies with respect to population, ethnicities,
households, age, and jobs. These statistics provide a numerical description of the City of Auburn
and help define the size and location of the people who live within The trends inform the needs
and demands for growth, but community values and principles should shape the ways in which
those issues are addressed. Using these data holistically and combining them with previous plans,
existing circumstances, and community values allows the comprehensive plan to properly assess
and determine a course of action to meet Auburn's future goals.
Population Characteristics
As of 2014, Auburn ranks as the 14th most populated city within the State of Washington. It is
located within the two most populous counties in the state (King and Pierce counties) and is nearly
equidistant from its two largest cities, Seattle and Tacoma. Proximity to both these cities and being
in a central location within Puget Sound Region has helped Auburn grow at a steady rate. Since
the 1950's, Auburn's population has increased substantively. Between 1950? to 1970 ?, Auburn's
population increased from about 6,500 to about 21,500. From 1970? to 1990, Auburn's population
rate of growth slowed, increasing to about 33,000 . In 1998, the City of Auburn began annexing
several large tracts of land that precipitated the start of several large housing developments. The
annexation of southwest Lea Hill in Year 2000 and West Hill and the balance of Lea Hill in 2008
increased Auburn's population significantly. As of 2010, the population of Auburn has increased to
70,180. The 2013 US Census Bureau population estimates place the overall Auburn population at
almost 75,000 people (74,860 precisely). Population estimates for 2011 and 2012 were 71,567 and
73,428, respectively.
Racial Characteristics
Auburn has seen significant demographic changes over the last decade. According to the 2010
U.S. Census, approximately 70.5% of Auburn's population is White /Non - hispanic; data from the
2000 Census reported the white population in Auburn at 79 %. In 1990, the white population was
roughly 90 %. What this means is that Auburn has grown significantly more diverse in a 25 -year
period. As of 2013 estimates, the overall white population, including Hispanics, is just under 50,000
at 49,238. This means that approximately 68.5% of Auburn's population is white. If this trend holds,
Auburn will become increasingly racially diverse. As of 2013, 7,400 residents were Asian, which is
just over 10% of the total population. Blacks or African Americans account for about 5.5% of the
population (3,932 residents) and American Indians account for another 2.0% (just under 1500
people). The most substantial group, Hispanics or Latinos, are 13% of the population, though they
are an ethnic group and can be members of any racial group. There are approximately 9,300
Hispanic or Latino residents in Auburn. This diversity if further borne out in the languages Auburn
residents speak at home: a full 25% of homes primarily speak either Spanish, a Slavic language,
Russian, Tagalog, Korean, a Pacific Island language, Vietnamese, Chinese, an African language,
and many others. These overall trends show the reality of a more diverse Auburn.
Household and Income Characteristics
The year 2000 Census indicated that Auburn had 16,108 households; this number has catapulted.
The current household number estimates (based on 2013 figures) have increased to 27,427. This
significant increase is due to substantial development activity over the past 15 or so years, aside
from the economic downturn from 2008 -2011. Predominant numbers of households in Auburn are
either one or two person households. One person households reflect 25.6% of total households
and 2- person households are 31.5 %. 3- person and 4- person households are 16.4 and 14.3 percent,
respectively. Households of 5 or more account for another 12.2 %. Approximately two - thirds of all
households are comprised of related persons; the other third are non - family households, which are
primarily people living alone.
Homeownership in Auburn is just under 60 percent, which is 3.5 points lower than the State of
Washington average. The lower percentage of homeownership corresponds to below Washington
averages in per capita income, median household income, graduation rate, as well as a higher
than average percentage of persons under the poverty level. Auburn's median household income
is $55,483 compared to the Washington average of $59,478, which is a nearly $4,000 difference.
Housing Characteristics
The number of housing units has steadily increased, reflecting Auburn's growth. Currently, there are
27,834 housing units, as of 2013. That number was 19,420 in 2004, which is a 43% increase in ten
years. The health of the housing market is clear from the large increase in housing units. Another
sign of a stable market is the vacancy rate; in 2013, Auburn had a housing unit vacancy rate of
6.4 %, which is consistent for the Western region of the United States and well above the national
average. Interestingly, 34% of the housing units are in multi -unit structures, which is a much higher
percentage than the State of Washington average. In other words, one -third of Auburn's housing is
multi - family compared to one - quarter for the state, on average. The average home cost is $25,000
less than the state average ($238,500 compared to $262,100), which is consistent with the
household and income findings.
Age Characteristics
Auburn is statistically younger than the state of Washington. The median age in Washington is 37
years; the median age in Auburn is 35.5. This is up from 34.1 years of age in 2000. While the median
age has increased, there is a lot of youth in Auburn. 7.4% of Auburn residents are under 5 years of
age and 25.9% are under the age of 18. There are all significantly higher than the state average.
The percentage of people over the age of 65 is 10.2 %, which compares similarly to the state of
Washington figure of 12.3 %. Over the last 15 or so years, Auburn has grown significantly younger;
the median age is higher, but the statistics suggest growth in the working -age adult demographic,
many of whom have children. These changing data suggests a need for services and
programming that address the needs of children and families, while continuing to focus on the
needs of more mature adults and single people of all ages.
Resident Labor Force and Employment Characteristics
Since its population boom during the construction of the railroad freight terminals at the start of the
20th Century, Auburn has in many respects remained a "blue collar" community. This trend,
however, is declining as local economies in Washington diversify. In 1990 one out of four of
Auburn's residents worked in the manufacturing industries. Between 1990 and 2000, Auburn's
resident labor force lost 1,000, or approximately one - fourth, of these manufacturing jobs. This trend
of manufacturing job loss has been a nationwide trend, as companies relocate to other cities and
states based on tax savings, and many other companies are increasingly outsourcing jobs
overseas. In this ever - changing landscape, jobs continue to migrate into different sectors. This slow
shift is evidenced by the lessened impact of major employers in Auburn.
