HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-11-2017 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONCity Council S tudy Session P W CD S FA
December 11, 2017 - 5:30 P M
Council Chambers - City Hall
AGE ND A
Watch the meeting L IV E !
Watch the meeting video
Meeting videos are not available until 72
hours after the meeting has concluded.
I .C A L L TO O R D E R
A.R oll Call
I I .A NNO UNC E ME NT S , R E P O RT S , A ND P R E S E NTAT I O NS
I I I .A G E ND A I T E MS F O R C O UNC I L D I S C US S I O N
I V.P UB L I C W O R K S A ND C O MMUNI T Y D E V E L O P ME NT D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
A.D iscussion of Digital P arity G oal (Haugan)(15 Minutes)
B.C enters Designation Overview (S nyder)(10 Minutes)
C .C apital Project Status Report and 2017 Year End Summary (S nyder)(10 Minutes)
D .R esolution 5323, A mendment to the Transit S ervice Direct F inancial Partnership
A greement (Snyder)(5 Minutes)
E.R esolution No. 5335, I nterlocal A greement regarding S C AT B d (Snyder)(10 Minutes)
F.118th Avenue S E Roadway (S nyder)(10 Minutes)
G.D evelopment Regulations Update, R ound 2 (Snyder)(15 Minutes)
H.L ea Hill Road & 104th Avenue P ark - F uture Plans (S nyder)(15 Minutes)
I .2018 A rterial and L ocal S treet S election (Snyder)(10 Minutes)
J .P lanning C ommission R ecommendation – Amending Title 18 as it R elates to
C alculating R esidential Densities (Snyder)(20 Minutes)
K.D angerous Dogs (L ee)(10 Minutes)
V.O T HE R D I S C US S I O N I T E MS
V I .NE W B US I NE S S
V I I .MAT R I X
A.Matrix
V I I I .A D J O UR NME NT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail . Complete agenda packets are available for revi ew
Page 1 of 138
at the City Clerk's Office.
Page 2 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Discussion of Digital Parity Goal (Haugan)(15 Minutes)
Date:
December 6, 2017
Department:
I nf ormation Services
Attachments:
Digital Parity background cos t briefing
Council Briefing - Digital Parity Update
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
This discussion is to determine the coverage area for Council Goal G2: Increase I nternet
Access to Achieve Digital Parity by % by 2020. The brief ing sheet I have supplied, along with
the costs estimate sheet will provide some context and guidelines to focus on as we discuss
the coverage goal.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Haugan
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Number:
Page 3 of 138
Digital Parity: Coverage Discussion Background Costs
Assuming 80% Coverage as the goal.
80% Coverage of Low
Income Students
80% Coverage
of Residents
Muckelshoot Phase $502,500.00 $1,162,000.00
South Auburn Phase $905,000.00 $2,093,000.00
North Auburn Phase $648,000.00 $1,499,000.00
Lea Hill Phase $655,500.00 $1,516,000.00
Project Total (est)$2,711,000.00 $6,270,000.00
Yrs
Project timeline 5 $542,200.00 $1,254,000.00
& Cost per Year 6 $451,833.33 $1,045,000.00
7 $387,285.71 $895,714.29
8 $338,875.00 $783,750.00
9 $301,222.22 $696,666.67
10 $271,100.00 $627,000.00
Notes:
a.80% Coverage of Low Income Students provides coverage for 54% of All residents
b.These are best estimates as of Dec 1, 2017.
c.These costs are expected to go down as we continue to partner with vendors
for Infrastrructure Expansion
Prepared by Iinnovation and Technology - Dec 2017
Page 4 of 138
Page 1 of 2
Council Briefing Update
To: Auburn City Council
From: Paul Haugan, Director – Innovation and Technology
CC: Mayor Nancy Backus
Date: 12.11.1017
Re: Update: G2: Increase Internet Access to Achieve Digital Parity by % by
2020: Discussion Focus – Coverage Area
Council Members,
In November of 2015 you held a Strategic Planning Retreat to help develop your Strategic Vision for
the City of Auburn. You identified 3 Key Goals, of which I am privileged to take the lead on Goal 2:
Digital Parity.
The discussion this evening is to add the final number to your strategic goal, that being the amount
of coverage you wish to provide for the residents of Auburn. The past year has been busy for us as
we have completed our Proof of Concept project and completed significant planning for 2018.
Auburn School District has provided us with 5 high value areas to focus on that will have substantial
impact on low income students. Our planning for 2018 focuses on these top areas.
Previous Council updates have provided proposed maps of our target areas showing the proposed
percentages of students and residents covered.
This discussion is to focus on what you as the Council wish to see as a target coverage goal. We
have proposed, at a minimum, 80% of low income students as the coverage goal. That coverage
will also bring services to 54% of all Auburn residents. The attached background costs estimates
sheet shows this in a bit more detail. The other option is to provide coverage for 80% of all Auburn
residents. This is a larger project of course, again the estimates are included in your costs briefing
sheet.
The Scope of a project of this magnitude necessarily includes a budget component. As we continue
to look at the cost and impact of this Strategic Goal, this conversation should include a component
of “How do we budget appropriately for this?” To assist with this portion of the discussion, we have
included for your review some projected project timelines showing the potential costs per year. This
will help provide some context to the budget equation.
Page 5 of 138
Page 2 of 2
As mentioned on the Costs Briefing sheet, these are best estimates. A detailed project estimate
would cost a significant amount of money, and then lose its accuracy as costs change. These are
estimates based on our current experience. In addition, we expect these costs to go down over time.
As our previous projects have shown, our approach to partnering with vendors has already saved
us substantial sums; that, in addition to new technologies currently being developed should translate
into lower costs over the life of the project.
Thank you
Paul Haugan, Director
Department of Innovation and Technology
Page 6 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Centers Designation Overview (Snyder)(10 Minutes)
Date:
December 5, 2017
Department:
Community Development &
Public Works
Attachments:
Attachment A - Regional Centers Map
Attachment B - PS RC Auburn Profile
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
CENT ERS OVERVIEW
Focusing growth into centers has been a key strategy in the central Puget Sound region since
the 1990 version of Vision 2020. Center planning became more ref ined in the 1995 update
of Vision 2020 wherein 21 Regional Growth Centers and 8 Regional Manuf acturing Industrial
Centers were included. In 2003, designated regional centers became the policy f ocus in the
regional Transportation Improvement Program’s Policy Framework and part of the primary
criteria in the Economic Development District’s Public W orks Program. Based on the
heightened importance of centers and a lack of consistent designation procedures across
the region, the Growth Management Policy Board developed, and the Executive Board
adopted, designation procedures.