2011
2002
Employer
Product /Service
Employee
s
Rank
Percentag
e of Total
City
Employme
nt
Employee
s
Rank
Percentag
e of Total
City
Employme
nt
The Boeing
Company
Aerospace
5,179
1
17.3%
10,000
1
50.5%
Muckleshoot Tribal
Enterprises
Gaming
2,500
2
8.3%
1,200
3
4.7%
Auburn School
Education
1,800
3
6.0%
1,682
2
7.6%
District
The Outlet Collection
(formerly Super Mall)
Retail
1,700
4
5.7%
Green River College
Education
1,067
5
3.6%
900
4
3.4%
MultiCare (formerly
Auburn Regional
Medical Center)
Hospital
805
6
2.7%
500
7
2.8%
Emerald Downs
Racetrack
Horse Racing
678
7
2.3%
600
5
3.1%
Safeway
Grocery
Retail /Distribution
650
8
2.2%
Social Security
Administration
Federal
Government
600
9
2.0%
536
6
3.0%
Federal Aviation
Administration
Federal
Government
500
10
1.7%
500
7
2.8%
General Services
Administration
Federal
Government
500
10
1.7%
325
9
2.0%
Zones, Inc.
Technology
Reseller
500
10
1.7%
City of Auburn
Municipal
Government
438
8
2.6%
Fred Meyer
Retail
289
10
1.7%
TOTALS
16,479
55.0%
16,970
84.5%
As recently as 2002, the top ten employers accounted for nearly 85% of the total city employment.
In 2011, these same employers, which remained in the top ten, accounted for 55% of the total
employment base. This drop in percentage is good news for Auburn; while the number of jobs
provided by large employers has been about the same, a large increase of jobs provided by small
and mid -size employers has increased the overall number of jobs in the city.
2011 Top Ten Employers
pThe Boeing Company
DAuburn School District
D Green River College
DEmerald Downs Racetrack
D Social Security Administration
D General Services Administration
D City of Auburn
D Other
D Muckleshoot Tribal Enterprises
pThe Outlet Collection formerly Super Mall)
D Mu ItiCare (formerly Auburn Regional Medical center)
DSafeway
D Federal Aviation Administration
D Zones, Inc.
D Fred Meyer
3.6%
2.7 % #5
2.3% #6
1.7% 2% 2.2% #f
#10 #9 #8
2002 Top Ten Employers
D The Boeing Company
DAuburn School District
D Green River College
D Emerald Downs Racetrack
D Social Security Administration
D General Services Administration
D City of Auburn
D Other
1.7%
#10
2.8%
#8
2%
#9
2.8%
#7
3%
#6
3.4%
#S
2.8%
#7
D Muckleshoot Tribal Enterprises
D The Outlet Collection formerly Super Mall)
OMultiCare (formerly Auburn ReglordI Medea! Center)
DSafeway
D Federal Aviation Administration
D Zones, Inc.
D Fred Meyer
Workers typically look for jobs where compensation is most lucrative relative to their qualifications.
Education and specialized skills typically play a large role in finding high - paying available jobs, as
well as encouraging the relocation of companies to Auburn, which is partially based on the
available local workforce. While Auburn's high school graduation rate of 87.5% is fairly close to the
state average of 90 %, the college graduation rate is more than 9 points lower than the state
average. As mentioned previously, the median and per capita income is significantly lower than the
state average. These data suggest that there may be a skills mismatch between regional employer
expectations and available workers in Auburn.
According to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and the US Department of Labor,
approximately 41,000 jobs are located in Auburn. This number has grown steadily since 2010; it is
important to note that the job number must be considered with an understanding of the massive
loss of manufacturing jobs and the very slow economic recovery since the economic downturn in
2008. Comparing the market sector distribution and number of jobs between 1995, 2000, 2010, and
2013 illustrates some of changes that have taken place in Auburn's job market over the last 20
years. It also reflects nationwide trends based on the overall health of the economy, decline of
manufacturing, and an increasing reliance on service. Important categories to note are:
a. government and education, which have grown based on the increasing population of
Auburn and the need to provide increased and better service to residents, as well as the
success of Green River College
b. trade, transportation, and utilities jobs (WTU) have more than doubled since 1995, also due
to the relative growth of Auburn
c. construction has nearly doubled since 1995; this is due in large part of the significant
developments that have been constructed in Auburn, such as Lakeland Hills; the dip in
2010 is due to the economic downturn that began in 2008
d. retail and services are significantly more important to Auburn's current job outlook than in
1995; service is largely increased due to the overall nationwide trend of less manufacturing
and more service -based jobs
e. finance, insurance, and real estate have held steady over the last 20 years
1995 2000 2010 2013
Const /Res 1,693 3,051 2,148 2,636
FIRE 760 567 757 784
Manufacturing 11,530 12,241 7,521 8,680
Retail 3,275 5,152 4,705 5,392
Services 6,241 11,437 10,496 10,700
WTU 2,716 3,619 5,475 6,626
Government 1,166 1,332 3,457 3,166
Education 1,282 1,344 2,810
Total 28,663 38,742 37,370 40,964
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Se
rr1
oc
01995
0 2000
02010
02013
z..,,
#161/4'4'■161,...- \�`
7
Q-0
e`'
�\G
Se
—0— 1995 —0— 2000 -0— 2010 —0— 2013
Oa
aJ
Daily Inflow and Outflow: The Auburn Commute
The average daily commute from Auburn is 29 minutes as of 2013. The length of the commute has
increased since 2000; what is far more interesting than the length of time that people commute is
the number of people commuting out of Auburn, but also into Auburn. Both of these numbers far
outstrip the number of people who live and work within Auburn. This number has been virtually
unchanged over the last decade. The number of residents of Auburn, who also work in Auburn, has
stayed at just over 4,000. The most promising data from the inflow and outflow is that there is a
significant increase in the number of people commuting to Auburn for work. The influx of non-
residents provides another pool of people that engage with the services, features, and resources in
the City.