Vision 2040 directs PSRC to provide a regional framework for designating and evaluating
regional growth and manuf acturing industrial centers. Designation procedures have been
established that provide the Growth Management Policy Board and Executive Board with a
tool to review and act on the designation of new proposed centers. Regional designation is
made at the discretion of the Executive Board after considering the recommendation of the
Growth Management Policy Board.
There are two types of Centers:
Regional Growth Centers are located in Metropolitan Cities or Core Cities and are
characterized by compact, pedestrian oriented development with a mix of residences,
jobs, retail, services, and entertainment. These centers are intended to provide proximity
to a diverse collection of services, shopping, recreation, and jobs, as well as a variety of
attractive and well-designed residences. Centers are to be f ocal points f or new growth
and are identif ied to receive a signif icant portion of the region’s population and
employment growth. Regional centers are expected to achieve densities sufficient to
support high-capacity transit through long-term growth and development over the 20-year
comprehensive planning period and beyond.
Regional Manufacturing Industrial Centers are locations of more intensive industrial
Page 7 of 138
activity. These centers are characterized by large contiguous blocks served by the
region’s major transportation infrastructure, including roads, rail, and port f acilities. Vision
2040 discourages non-supportive land uses in regional manuf acturing industrial centers,
such as retail, non-related offices, or housing, in order to preserve the basic sector
industries located in these centers. These centers are expected to accommodate a
signif icant share of the region’s manuf acturing industrial employment growth.
An area designated as a Center carries several requirements and objectives related to the
type of designation. These include: establishing growth targets, adopting land use policies
and regulations that are consistent with growth targets, implementing capital facilities and
transportation plans that emphasize public investment in these areas, and evaluating how
these areas are performing relative to adopted policies and strategies. Center designation is
also used as a f actor in determining transportation f unding priorities within the region.
A map depicting PSRC Designated Centers is provided in Attachment A.
HOW IT APPLIES T O AUBURN
Currently, Auburn has one PSRC designated Center - downtown. Downtown falls into the
category of a Regional Growth Center. Auburn does not have a Regional Manuf acturing
I ndustrial Center. Attachment B is taken f rom PSRC’s Vision 2040 document. It provides an
overview of Auburn’s Regional Growth Center.
The City uses the Center designation in it’s applications to PSRC for Regional and
Countywide f ederal grant funds in the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. I n order to submit a project f or
consideration it must fall into one of three categories: be located within a Designated
Regional Growth Center, be located in a Manufacturing/I ndustrial Center, or be on a corridor
Serving a Center(s). Each category has individual criteria that a project is evaluated against to
determine the most ef f ective projects meeting both PSRC’s Vision 2040 goals and the goals
of the Federal f unding programs. Having a designated center allows the City to be more
competitive in this process.
PSRC CENT ERS UPDAT E EFFORT
PSRC is currently working through an effort to update the “Centers Framework” which
outlines updated criteria f or designation of the various dif f erent types of Centers and
evaluating the performance of a Center. This effort is expected to conclude in 2018.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Numb er:
Page 8 of 138
SeaTac Tukwila
Silverdale
Renton
Tacoma Downto wn
Lyn nw oo d
Everett
Kent
Burien
Lakewood
Seattle CBD Bellevu eFirst Hill/Capitol Hill
Puyallup South Hill
Upto wn
Kirkland Totem LakeNorthgate
Tacoma Mall
Bothell Canyon Park
University Commu nity
Auburn
Redmon d Overlake
Redmo nd Downtown
Bremerton
Federal Way
Puyallup Downtown
South Lake Un ion
Un iversityPlace
Kent
Port o f Tacoma
Du wamish
Fred erickson
Paine Field/ Boeing Everett
Puget S ound Industrial Center - Brem erton
Ballard-In terbay
North Tukwila
Issaquah
SumnerPacific
W:\gis\projects\PSRC_Maps\Centers_small.mxdRegional Growth Center
Manufacturing Industrial Center
Urban Growth Area
Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers
Page 9 of 138
2013 Regional Centers Monitoring Report| Center Profiles – Page 1
Auburn
Auburn, a city with approximately 70,705 residents in 2010, spans the
border between King and Pierce counties. Founded in 1891, downtown
Auburn has its roots as a small commercial center catering to the local
farming and forestry economy. While its downtown experienced a
decline in the 1960s and 1970s, overshadowed by nearby auto-oriented
commercial areas, the city began to plan for economic revitalization
downtown in the 1990s. Recognizing the historic downtown’s potential,
city officials participated in the county-wide process in which they
received designation as a regional growth center in 2003. The center is
located near both SR-167 and SR-18 and is served by Sound Transit
Commuter Rail, King County Metro and Pierce Transit. The center is a
historic downtown with many older buildings; new developments in the
center include the transit center, City Hall Annex (One Main Professional
Plaza), and Auburn Medical Plaza.
Acreage, Density & Mix of Activity
Downtown Auburn is among the most compact regional growth centers
in terms of total gross acreage (234 acres) with a net developable
acreage of 146 acres (62% of gross acres). In terms of its role in the city
overall, Auburn contains 1 percent of the city's land area, 2 percent of
the population, 3 percent of the housing, and 8 percent of the
employment. Compared to centers as a whole, downtown Auburn has
among the smallest amounts of total activity units (4,254), with
predominantly commercial activity units (68% jobs/32% residents) and
low density of activity (18.2 units per gross acre).
Urban Form
Auburn's average parcel size is 0.3 acres, which is significantly more
compact than the 1.1-acre average size for growth centers. Downtown
Auburn provides a walkable pedestrian environment, with a complete
network of sidewalks (98% coverage) and small blocks with a 3.4 acre
average size.
The presence of amenities is an important aspect of urban form.
Compared to other centers, downtown Auburn has a diverse set of
urban amenities, though relatively limited in number (72 total amenities
/ 0.31 amenities per gross acre). Public/Civic Services (50%) and
Food/Drink (28%) represent the largest amenity categories, with specific
concentrations in Healthcare, Restaurants and Banks.
Land Use
Auburn contains a mixed set of current land uses that are evenly
distributed between commercial/industrial (41%) and residential (32%)
in terms of total net land area. The major land uses are commercial
(28%), single-family residential (24%), industrial (13%) and vacant
developable (13%).
2010 Summary Statistics
Land use
Gross acreage 234
Average block size (acres) 3.4
Average parcel size (acres) 0.3
Mix of uses
Population/Employee ratio .47 : 1
Population+Employee/acre 18.2
Population
Total population 1,366
Population density/acre 5.8
Change (2000–2010) 10
Housing
Total housing units 725
Housing unit density/acre 3.1
Change (2000–2010) 23
Employment
Total employment 2,888
Employment density/acre 12.3
Change (2000–2010) -77
Transportation
Housing access to transit 74%
Employee access to transit 90%
Work-based mode share
SOV / HOV 81% • 8%
Walk & Bike / Transit 5% • 6%
Urban Amenities
Food & Drink
Restaurants 12
Grocery 5
Cafes & Bars 2
Home Supplies & Services
Pet Supplies 1
Laundry & Haircuts 2
Home supplies -
Clothing & Shoes 3
Banks 7
Arts & Recreation
Spectator Sports -
Fitness & Outdoors 2
Electronics & Toys 1
Bookstores & Libraries 1
Arts & Culture 2
Public & Civic Services
Social Services 2
Schools & Childcare 3
Police, Fire, Postal, City Hall 1
Pharmacy 1
Healthcare 31
Residential Care Centers -
Page 10 of 138
2013 Regional Centers Monitoring Report| Center Profiles – Page 2
Demographics
The total population of the Auburn regional growth center is 1,366, and
grew by 10 residents from 2000 to 2010. The center has a similar age
profile as the region as a whole, with a moderate share of youth (19%)
and a moderate share of seniors (14%). The age of residents is
predominantly 35-64, followed by 18-34 (67% for both age groups
combined). At 24 percent, downtown Auburn's racial diversity is lower
than the region's 27 percent share of non-white residents. The groups
with the highest shares in the Auburn center are White (76%), Other
(11%) and Asian/Pacific Islander and African American/Black equal at 5
percent each. Eleven percent of residents identify as Hispanic.
Employment
The total employment in the Auburn regional growth center is 2,888,
decreasing by 77 jobs from 2000 to 2010. The major industry sectors
are Services (66%), Retail (10%) and Government & Education (14%).
One of the largest employers in this center is Auburn General Hospital.
Housing
The Auburn regional growth center has 725 total housing units, with a
density of 3.1 housing units per gross acre. From 2000 to 2010, housing
increased by 23 units (3.2%). Based on Census Block Group data,
downtown Auburn has a large share (54%) of single family and 2- to 4-
unit multifamily housing, and a significant share of units in 5- to 19- and
20+ unit multifamily (46%). In terms of unit affordability, downtown
Auburn's owner-occupied housing tends to be less expensive than the
region as a whole (based on 2010 Census Block Group data). The
center's share of units under $300,000 is 68 percent, whereas the
region's share is 38 percent. The center's share of units over $500,000 is
5 percent, whereas the region's is 25 percent.
7%
24%
1%
28%
13%
8%
-
3%
13%
2% Multi-Family ResidentialSingle-Family ResidentialMixed UseCommercialIndustrialInstitutionalParks and Open SpaceParkingVacant DevelopableOtherCurrent Land Use
(146 net acres)
19%
24%
43%
14%
Age of Residents
(1,366 residents)
17 and Under
18-34 yrs
35-64 yrs
65 and Over
76%
5% 3% 3% 2%
10% 11% WhiteAfrican AmericanAmerican IndianAsianPacific IslanderOther, 2+ RaceHispanic ethnicityRacial/Ethnic Composition
(1,366 residents)
61%
30%
5%
Size of Businesses
(213 workplaces)
1-4 Employees
5-24
25-50
51-100
>100
Page 11 of 138
2013 Regional Centers Monitoring Report| Center Profiles – Page 3
Transportation
For work-based trips, the Auburn regional center's travel characteristics
are similar to the region as a whole. The region’s single-occupant
vehicle (SOV) share is 76 percent, while the center's share is 81 percent.
The region's non-SOV mode share is 24 percent, with 10 percent in
transit and 5 percent in walk/bike. The center’s non-SOV share is 19
percent, with 6 percent in transit and 5 percent in walk/bike. Total daily
trips from the Auburn center are slightly focused on destinations in
regional centers (18% of all trips); this includes trips that stay within the
center (10%) and trips that go to other centers (8%).
In terms of employee access to transit, downtown Auburn has near
complete access, with 90 percent of employees within a 1/4 mile walk of
transit. For residential, Auburn has good access, with 74 percent of
housing units within a 1/4 mile walk. For the 1/2 mile walkshed, the
center has complete levels of residential access to transit (100%).
Plan Overview
The Auburn Downtown Center Plan was adopted in 2001, prior to
designation as a regional growth center. The plan provides a framework
for downtown redevelopment and economic revitalization, identifying
strategic actions to address challenges. Key challenges addressed by the
downtown plan include decline in overall quality of housing stock and
limited new development and downtown maintenance. The plan
includes an urban design vision, assets and challenges, and economic
forecast of market conditions. The plan was financed, in part, by the
Federal Railroad Administration in anticipation of reopening the
Stampede Pass rail line, and includes a detailed discussion of rail travel
adjacent to downtown.
Since the adoption of the 2001 plan, the city has implemented
development regulations and design standards for the portion of the
regional growth center that is zoned Downtown Urban Center. The
city’s development regulations address a portion of the reporting tools
elements. The city has also put into place several incentives to spur
development within downtown.
Comparison to Center Plan Checklist
The city’s primary center planning document was reviewed to evaluate
the extent to which the plan addresses topics in the PSRC Regional
Centers Checklist. This policy-level review of the current plan is
intended both to provide preliminary assessment of consistency of the
plan with center guidelines and to evaluate the Regional Centers Plan
Checklist for any potential improvements.