...▪ a .sue
■ INFLOW �► OUTFLOW'
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ •I i/
31,121 23,613
NON RESIDENTS
WORKING IN
AUBURN
RESIDENTS
LIVING &
WORKING IN
AUBURN
4,535
RESIDENTS
WORKING
OUTSIDE OF
AUBURN
Chapter 3 - Comprehensive Plan Process
3.1- Philosophy and Ideals - City's Approach to Planning
The City of Auburn's approach to comprehensive planning prepares the City for future development
activity and for accomplishing goals. There are three distinct philosophies that shape how the City
can manage future planning issues:
1. Reactive - prioritizes flexibility in responding to changing conditions and individual situa-
tions; addresses problems and issues at the time they arise; advance planning is de-
emphasized
2. Predictive - anticipate future needs and plan to meet them; involves research and analysis
3. Proactive - seek to influence future events to achieve community objectives; involves
significant research, analysis, and relationship building
Over time, the City's approach and strategy has shifted from being largely reactive to being more
predictive and proactive. The proactive approach blended with the predictive approach ensures
that basic community values are reflected in the City's planning of existing and future development.
Growth
The City of Auburn faces the potential for significant growth in the upcoming decades with many
new households and new jobs. Much of this growth is due to basic factors beyond the City's
control; however, other aspects of growth can be appropriately managed. Therefore, it will be
through the implementation of strong policies, and adherence to the policies that the City will be
able to influence patterns of desired future growth.
Step 1: Issue Identification
Since its original adoption in 1986, and adoption in compliance with the Washington State Growth
Management Act (GMA) in 1995, City staff has worked under the existing Comprehensive Plan's
principles and parameters. Having such a close understanding of and working relationship with
the Comprehensive Plan, its successes, failures, and unintended consequences, has made the
Planning Department well- situated to identify necessary changes to both the content and structure
of the Plan. In addition, elected officials and other City staff members have brought forward ideas
and presented issues that should be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. In consultation with the
City of Auburn Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor, important principles, values,
and issues have been tracked and categorized for inclusion in this plan.
Step 2: Public Input
"Imagine Auburn ", a visioning process used to capture a comprehensive community vision, began
in early 2014. This public outreach and input initiative was designed to garner public input about
Page 1
Auburn's future from a broad range of stakeholders. Public involvement helps the City create a
more representative process, a more complete plan, and comply with the Growth Management Act
(GMA). Outreach events and activities involved social media, stakeholder interviews, online
questionnaires, intercept interviews, committee meetings, and seven community workshops held
in neighborhoods throughout the City and cumminating in a open house to share initial results.
Throughout the City's outreach events and activities, community members have shared their ideas
about how to manage growth and change in Auburn; and more importantly, have shared their
ideas and vision about the Auburn they want to see in the future. Participants weighed in on topics
such as neighborhood character, the Downtown environment, economic opportunities,
transportation issues, such as opportunities to walk and bike, as well as, community facilities, open
space and trails.
Step 3: Policy Development
Imagine Auburn created the foundation upon which the City of Auburn has crafted its vision
statement and value statements for future growth and development. The Community's information
and perspectives has become the basis for the Plan's values and direction. After concluding the
Imagine Auburn visioning process, the City Council held a retreat where they developed a
statement embodying the vision the community had for Auburn.
From Imagine Auburn, elected official oversight, and coordination with GMA goals, Vision 2020,
Vision 2040, King County Countywide Planning Policies, and Pierce County Countywide Planning
Policies (see Chapter 3.2), City staff developed a set of seven value statements that will shape the
contents of the Comprehensive Plan. The value statements or "values" will also be the guiding
principles for how the City functions and how officials and staff make decisions. During the process
of categorizing and shaping the values, comments were collected from every City department, as
well as City Council and Planning Commission.
The result is a working document that frames these seven values around ideas of how the
particular value will manifest itself in the future (What It Will Look Like), what the value means
(What It Means), in practice, for Auburn, and how the value will be implemented (How It Will
Happen) by staff, elected officials, and citizens.
From these values, City staff developed the Comprehensive Plan's objectives and policies. These
objectives and policies more specifically guide the future growth and development of different land
uses and geographic areas in the City. They also guide the development of the supporting capital
facilities, transportation, utilities, shoreline and parks and open space plans (see Appendix 3.2) and
the code regulations that implement all of the above.
Development of these objectives and policies included oversight of elected officials, review of GMA
compliance requirements, Vision 2020 and 2040, King County and Pierce County Countywide
Planning Policies, and incorporation of identified needs, recommendations, and policies of Imagine
Page 2
Auburn. During this process, additional research, such as the Health /mpactAssessment(not
currently addressed or included by Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies) and a separately
prepared Housing Element was also reviewed.