34 108 109
285
1,912
31
204 205
1 Construction/ResourceFinance/Insur./Real EstateManufacturingRetailServicesWholesale/Transp./Utilit…GovernmentEducationSuppressed/OtherJobs by Sector
(2,888 jobs)
44%
10%
31%
15%
Housing Units by Type
(1,192 units)
SF Detached
Attached, 2-4
MF 5-19
MF 20+
Other
34%
33%
24%
5%
Value of Owner-Occupied
Units (425 units)
<$200K
$200-300K
$300-400K
$400-500K
>$500,000
81%
8%
5% 6%
Mode Shares
SOV
HOV
Walk &Bike
Transit
10%
29%
8% 22%
31%
Trip Destinations
Within Center
Within City
Other Center
Other Ctr City
Rest of Region
Page 12 of 138
2013 Regional Centers Monitoring Report| Center Profiles – Page 4
The plan addresses many aspects of the Regional Growth Center Plan Checklist. The downtown center is
divided into districts of three types: Main Street, other commercial and industrial districts, and residential
areas. The plan includes a detailed discussion of economic conditions downtown and establishes policies to
encourage mixed commercial development. The plan includes provisions to ensure success of the center and
transition into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly place. The city’s approach to land use, transportation and
design are noteworthy, as well as implementation actions the city has taken to advance transformation of
the area. A clear vision for the center and its component neighborhoods is included, along with an emphasis
on urban design, the pedestrian experience, and preservation of impo rtant cultural resources. The plan
includes policies to improve bicycling routes and safety through downtown, especially in connection with the
transit station.
Some aspects of the Regional Growth Center Plan Checklist have not yet been addressed by the subarea
plan, primarily because the plan was developed over a decade ago, prior to regional designation. The plan
addresses some transportation issues, such as level-of service standards, a parking management strategy and
design criteria that advances transit-supportive land uses, but does not yet include discussion of other
transportation issues, such as complete streets, green streets or mode-split goals. While the city includes
provisions for stormwater management, additional environmental policies addressing air quality, emissions,
parks and open space, and critical areas are not yet addressed. The plan generally encourages housing
downtown through mixed-use zoning, but doesn’t include other policies addressing housing in the center
and does not yet include residential and employment growth targets. Finally, the subarea plan addresses
some existing and planned facilities, but focuses on transportation facilities and doesn’t yet provide
information on financing.
Planning Challenges & Implementation Strategies
As noted in its January 2012 presentation to the Growth Management Policy Board, the Auburn center's
challenges include increasing its residential base, business diversity, and attracting residents to the
downtown center outside of special events. The city is working in several ways to address these challenges
by providing incentives to develop downtown through exempting traffic impact fees for the Auburn Junction
area, Multifamily Tax Exemption for the entire urban center, additional storm drainage capacity, and
providing construction sales tax credit for redevelopment of properties.
The city is also using Community Development Block Grants on a Storefront Façade Improvement Program,
has launched Storefronts Auburn to a display of public art in vacant store fronts, and working aggressively to
engage downtown businesses and the Auburn Downtown Association on business retention. The city has
made several key infrastructures in the downtown center, including City Hall Plaza and Plaza Park, the South
Division Street Promenade Project, a downtown outdoor sculpture gallery, as well as new LED lights on Main
Street and pedestrian wayfinding kiosks.
Page 13 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Capital Project Status Report and 2017 Year End Summary
(Snyder)(10 Minutes)
Date:
December 5, 2017
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Capital Project S tatus Report
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
The purpose of this discussion is to inf orm the Council and Public of the overall status of the
City’s Capital Project program managed by the Community Development & Public W orks
(CDPW) Department.
2017 Year End Summary:
I n 2017, the City’s Capital Projects team advertised 20 significant projects for construction
bids and continued work on 5 other Capital Projects that began construction in the latter part
of 2016. The 25 total combined projects that began construction in 2017 total over $31
million in capital construction expenditures. This investment is helping to reduce congestion
and improve the safety of roadways for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists and is also
helping alleviate f looding issues and improving City water and sewer facilities. By the
numbers, these improvements include:
Reconstructing over 30 lanes miles of new pavement
Replacing over 6,500 linear feet (approx.1 ¼ mile) of new water main
Installing 3 new water system pressure reducing valve stations
Installing 2 new water system well pumps
Replacing over 10,300 linear feet (almost 2 miles) of new storm drain pipe
Replacing over 5,700 linear feet (over 1 mile) of new sanitary sewer pipe
Installing 6 new or replaced complete Traffic Signal systems
Installing various other traffic signal improvements, including f lashing yellow arrow
signals and additional signal heads
Installing 2 new Dynamic Message Signs
Installing approximately 20,000 linear f eet (nearly 4 miles) of new or replaced sidewalks
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Page 14 of 138
Councilmember:Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Numb er:
Page 15 of 138
CP1218 This project will construct corridor improvements to AWS
between Muckleshoot Plaza and Dogwood Street SE.
Improvements include designated U-turns, access
management, driveway consolidation, addition of a 2nd left
turn lane from eastbound AWS into the MIT Casino, bus
pull-outs, medians, signal improvements, and sidewalks.
1,284,027
(Streets)
1,161,340
(Water)
2,333,108
(Federal)
466,191
(WSDOT)
57,015
(Other
Reimbursemen
ts)
5,301,681 5,291,830 100%JAN 71%APR Matt Larson Contractor completing traffic
signal work at Auburn Way
South and Riverwalk Dr SE.
Completion date adjusted to
account for weather delays.
CH2MAuburn Way South Corridor Safety (Muckleshoot Plaza
to Dogwood St SE)
Miles Resources1718
C222A This project will complete the widening of S 277th from the
intersection of Auburn Way North to L Street NE, including
the construction of a pedestrian trail and relocation of the
floodway along S 277th.
1,539,186
(Streets)
1,020,700
(Federal)
2,300,000
(Developer)
3,933,990
(TIB)
8,928,876 8,895,956 100%MAY 85%DEC Kim Truong The Contractor is working on
installing plantings for the
stream and pond, electrical
work for the dynamic
message sign, signal at
Auburn Way North, and
street lighting, and
completing traffic island
work.
Parametrix277TH-AUBURN WAY N TO GREEN RIVER BRIDGE Scarsella Bros.16 17
C410A This project will complete wetland mitigation enhancements
at the S 277th wetland mitigation sites.
55,000
(Streets)
55,000 55,000 100%100%Shannon
Howard
Monitoring work in progress.
Actively seeking mitigation
acceptance from Corps to
end monitoring period.
277TH WETLAND MITIGATION MONITORING
CP1507 This project will rehabilitate and preserve the existing
pavement on Auburn Way North between 22nd St NE and
45th St NE. This work will also upgrade traffic signals and
sidewalk curb ramps.
972,500
(Streets)
42,500
(Storm)
75,000
(Sewer)
16,000
(Water)
967,500
(Federal)
2,073,500 2,138,426 100%FEB 100%OCT Kevin
Thompson
Physical completion granted
on November 17, 2017.
Final pay in process.
N/AAuburn Way North Pavement Preservation Tucci and Sons,
Inc.
17 17
Project
Number Street/Utilities Total Budget
Project Budget Total Estimated
Costs
%
Complete
Finish
Date
%
Complete
Construction
Project
Manager ContractorProject Name & Description Other Status
Capital Project Status Report Community Development And Public Works Department - Engineering General Services Division
Finish
Date
Design
Consultant
Design
CONSTRUCTIONProject Status:
Generated by eGIS:12/5/2017 Page 1 of 9
Page 16 of 138
CP1107 This project will be done in phases. The first phase 1A will
complete investigation of the Fulmer Wellfield area to
determine the required analysis and drilling program
needed to utilize the full water rights. Phase 1B will
complete a drilling and testing program as well as an
alternatives analysis. Phase 2 will complete the physical
improvements.
2,320,315
(Water)
2,660,315 2,659,550 100%APR 89%DEC Luis Barba Contractor is currently
completing electrical work at
the site. Functional testing
has been initiated. Schedule
updated to reflect delay in
water chemistry testing.
Phase 2:
Carollo
Engineers
FULMER WELLFIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Award
Construction
17 17
CP1406 This project will reconstruct the existing signal at C Street
SW and Main Street.
638,802
(Street)
638,802 636,489 100%SEP 0%JUL Kevin
Thompson
Construction Contract is in
suspension for traffic signal
equipment procurement.
Work is expected to resume
in May 2018. Construction
finish date updated to reflect
suspension time. Budget
numbers updated to reflect
contract award information.
DKSMAIN ST SIGNAL UPGRADES West Coast
Signal, Inc.
17 18
CP1415 This project will repurpose the existing W Main St between
W Valley Highway and the Interurban Trail. The project will
also provide Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
improvements along W. Main St., West Valley Hwy, 15th St.
SW, and C St. SW.
824,923
(Streets)
3,770,015
(Federal)
4,379,563 4,094,879 100%JUN 100%NOV Kim Truong Physical completion granted
on November 22, 2017.
Final pay in process.
CH2MW MAIN ST MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR AND ITS
IMPROVEMENTS
Tucci and Sons1617
CP1502 This project will improve the safety at the intersection by
installing a traffic signal, improving ADA ramps, widening
the northeast corner of the intersection to accommodate
U-turns, and pavement restoration.
142,240
(Streets)
792,260
(Federal)
934,500 1,003,162 100%SEP 1%APR Luis Barba Notice to proceed issued on
November 17, 2017. Project
expected to be placed into
suspension for traffic signal
equipment procurement.
KPG37TH ST SE AND A ST TRAFFIC SIGNAL Road
Construction
Northwest
17 18
Project
Number Street/Utilities Total Budget
Project Budget Total Estimated
Costs
%
Complete
Finish
Date
%
Complete
Construction
Project
Manager ContractorProject Name & Description Other Status
Capital Project Status Report Community Development And Public Works Department - Engineering General Services Division
Finish
Date
Design
Consultant
Design
CONSTRUCTIONProject Status:
Generated by eGIS:12/5/2017 Page 2 of 9
Page 17 of 138
CP1317 This project will install automated meter reading
infrastructure and software, and will replace all water
meters.
6,000,000
(Water)
6,000,000 6,000,000 100%JUL 85%MAR Kevin
Snyder
Work is underway. Schedule
updated.
FergusonWater Meter and Billing System Improvements Ferguson1518
CP1513 This project will construct a round-a-bout and complete the
design of intersection bicycle and pedestrian safety
improvements at 22nd St NE and I St NE.
315,000
(Streets)
29,890
(Sewer)
405,000
(Water)
200,000
(State Grant)
940,000
(Federal Grant)
1,889,889 1,784,015 100%JUN 3%APR Seth
Wickstrom
Construction is underway.
Contractor completing
potholing and beginning
work on Storm Drainage.
Reid
Middleton
22nd St NE and I St NE Intersection Improvements DPK, Inc.17 18
CP1522
(CP1122)
This project will replace the 30-inch storm drainage line
along 30th Street NE from approximately I Street NE to
Brannan Park Storm Pump Station to address localized
flooding issues. Phase 1A was completed in Jan. 2016
(CP1122)
2,293,810
(Storm)
2,504,785 2,504,785 100%JUL 100%NOV Kim Truong Physical Completion granted
on July 18, 2017. Final pay
in process. Construction
finish date adjusted to
account for additional time
needed to coordinate final
payment.
Otak30th Street NE Storm Improvements (Phase 1B)KLB Construction1617
CP1613 This project will install a roof retrofit system for the aging
roof at the M&O Building.
292,700
(Facilities)
292,700 292,130 100%MAY 100%NOV Luis Barba Physical completion granted
on November 17, 2017.
Final Pay in process.
HelixM&O Building Roof Retrofit Multifacet Group1717
Project
Number Street/Utilities Total Budget
Project Budget Total Estimated
Costs
%
Complete
Finish
Date
%
Complete
Construction
Project
Manager ContractorProject Name & Description Other Status
Capital Project Status Report Community Development And Public Works Department - Engineering General Services Division
Finish
Date
Design
Consultant
Design
CONSTRUCTIONProject Status:
Generated by eGIS:12/5/2017 Page 3 of 9
Page 18 of 138
CP1520 This project will complete the reconstruction of B St NW
between 37th St NW and 49th St NW, including replacing
sanitary sewer and addressing storm drainage needs.
2,867,829
(Streets)
985,607
(Sewer)
3,853,436 3,273,613 100%MAY 92%DEC Jai Carter Construction is underway. B
St NW paving is complete.
Final lane striping and
sidewalk work remains.
KPGB St NW Reconstruction Project Johansen1717
CP1617 Project replaces 5 Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) stations
in the Lea Hill service area that have exceeded their useful
life with 3 new stations.
1,032,300
(Water)
1,032,000 1,063,339 100%JUN 15%FEB Matt Larson Construction is underway.
Contractor installing the first
of 3 new Pressure Reducing
Valve (PRV) Stations.
Construction completion
date was revised to reflect
the delayed delivery of the
first PRV Station.
BHCLea Hill PRV Stations NOVA
Contracting
17 18
CP1523 The purpose of the project is to rehabilitate and preserve
the existing pavement on Lake Tapps Parkway between the
Western City Limit near 8th Street E and Lakeland Hills
Way
237,850
(Streets)
5,000
(Sewer)
5,000
(Storm)
750,000
(Federal)
997,850 996,591 100%APR 100%OCT Luis Barba Physical completion granted
on November 20, 2017.
Final Pay in process.