Step
LF11 4: Adoption
An ongoing process of outlining, drafting, and editing of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan
began during the summer /fall of 2014. An annotated staff draft was submitted to the Planning
Commission in
April and May of 2015
From March to May 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed and refined
the Draft Plan during several regular and special meetings. The Planning Commission also held
two public hearings, which allowed for public testimony, during that period. In June of 2015, the
Planning Commission completed its review and formulated its recommendations to the City
Council to adopt the "Staff Draft ".
Following receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council held a public
hearing. Through City Council study sessions, council members voiced comments and conducted
a review in (insert dates and event type . The Comprehensive Plan was formally
adopted by the City Council on (insert date and identify type of meeting)
Annual Amendment Process
Since the time of the GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan's adoption in 1995, the City of Auburn
has amended the comprehensive plan on an annual basis as provided for by State law.
Amendments outside of the annual amendment process have also occurred during this time frame
using the special exceptions and emergency provisions allowed by the Growth Management Act.
The amendment process affords the public an opportunity to request changes to the plan annually
to address changing circumstances and also has allowed the City to address amendments to
State law and the changing needs of the community.
The process of initial adoption, periodic major updates, and continual amendments requires
commitment, effort, and collaboration between elected officials, appointed bodies, staff, and of
course, the residents of Auburn.[gy2]
Page 3
3.2 - Policy Coordination - Between the City and the State, Region, and Counties
The State: Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)
During the 1980's, Auburn, King County and the entire Puget Sound region experienced an
extremely rapid rate of growth in both population and employment. This rapid growth brought with
it increased traffic congestion, air and water pollution, increased housing costs, and the loss of
natural areas and resource lands. In response to these problems, the State Legislature passed HB
2929, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990 and amendments in each of
the following years.
The GMA requires that Auburn, King County, Pierce County, and all jurisdictions within the counties
develop and coordinate their comprehensive plans to meet statewide goals. The GMA contains 14
planning goals which must be considered as local jurisdictions develop, adopt, and update
comprehensive plans. The goals of GMA offer guidance to all jurisdictions planning under the Act
as they develop their vision in accordance with statewide goals. As such, the City's vision statement
and seven value statements, embody these statewide goals, as well as the community's vision for
future growth and development.
GMA GOALS
CITY OF AUBURN VALUES
URBAN GROWTH. GOAL 1: Encourage
development in urban areas where adequate
public facilities exist or can be provided in an
efficient manner.
The City's values of place, wellness, and
environment provide a framework for the design
and maintenance of high - quality places, spaces,
and neighborhoods, the concurrent
infrastructure to serve them, and the
preservation of and appropriate access to open
spaces and critical areas.
*LOCATION IN PLAN *Igy3]
URBAN SPRAWL. GOAL 2: Reduce the
inappropriate conversion of undeveloped
land into sprawling, low- density development.
The City's values of place, wellness, and
environment provide a framework for the design
and maintenance of high - quality places, spaces,
and neighborhoods, the concurrent
infrastructure to serve them, and the
preservation of and appropriate access to open
spaces and critical areas.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
TRANSPORATION. GOAL 3: Encourage
efficient multi -modal transportation systems
that are based on regional priorities and
coordinated with county and city
comprehensive plans.
The City's values of place, wellness, service, and
economy provide a framework for designing
and financing multi -modal transportation
systems that physically connect neighborhoods,
safely and efficiently move people and goods
throughout the City and beyond, and are
Page 4
coordinated with transit and other governmental
agencies.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
HOUSING. GOAL 4: Encourage the availability
of affordable housing to all segments of the
population, promote a variety of residential
densities and housing types, and encourage
preservation of existing housing stock.
The City's values of place, wellness, and
economy provide a framework for building high -
quality housing, maintaining existing housing,
and enabling a diverse and robust marketplace
so that people want and can live here.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. GOAL 5:
Encourage economic development
throughout the state that is consistent with
adopted comprehensive plans, promote
economic opportunity for all citizens of this
state, especially for unemployed and for
disadvantaged persons, and encourage
growth in areas experiencing insufficient
economic growth, all within the capacities of
the state's natural resources, public services,
and public facilities.
The City's values of wellness, economy,
celebration, and sustainability provide a
framework for addressing the economic
development needs of all places and people,
through strategic expansion of and investment
in capital facilities, targeted economic
development strategies, inclusiveness for a
socially, ethnically, economically, and culturally
diverse community, balance of natural resource
protections and economic and cultural
prosperity, and delivery of public services that
result in an educated, equitable, and prosperous
community.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
PROPERTY RIGHTS. GOAL 6: Private property
shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The
property rights of landowners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory
actions.
The City's values of service and celebration
provides a framework for a government whose
processes are transparent to all and is inclusive,
proud, and reflective of Auburn's diverse and
evolving culture and heritage.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
PERMITS. GOAL 7: Applications for both state
and local government permits should be
processed in a timely and fair manner to
ensure predictability.
The City's value of service provides a framework
for an efficient, approachable, responsive, and
transparent government that provides frequent
communication and whose processes and
services are convenient to all.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
NATURAL RESOURCE INDUSTRIES. GOAL 8:
Maintain and enhance natural resource
based industries, including productive timber,
agricultural, and fisheries industries.
Encourage the conservation of productive
The City's values of wellness, environment, and
sustainability provide a framework for natural
resource protection and enhancement,
appropriate access to natural resources and
open spaces, maintenance and strategic
Page 5
forest lands and productive agricultural lands,
and discourage incompatible uses.
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION. GOAL 9:
Encourage the retention of open space and
development of recreational opportunities,
conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase
access to natural resource lands and water,
and develop parks.
ENVIRONMENT. GOAL 10: Protect the
environment and enhance the state's high
quality of life, including air and water quality,
and the availability of water.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION.