N/ALake Tapps Parkway Preservation Project ICON Materials1717
CP1408 This project will install new tracks under the rolling hangar
doors to improve performance.
45,000
(Airport)
45,000 44,757 100%AUG 3%JAN Seth
Wickstrom
Construction is in
suspension for material
procurement. Work is
expected to resume on
December 4. Construction
finish date updated to reflect
suspension time.
KPFFSouth Hangar-Row 3 Door Improvements Pease1718
Project
Number Street/Utilities Total Budget
Project Budget Total Estimated
Costs
%
Complete
Finish
Date
%
Complete
Construction
Project
Manager ContractorProject Name & Description Other Status
Capital Project Status Report Community Development And Public Works Department - Engineering General Services Division
Finish
Date
Design
Consultant
Design
CONSTRUCTIONProject Status:
Generated by eGIS:12/5/2017 Page 4 of 9
Page 19 of 138
CP1614 This project will reconstruct the 28th St SE loop east of R
St., 27th St SE, 26th St SE, S St SE, T St SE and U St SE;
reconstructed 19th St SE and G St SE near Olympic Middle
school, and preserve 53rd Ave S, S 302nd Pl and
associated cul-de-sacs in the Westhill.
2,556,000
(Streets)
500,000
(Water)
200,000
(Storm)
3,256,000 2,900,000 100%MAY 70%APR Jai Carter Construction is underway.
Contractor is installing curbs
and prepping for pavement
within the 28th St SE loop.
Paving West Hill being
rescheduled for a more
favorable weather window,
construction finish date
adjusted accordingly.
Jacobs
Engineering,
Inc.
2017 Local Street Reconstruction and Preservation
Project
Tucci and Sons1718
CP1701 This Project will expand ITS operations by installing a DMS
sign.
200,000
(Streets)
200,000 179,860 100%MAY 100%NOV Luis Barba Physical Completion granted
on November 20, 2017.
Final Pay in process.
N/AAWS Dynamic Message Sign West Coast
Signal, Inc.
17 17
CP1710 This project will reconstruct sections of sidewalk that are in
poor condition or pose a risk as tripping hazards. The
project will also improve connectivity where sections of
sidewalk are missing from the pedestrian network. The
project will add curb ramps where barriers exist or rebuild
existing curb ramps to meet ADA standards.
204,000
(Capital
Improvemen
t Fund)
50,000
(General Fund)
254,000 191,348 100%JUN 100%NOV Aleksey
Koshman
Physical completion granted
on November 20, 2017.
Final pay in process.
N/A2017 Citywide Sidewalk Repairs and Improvement
Project
K&A
Communications
17 17
MS1716 This project will construct curb ramp and crosswalk marking
improvements at the intersection of 37th Street NE and I
Street NE.
15,000
(Streets)
40,000 (CDB
Grant)
15,000
(Engineering
General Fund)
70,000 70,000 100%SEP 5%DEC Aleksey
Koshman
Construction is underway. N/A37th St NE / "I" St NE Curb Ramp Improvements K&A
Communications
LLC
17 17
Project
Number Street/Utilities Total Budget
Project Budget Total Estimated
Costs
%
Complete
Finish
Date
%
Complete
Construction
Project
Manager ContractorProject Name & Description Other Status
Capital Project Status Report Community Development And Public Works Department - Engineering General Services Division
Finish
Date
Design
Consultant
Design
CONSTRUCTIONProject Status:
Generated by eGIS:12/5/2017 Page 5 of 9
Page 20 of 138
CP1407 This project will complete the required public improvements
that the developer for the Marchini Meadows did not
complete. Improvements are prioritized and will be
completed based on available funds.
70,000
(Developer
Settlement)
70,000 70,000 85%TBD 0%TBD Aleksey
Koshman
Overlay of 132nd Ave
completed by project
CP1402 (2014 Pavement
Patching & Overlay).
Replacing broken sidewalks
and driveways was
completed by Project
CP1710 (2017 Citywide
Sidewalk R&R). Design and
Construction finish dates are
shown as unknown because
this work is being completed
in phases.
N/AMARCHINI MEADOWS Various1718
CP1316 This project will complete improvements to the East Ridge
Manor storm system in the Lea Hill area.
1,120,000
(Storm)
1,120,000 1,110,000 20%MAY 0%DEC Kevin
Thompson
Design is underway.
Schedule adjusted to reflect
phasing approach to
minimize impacts to golf
course patrons.
Brown and
Caldwell
EAST RIDGE MANOR STORM IMPROVEMENTS TBD1818
CP1416 This project will reconstruct F St SE from 4th St SE to
Auburn Way South, including adding new sidewalks, curb
and gutter, bike lanes, wayfinding signage, street lighting,
streetscape elements, and safety improvements, and will
include a bike share program with bike boulevard
components. Some ROW acquisition is necessary. Some
sections of water and sewer lines will be replaced on F St
SE between 4th St SE and Auburn Way S.
170,000
(Streets)
100,000
(Water)
24,000
(Sewer)
520,000
(Federal)
814,000 2,727,000 55%JUN 0%TBD Seth
Wickstrom
Design and Environmental
documentation work is
underway. Construction
funding is not yet secured.
City will apply for a
construction grant through
PSRC in 2018 and these
construction grant funds
would be available in 2021.
JacobsF ST SE NON-MOTORIZED IMPROVEMENTS TBD1821
CP1312 This project will replace and/or repair aging and damaged
storm lines throughout the City.
898,166
(Storm)
898,166 898,166 90%MAR 0%JUL Seth
Wickstrom
Design is underway. N/ASTORM REPAIR & REPLACEMENT TBD1818
Project
Number Street/Utilities Total Budget
Project Budget Total Estimated
Costs
%
Complete
Finish
Date
%
Complete
Construction
Project
Manager ContractorProject Name & Description Other Status
Capital Project Status Report Community Development And Public Works Department - Engineering General Services Division
Finish
Date
Design
Consultant
Design
DESIGNProject Status:
Generated by eGIS:12/5/2017 Page 6 of 9
Page 21 of 138
CP1516 The purpose of the project is to improve safety and the
ability to accommodate the current and forecast fleet of
multi-engine piston aircraft for both takeoff and
accelerate-stop distances at the Auburn Municipal Airport
by extending both ends of Runway 16/34.
1,365,000
(Airport)
1,365,000 1,365,000 16%APR 0%DEC Seth
Wickstrom
Consultant scope and fee
negotiations underway.
CenturyWes
t
Auburn Municipal Airport Runway Enhancements TBD1818
CP1603 The project will construct a second, parallel transmission
pipeline under the White River, inspect the existing steel
transmission main for possible leaks and repair the leaks, if
any, and line the portion of the existing steel transmission
main to improve its structural integrity and prevent leaks,
and to construct another 12” to 18” parallel river crossing
casing for providing water service and utility conduit to
wilderness game farm park.
1,340,000
(DWSRF)
185,000
(Water)
1,525,000 1,525,000 17%MAR 0%JUL Seth
Wickstrom
Project design is on hold
pending authorization and
availability of State funding.
JACOBSCoal Creek Springs Transmission Main Repair TBD1818
CP1521 This project will rehabilitate and preserve the existing
pavement in the 15th Street NW/NE and Harvey Road SE
corridor between State Route 167 and 8th Street NE.
Furthermore, grind and overlay 15th Street NW/NE from
State Route 167 to Auburn Way N., and grind and overlay
Harvey Road NE from Auburn Way N to 8th Street NE.
817,500
(Streets)
50,000
(Storm)
50,000
(Sewer)
817,500
(Federal Grant)
1,735,000 1,735,000 70%DEC 0%SEP Kim Truong Design is underway. N/A15th Street NE/NW Preservation Project TBD1718
CP1709 This project will design and construct a seismic control
valve on the City's largest reservoir.
175,000
(Hazard
Mitigation
Grant)
25,000
(Water)
200,000 200,000 40%APR 0%MAY Kevin
Thompson
Design is underway.ParametrixReservoir 1 Seismic Control Valve TBD1818
Project
Number Street/Utilities Total Budget
Project Budget Total Estimated
Costs
%
Complete
Finish
Date
%
Complete
Construction
Project
Manager ContractorProject Name & Description Other Status
Capital Project Status Report Community Development And Public Works Department - Engineering General Services Division
Finish
Date
Design
Consultant
Design
DESIGNProject Status:
Generated by eGIS:12/5/2017 Page 7 of 9
Page 22 of 138
CP1707 This purpose of this project is to design for and improve
traffic signal timing and operations, corridor coordination,
traffic signal head visibility, and pedestrian accessibility
along the A St SE Corridor between 3rd St SE and East
valley Highway Access Road.
45,850
(Street)
412,650
(Federal Grant)
458,500 458,500 1%MAY 0%SEP Kim Truong Design is underway.PH
Consulting,
LLC & DKS
Associates
A St. SE Corridor Signal Safety & Operations
Improvements
TBD1818
CP1705 This project will construct the missing gap of sidewalk along
the north side of Auburn Way South between the existing
sidewalk terminations near 17th St SE to the west and
Muckleshoot Plaza to the east. The project length is
approximately 1,700 feet.
400,000
(TIB Grant)
430,000
(Streets)
830,000 830,000 35%FEB 0%JUL Matt Larson Design Underway;
Coordinating design
improvements with WSDOT
N/AAuburn Way South (SR164) Sidewalk Improvements TBD1818
CP1719 This project will add telemetry and SCADA capabilities to
the 22nd Street NE and R Street NE Sewer Pump Stations.
290,000
(Sewer)
290,000 338,400 1%MAY 0%AUG Matt Larson Consultant scope and fee
negotiations underway,
ParametrixSewer Pump Station Telemetry (SCADA) Improvements TBD1818
CP1717 This project will reconstruct selected streets that are in very
poor condition, as well as improve City owned utilities,
rebuild curb ramps to meet ADA standards, and overlay
selected streets that are in fair condition. The work at each
location varies and may include water infrastructure, a
potential sanitary sewer Local Improvement District (LID),
and storm drainage improvements as needed for each
project street.
1,400,000
(Streets)
65,000
(Water)
80,000
(Sewer)
100,000
(Storm)
1,665,000 1,732,431 20%JUN 0%DEC Matt Larson Design is underway. Jacobs
Engineering
2018 Local Streets Pavement Reconstruction TBD1818
Project
Number Street/Utilities Total Budget
Project Budget Total Estimated
Costs
%
Complete
Finish
Date
%
Complete
Construction
Project
Manager ContractorProject Name & Description Other Status
Capital Project Status Report Community Development And Public Works Department - Engineering General Services Division
Finish
Date
Design
Consultant
Design
DESIGNProject Status:
Generated by eGIS:12/5/2017 Page 8 of 9
Page 23 of 138
CP1114 This is a WSDOT project that will replace the roadway
surface on Auburn Way South from SR-18 to 17th St SE.
WSDOT is also constructing City requested and funded
improvements at 12th St SE (Project CP1114).
200,000
(Streets)
213,600
(WSDOT)
413,600 200,000 95%APR NOV Jacob
Sweeting
WSDOT finalizing contract
documents and preparing to
advertise for bids.
WSDOTWSDOT SR164 Overlay - SR18 to 17th St SE TBD1818
CP1802 This project will provide back up power to the existing
Green River Pump Station located at Isaac Evans Park.
1,000,000
(Water)
N/A 1,000,000 1,000,000 0%APR 0%NOV Kevin
Thompson
Project is currently in pre
design status, with design
beginning in early 2018.
TBDGreen River Pump Station Emergency Power TBD1919
Project
Number Street/Utilities Total Budget
Project Budget Total Estimated
Costs
%
Complete
Finish
Date
%
Complete
Construction
Project
Manager ContractorProject Name & Description Other Status
Capital Project Status Report Community Development And Public Works Department - Engineering General Services Division
Finish
Date
Design
Consultant
Design
DESIGNProject Status:
Generated by eGIS:12/5/2017 Page 9 of 9
Page 24 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution 5323, Amendment to the Transit Service Direct
Financial Partnership Agreement (Snyder)(5 Minutes)
Date:
December 4, 2017
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Draft Res olution No. 5323
Exhibit A
The Trans it Service Partners hip Agreement
between King County, the City of Auburn and
Pierce Trans it
Budget Impact:
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only. Budget I mpact: $29,472.00
Background Summary:
Resolution No. 5323, authorizes the Mayor to execute a 4th Amendment to the Transit
S ervice Direct F inancial Partnership A greement between the City of A uburn, K ing County and
the Pierce County Transit Benefit Authority (Pierce Transit).