GOAL 11: Encourage the involvement of
citizens in the planning process and ensure
coordination between communities and
jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
PUBLIC FACILTIES AND SERVICES. GOAL 12:
Ensure that those public facilities and
services necessary to support development
shall be adequate to serve the development
at the time the development is available for
occupancy and use without decreasing
Page 6
expansion of public infrastructure, natural
resource protection that results in a thriving and
long- lasting community, and appropriate
updating of the adopted Shoreline Master
Program.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
The City's values of wellness, environment, and
sustainability provide a framework for natural
resource protection and enhancement,
appropriate access to natural resources and
open spaces, maintenance and strategic
expansion of public infrastructure, natural
resource protection that results in a thriving and
long- lasting community, and appropriate
updating of the adopted Shoreline Master
Program.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
The City's values of wellness, environment, and
sustainability provide a framework for natural
resource protection and enhancement,
appropriate access to natural resources and
open spaces, maintenance and strategic
expansion of public infrastructure, natural
resource protection that results in a thriving and
long- lasting community, and appropriate
updating of the adopted Shoreline Master
Program.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
The City's value of service provides a framework
for an efficient, approachable, responsive, and
transparent government that provides frequent
communication and whose processes and
services are convenient to all.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
The City's values of place, wellness, and
environment provide a framework for the design
and maintenance of high - quality places, spaces,
and neighborhoods, the concurrent
infrastructure to serve them, and the
preservation of and appropriate access to open
current service levels below locally
established minimum standards.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION. GOAL 13: Identify
spaces and critical areas.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
and encourage the preservation of lands,
sites, and structures that have historical or
archaeological significance.
The City's values of place, celebration, and
sustainability provide a framework for high
quality neighborhoods, places, and spaces,
unique identities of individual neighborhoods
that make up "One Auburn ", inclusiveness and
pride in the City's diverse populace and where
they live, work, and play, and reflection of
Auburn's diverse and evolving culture and
heritage, a framework that underscores the
City's historic preservation policies and
regulations.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT. GOAL 14: The
goals and policies of the shoreline
management act as set forth in RCW
98.58.020.
The City's values of wellness, environment, and
sustainability provide a framework for natural
resource protection and enhancement,
appropriate access to natural resources and
open spaces, maintenance and strategic
expansion of public infrastructure, natural
resource protection that results in a thriving and
long- lasting community, and appropriate
updating of the adopted Shoreline Master
Program.
*LOCATION IN PLAN*
In addition to planning goals, the GMA prescribes general components for inclusion in the
Comprehensive Plan (see APPENDIX 3.1). As the components are a guide to all jurisdictions
planning under GMA, few are specifically related to comprehensive planning objectives and
policies for cities. These GMA- specified objectives and policies related to cities include:
• Suggestions to consider innovative land use planning techniques, such as density bonuses,
cluster housing, planned unit developments, and transfer of developments, and multi -
modal transportation improvements and strategies.
• Provisions for enacting or expanding affordable housing incentive programs.
• Superseding of local regulations by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) for certain land
uses, such as accessory dwelling units, family day -care provider's home facility, general
aviation airports, and forestry uses.
Page 7
Since, the GMA only prescribes general goals and components required for the Comprehensive
Plan, the development of specific objectives and policies was guided by the City's value statements
and consistency with the applicable needs, recommendations, and policies identified in the
documents below.
The Region: Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2040
The GMA required the development of multi -county planning policies for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and
Snohomish Counties, resulting in Vision 2020. In April 2008, the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) updated Vision 2020 with a new planning document, Vision 2040. The vision is for vibrant,
livable, and healthy communities that offer economic opportunities for all, provide safe and efficient
mobility, use our resources wisely and efficiently, protect the environment, integrate land use,
economic, and transportation decisions in a manner that supports a healthy environment,
addresses global climate change, achieves social equity, and considers the needs of future
generations, and thus, advances the ideals of our people, prosperity, and planet.
Vision 2040 continues Vision 2020's commitment to both the land use patterns that can achieve a
compact centers concept, and a reordering of transportation investment priorities to emphasize
multi -modal choices, such as walking, biking, and taking public transportation, efficiency, demand
management, and the maintenance of current facilities. To achieve this end, Vision 2040 supports
the development of more compact living and working places, limiting the expansion of the urban
area, and focusing a significant amount of new employment and housing into mixed -use centers
served by efficient, transit - oriented, multi -modal systems.
Vision 2040 also continues to recognize Auburn as a Regional Growth Center. Regional Growth
Centers are "designated areas of high- intensity residential and employment development...
Regional growth centers serve as a primary framework for regional transportation and economic
development planning." (Vision 2040, pg. 52)
Building on existing Vision 2020 policies, Vision 2040 provides a stronger environmental focus in
recognition of the need to ensure long -term sustainability in the region, including addressing issues
of climate change, a stronger emphasis of high - quality, compact urban communities that impart a
distinctive sense of place, and new focus for planning and designing communities to advance
physical, social, and mental well -being and more active lifestyles.
The six regional goals established by Vision 2040 relate to environment, development patterns,
housing, economy, transportation, and public services.
For more details on Vision 2040, see Vision 2040. People-Prosperity-Planet- The Growth
Management, Environmental, Economic and Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound
Region.
The Counties: Countywide Planning Policies
Page 8
The GMA requires King County, Pierce County, and all jurisdictions within each county to establish
county-wide planning policies. These policies are intended to (1) provide processes for
coordinating planning activities in the region; (2) obtain consistency between state, regional, and
local jurisdictions; and (3) provide a policy framework for the development and adoption of
coordinated and consistent comprehensive land use plans throughout the county. The county-
wide planning policies cover the establishment of urban growth areas, the provision of urban
services, the siting of essential public facilities, economic development, transportation and
affordable housing.
The Countywide Planning Policies are a framework to guide the development of the
comprehensive plans for counties and each city within the county. The Countywide Planning
Policies do not dictate the way each jurisdiction will handle its share of growth or which city will
choose to have one or more Urban Centers. Rather, the policies set up criteria and allow local
decisions.
The City of Auburn is mostly located within King County, but the southern portion of the City, is
located within Pierce County.
King County Countywide Planning Policies ( KCCPP)
As adopted in 1992, the King County Countywide Planning Policies (KCCPP) are a vision statement
of how King County should grow over the next 20 years. Amendments to these policies were
adopted in 1994, and a significant amendments subsequently in 2012. The policies established an
Urban Growth Area within the western one -third of the county where most future growth and
development would occur in order to reduce urban sprawl, enhance open space, protect rural
areas and more efficiently use social services, transportation and utilities.
Urban Centers were designated within existing cities which serve as areas of concentrated
employment and housing and a wide variety of land uses, including retail, recreational, cultural and
public facilities, parks and open spaces, with direct service by high- capacity transit. Emphasizing
growth in the urban centers will contribute to achieving the GMA goal of concentrating
infrastructure investments and preventing further urban sprawl. Downtown Auburn achieved
urban center status in 2004. Some other Urban Centers include the downtowns of Bellevue,
Seattle, Renton, Federal Way, SeaTac, Kent and Redmond.
The policies also call for designation of Manufacturing /Industrial Centers, recognizing that these
sites are key components of a strong regional economy. These centers would be zoned to
preserve and encourage industrial growth. Examples include the Duwamish River industrial area
and Kent.
The 1994 amendments to the KCCPPs placed an increased emphasis on Activity Areas, which
evolved into emphasis on Local Centers in the 2012 KCCPPs. These centers, such as
neighborhood centers, transit station areas, or other activity nodes, contain a mix of housing,
Page 9
employment, and in a compact form, are within walking distance of surrounding residential areas,
foster a healthy community through physical exercise and a sense of neighborhood, and provide
local transit connections to Urban Centers and elsewhere within the Urban Growth Area.
The 2012 KCCPPs also contain policy direction on three new policy areas, climate change, healthy
communities, and social equity. These policy directions include, but are not limited to:
• Considering the impact and disparity of environmental hazards, risks, and burdens on
minority and low- income populations.
• Recognizing the importance of natural ecosystems and their contribution to human health
and vitality now and for future generations.
• Reducing greenhouse gases from land use, transportation, and building activities, and
mitigating the impacts of climate change.
• Planning for development patterns that improve public health by providing all residents
with opportunities for safe and convenient daily physical activity, social connectivity, and
protection from exposure to harmful substances and environments.
• Using productive agricultural lands and the associated food economy to distribute
agricultural food and food products to all King County communities, especially the areas
with limited access to healthy food options.
A key policy area that carried over to the 2012 KCCPP is housing affordability. One of the critical
issues facing the region as it grows is the quantity and location of affordable housing. In the Puget
Sound region, housing prices have skyrocketed over the past few decades. As such, KCCPPs
recognize housing affordability as a regional issue and seek to encourage that all jurisdictions
accept their fair share of affordable housing.
Auburn has historically had a positive response to providing a range of housing opportunities to all
groups. The City has historically provided affordable housing and demonstrated a willingness to
accept its "fair share" of these units on a regional basis. Auburn is willing to continue to meet
regional housing goals, however, this willingness will only be the case if it can be demonstrated
that there is a regional effort to spread these units and their related costs on an equitable basis
throughout all of the communities in the region.
The "Urban Separators" is another key policy that carried over to the 2012 KCCPP. The "Urban
Separators" are low- density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area
(UGA). These areas are considered to be permanent low- density lands that cannot be
redesignated within the 20 -year planning cycle (which began in 2004) to other urban uses or higher
densities. (King County Countywide Planning Policies, pg. 27)
There are significant areas of lands designated as "Urban Separator" within the eastern and Lea
Hill portion of the City of Auburn (see the Comprehensive Land Use Map). Pursuant to the King
County Countywide Planning Policies, these areas are zoned for residential development not to
Page 10
exceed densities of approximately one dwelling unit per acre. No modifications to the development
regulations to increase density governing these areas can occur without King County review and
concurrence.
Lastly, the KCCPPs also contain growth targets for each jurisdiction. These targets represent
commitments by jurisdictions to provide sufficient land and infrastructure to accommodate these
targets, but recognize that achievement of targets is dependent on many variables including the
marketplace. King County's residential target range for Auburn is approximately 9,620 new
households and its employment target range is approximately 19,350 new jobs by 2031.
For more detailed information, see the King County Countywide Planning Policies.
Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies
The development of the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies (PCCPPs) involved a
significant level of coordination and cooperation between the county and the incorporated Cities
and towns within it. The PCCPPs were adopted in June 1992 by the Pierce County Council and
ratified by the cities and towns. The PCCPP has since been amended approximately once every 4
years and was significantly amended in 2012.
As with the King County Countywide Planning Policies (KCCPPs), the PCCPPs establish guidelines
and a framework from which county and municipal comprehensive plans are to be developed and
adopted. Similarly, the PCCPPs also call for the establishment of centers, including Regional
Growth Centers in the Metropolitan City (ex. Tacoma Central Business District and Tacoma Mall),
Regional Growth Centers in Core Cities (ex. Lakewood and Puyallup Downtown), Countywide
Centers (none currently designated), and Manufacturing /Industrial Centers (ex. Port of Tacoma and
Frederickson).
There are currently no PCCPP- designated centers in the City of Auburn. The Pierce County portion
of the City is primarily the Lakeland Hills South Planned Unit Development (PUD), which consists of
single - family and moderate density dwellings, the Lakeland Town Center commercial area, and
parks facilities, and also contains the entirety of the TV Terrace View zoning district (a heavy
commercial zoning district current developed with moderate and high density dwellings), several
commercially zoned properties along A ST SE, and several single - family subdivisions in the vicinity,
but outside of the Lakeland Hills South PUD.
Also echoing the KCCPPs, the 2012 update of the PCCPPs included chapters on community and
urban design and health and well- being, policy areas not previously addressed. For those policy
areas, policy direction includes, but are not limited to:
• Developing high - quality, compact communities that have a sense of place and local
character, provides for mixed use and choices in housing types, and encourages
alternatives to personal vehicle use.
Page 11
• Considering public health and well -being by improving walking and biking environments,
construction of healthy buildings, and providing access to fresh and minimally processed
food.
• Minimizing negative impacts by transportation and climate change on human health.
• Ensuring residents of all socio- economic statuses live in a healthy environment.
The 2012 amendments to the PCCPPs also provided additional emphasis in:
• Housing accessible to services and jobs.
• Encouraging sustainability in the practices of private, public, and nonprofit organizations,
maintenance and use of natural resources, and planning of transportation systems.
• Maintaining air quality, such as reducing particulates emitted from wood - burning and
transportation activities and addressing climate change, such as policies to consider
shoreline impacts and greenhouse gas reduction.
• Considering all modes in transportation system investments and policies, including freight
mobility and level of service standards for transit in addition to roadways and intersections.
• Recognizing contributions by the county's diverse population and providing services to
populations facing unique obstacles or special needs.
The PCCPPs have assigned 2030 population, housing, and employment allocations to the
jurisdictions. The City's 2030 allocation is 7,950 people, 3,634 households, and 206 jobs (based on
2008 City limits).
For more detailed information, see the Pierce County Countywide Planning Policies.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 3.1
The following components are required by the Growth Management Act to be included in the
Comprehensive Plan:
• Designation of, in conjunction with King and Pierce Counties, an urban growth area
sufficient to accommodate housing and employment growth to 20XX.
• Designation of, in conjunction with King and Pierce Counties and adjacent
jurisdictions, a potential annexation area for the City.
• Development of, in conjunction with King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap Counties
and the jurisdictions within them, a multi -county planning framework (see below
Multi -county Planning Policies: Vision 2020 and 2040) and consistency with that
framework.
• Development of, in conjunction with King and Pierce Counties and the jurisdictions
within them, a county -wide planning framework (see below King County
Page 12
Countywide Policies and Pierce County Countywide Policies) and consistency with
that framework.
• Designation of the proposed general distribution, location, and uses of the land,
including population and building densities, and estimates of future population
growth. Land Use Element
• Inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs necessary to
manage projected growth, and provisions for the preservation, improvement, and
development of housing for all economic segments of the community. Housing
Element
• Inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, a forecast of future
needs, and the proposed location and capacities of expanded or new capital
facilities, including park and recreation facilities. Capital Facilities /Park and
Recreation Elements
• Analysis and implementation of transportation improvements or strategies to
accommodate the impacts of development and multi -modal transportation.
Transportation Element
• Establishment of provisions for economic growth, vitality, and a high quality of life.
Economic Development Element
• Designation and protection of lands useful for public purposes (utility corridors,
transportation corridors, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, stormwater
management facilities, recreation, schools). Utilities Element
• Designation and protection of lands useful for open space corridors (recreation,
wildlife habitat, trails, and connection of critical areas).
• Designation and protection of resource lands (forest, agricultural and mineral) and
critical areas (wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded areas).
• Designation and siting of essential public facilities (airports, state education
facilities, and state or regional transportation facilities, regional transit authority
facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities,
inpatient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities,
group homes, and secure community transition facilities)[gy4].
• Adoption of a shoreline master program as an element of the plan.
• Adoption of development regulations which implement the plan. Compliance with
all provisions of the GMA.
• Many of these components require substantial inventorying and data collection,
maps and descriptive text, and analysis, and consequently, several components
warrant a City long -range planning document of their own (see APPENDIX 3.2). In
addition, these components must be consistent and coordinated.
APPENDIX 3.2
Page 13
Due to the extensive of topics to be addressed for certain GMA- required elements, these
elements while guided by the Comprehensive Plan, warrant their own long -range plans.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is the blueprint for transportation planning in
Auburn. Washington State's 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that
transportation planning be directly tied to the City's land use decisions and fiscal planning.
This is traditionally accomplished through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
transportation element. However, Auburn fulfills this mandate by adopting the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan as the City's Comprehensive Plan transportation
element. It functions as the overarching guide for development of the transportation system
considering spatial and fiscal priorities.
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan evaluates the existing system by identifying key
assets and improvement needs. These findings are then incorporated into a needs
assessment, which informs the direction the City will take in developing the future
transportation system. This Plan is multi - modal, addressing multiple forms of transportation
in Auburn including the street network, non - motorized travel, transit, and air transportation.
Evaluating all modes uniformly enables the City to address its future network needs in a
more comprehensive and balanced manner.
Capital Facilities Plan
A capital facilities component is a comprehensive plan element required by Washington
State's 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA). Capital facilities generally have long usable
lives, significant associated costs, and are typically not mobile.
The GMA requires that capital facilities documentation includes an inventory of existing
capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such
capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities
and at least a six -year plan to finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding.
The GMA also requires that the land use element be reassessed if probably funding falls
short of existing needs.
The Capital Facilities Plan is a companion document to the Comprehensive Plan; this
document identifies the planning approach and policy framework by which decisions are
made regarding capital facilities. This Capital Facilities Plan contains time frames which are
the intended framework for future funding decisions and within which future actions and
decisions are intended to occur. However, these time frames are estimates, and depending
on factors involved in the processing of applications and project work, and availability of
funding, the timing may change from the included time frames. The framework does not
Page 14
represent actual commitments by the City which may depend on funding resources
available. The Capital Facilities Plan is amended each year.
Comprehensive Water Plan
The Comprehensive Water plan offers a complete roadmap of proposed improvements for
anticipated future growth. The City initiated this Plan recognizing the importance of
planning, developing, and financing water system facilities to provide reliable and efficient
service for existing customers and to serve anticipated growth. The Plan is designed to
meet state, county, and local requirements. It complies with the requirements of the
Washington State Department of Health (DOH) as set forth in the Washington
Administrative Code 246- 290 -100, Water System Plan. As with the other comprehensive
plans, the Comprehensive Water Plan satisfies the requirements of the Growth
Management Act.
The Comprehensive Water Plan contains timeframes which are the intended framework for
future funding decisions and within which future actions and decisions are intended to
occur. However, these timeframes are estimates, and depending on factors involved in the
processing of applications and project work, and availability of funding, the timing may
change from the included timeframes. The framework does not represent actual
commitments by the City of Auburn which may depend on funding resources available.
Comprehensive Sewer Plan
The Comprehensive Sewer Plan outlines all known future plans for sewer expansion and
maintenance, in accordance with the Growth Management Act and other state regulatory
bodies. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan (Sewer Plan) for the City of Auburn, Washington
(City), is an update to the previous plan that was completed in November 2009. Evaluation
of the sanitary sewer system for this Sewer Plan incorporated system -wide hydraulic
modeling, economic life modeling of utility assets, and evaluation of the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) to account for completed projects, changes in system
conditions, and new development, as well as to incorporate new financial information.
This Sewer Plan contains time frames which are the intended framework for future funding
decisions and within which future actions and decisions are intended to occur. However,
these time frames are estimates, and depending on factors involved in the processing of
applications and project work, and availability of funding, the timing may change from the
included time frames. The framework does not represent actual commitments by the City
which may depend on funding resources available.
Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan
Page 15
The City of Auburn's Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan (Drainage Plan) is an
update of the previous plan, which was completed in 2009. An update to the 2009 Drainage
Plan was necessary for several reasons including new regulatory requirements, continued
growth and development, the need for a comprehensive system inventory and an update of
the list of projects for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
The Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan contains time frames which are the
intended framework for future funding decisions and within which future actions and
decisions are intended to occur. However, these time frames are estimates, and depending
on factors involved in the processing of applications and project work, and availability of
funding, the timing may change from the included time frames. The framework does not
represent actual commitments by the city of Auburn which may depend on funding
resources available.
The purpose of this new Drainage Plan is to guide the City's Stormwater Drainage utility
with respect to future activities and improvements for the stormwater drainage system. An
asset management approach was used to develop a work plan for the stormwater utility.
Shoreline Master Program
The Auburn City Council adopted the updated Auburn Shoreline Master Program in April of
2009 (Ordinance No. 6235) in accordance with Washington's Shoreline Management Act
(SMA), which was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in a
referendum. The SMA was created in response to a growing concern among residents of
the state that serious and permanent damage was being done to shorelines by unplanned
and uncoordinated development. The goal of the SMA is "to prevent the inherent harm in
an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." While protecting
shoreline resources by regulating development, the SMA is also intended to provide for
appropriate shoreline use by encouraging land uses that enhance and conserve shoreline
functions and values.
Consistent with state guidelines (WAC 173 -26 -201, Comprehensive Process to Prepare or
Amend Shoreline Master Programs), a first step in the comprehensive Master Program
update process is development of a shoreline inventory and characterization. The inventory
and characterization documents current shoreline conditions and provides a basis for
updating the City's Master Program goals, policies, and regulations. The characterization
identifies existing conditions, evaluates existing functions and values of shoreline
resources, and explores opportunities for conservation and restoration of ecological
functions.
State guidelines also require that local governments develop Master Program policies that
promote "restoration" of damaged shoreline ecological functions and develop a "real and
meaningful" strategy to implement restoration objectives. Planning for shoreline restoration
Page 16
includes identifying opportunities (both programmatic and site - specific), establishing goals
and policies, working cooperatively with other regional entities, and supporting restoration
through other regulatory and non - regulatory programs.
Parks & Recreation Open Space Plan
The City of Auburn Parks & Recreation Open Space Plan (PROS), an element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and an update of the 2006 Plan. The PROS Plan provides a six -year
plan and 20 -year vision for Auburn's park system and the steps needed for developing and
improving existing park facilities, the development and acquisition for new park facilities,
and expanding recreational and arts programming in the City of Auburn. It outlines goals
and objectives, implementation strategies, capital improvements, and investment programs
for the City's parks, recreation and open space system. The PROS Plan provides guidelines
and direction for the City in terms of acquiring, developing and preserving property,
accepting property donations, and identifying potential funding sources and other actions
enabling the City to respond to opportunities in a timely fashion. The Plan will identify the
action steps needed in our park and recreation systems to ensure that these systems are
an integral part of the City's economic development strategy. Also, the plan is required in
order to be eligible for state and federal grants administered by the Washington State
Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO).
Page 17