I n 2008, the City entered into the original agreement to provide f or additional transit service
within the C ity and in 2010 implemented the L akeland Hills-A uburn Sounder Station S huttle
S ervice (R oute 497). I n S eptember of 2017, S ound Transit added an additional train service
on weekdays to both the morning and evening commute periods to and f rom S eattle,
respectively. A mendment #4 to the Agreement provides f or increased shuttle service on
Route 497 to meet these additional weekday trains. I f the A greement is approved, the
additional service is anticipated to begin by January 8, 2018.
The Agreement splits the costs of the Route 497 shuttle service three ways between the City,
K ing C ounty Metro, and P ierce Transit. T he additional costs to the C ity to provide this
additional service for 2018 is $29,472.00. This will require a future 2018 budget amendment
to fund and f unding is available within the 102 Arterial Street Fund.
I n 2016, the annual ridership of Route 497 was at 67,250 boardings. T hrough October of
2017 the annual ridership was already at 65,372 boardings and is anticipated to continue
growing.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Numb er:
Page 25 of 138
Page 26 of 138
----------------------------
Resolution No. 5323
(Date)
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 5323
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSIT SERVICE DIRECT
FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF AUBURN, KING COUNTY
AND PIERCE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT BENEFIT
AUTHORITY (PIERCE TRANSIT)
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2008 the City of Auburn, King County, and
Pierce County Public Transit Benefit Authority entered into a Transit Service
Direct Financial Partnership Agreement (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, The agreement has been amended three times to extend the
service beyond the expiration date in the original agreement; and
WHEREAS, the third amendment extends service until February 9, 2020;
and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit has increased the Sounder train service to
accommodate additional rider demand; and
WHEREAS, Parking at Auburn Station is no longer adequate to meet
demand from commuters; and
WHEREAS, the 4th amendment will provide two additional transit trips
between Lakeland Hills and Auburn Station to meet the additional Sounder train
service, which will help to mitigate parking issues in downtown Auburn
associated with the Station, and Section 8 of the Agreement provides that the
Agreement may be amended or modified by written agreement of the Parties,
and further provides that such amendments and modifications may be made for
Page 27 of 138
----------------------------
Resolution No. 5323
(Date)
Page 2 of 3
the County by Metro’s General Manager when such amendments are consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a 4th
amendment to the Transit Service Direct Financial Partnership Agreement
between the City of Auburn and King County, which amendment shall be in
substantial conformity with the amendment attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
Section 2. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this
legislation.
Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force
upon passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this _____ day of _________________, 2017.
CITY OF AUBURN
________________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Page 28 of 138
----------------------------
Resolution No. 5323
(Date)
Page 3 of 3
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Page 29 of 138
Exhibit A
_________________________________________________________________________
AMENDMENT NO. 4 to the Transit Service Direct Financial Partnership Agreement
between King County, City of Auburn and Pierce Transit
Page 1 of 3
AMENDMENT No. 4
to the
TRANSIT SERVICE DIRECT FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
between
KING COUNTY
and
THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON
and
PIERCE TRANSIT
This Amendment No. 4 to the Transit Service Direct Financial Partnership Agreement
("Amendment No. 4" or the " Fourth Amendment") is made by and between King County, a
home rule charter county of the State of Washington, by and through its Department of
Transportation, Metro Transit Division (hereinafter the “County” or “Metro Transit”) and the
City of Auburn (the “City”) and the Pierce County Public Transportation Benefit Authority
(“Pierce Transit”), both Washington municipal corporations (referred to collectively as
“Service Partner,” whether one entity or multiple entities), all of which entities may be referred
to hereinafter separately as “Party” or together as “Parties.”
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2008 the Parties entered into a Transit Service Direct Financial
Partnership Agreement (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Section 4.1 of the Agreement provides that each service specified in Attachment
A to the Agreement will expire five (5) years after the start of service , unless extended
pursuant to the terms of the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.1 of the Agreement further provides that if, after five (5) years the
enhanced transit service described in Section 1 of Attachment A to the Agreement is deemed
viable by the County pursuant to the performance indicators set forth in Section 2.2 of the
Agreement and the additional performance benchmarks specified in Attachment A of the
Agreement, and the Parties desire to have Pierce Transit continue to provide the enhanced
transit service beyond the initial period, the Agreement may be extended by the Parties; and
WHEREAS, the transit service enhancements provided for in Part I of Attachment A in the
Agreement were implemented on or about February 9, 2010; and
WHEREAS, in December 2014 the Parties extended the Agreement to provide the enhanced
transit service described in Part I of Attachment A (i.e., Lakeland Hills-Auburn Sounder
Station route) until March 12, 2016, during which the Parties agreed to evaluate whether or not
to extend the Agreement again consistent with the provisions of Section 4.1 of the Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, in January 2016 the Parties extended the Agreement to provide the enhanced
transit service described in Part I of Attachment A (i.e., Lakeland Hills-Auburn Sounder
Page 30 of 138
Exhibit A
_________________________________________________________________________
AMENDMENT NO. 4 to the Transit Service Direct Financial Partnership Agreement
between King County, City of Auburn and Pierce Transit
Page 2 of 3
Station route) until February 9, 2020, and adjusted the monetary contributions of the Parties to
reflect increases to Pierce Transit’s operating and capital costs for providing Route 497; and
WHEREAS, Section 8 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended or
modified by written agreement of the Parties, and further provides that such amendments and
modifications may be made for the County by Metro’s General Manager when such
amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and mutual covenants set forth
herein, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Attachment A – I. Lakeland Hills Partnership
A. Service Description
Add the following:
Beginning on Monday, January 8, 2018, an additional one (1) AM trip and one (1) PM
trip will be operated by Pierce Transit on Route 497 to connect with new Sound Transit
Sounder train trips serving the Auburn Station.
B. Monetary Contributions
The Parties agree that beginning January 8, 2018 and through the term of this
extension, the costs for providing eight (8) weekday AM northbound and eight (8)
weekday PM southbound trips on the Lakeland Hills service (Route 497) will be
divided equally between the three parties, King County, City of Auburn and Pierce
Transit.
The total annual Service costs are estimated below. The Parties will each be responsible
for one-third (1/3) of the total costs.
2017 Operating Cost
($99.78/hr x 4,697 annual hrs.)
Capital Cost
TOTAL COST
AUBURN $ 156,226 $ 23,718 $ 179,944
KING COUNTY $ 156,226 $ 23,718 $ 179,944
PIERCE TRANSIT $ 156,226 $ 23,718 $ 179,944
ANNUAL TOTAL: $ 468,678 $ 71,154 $ 539,832
3. No Other Modifications.
Except as specifically provided for in this Amendment No. 4, all other provisions of the
Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
Page 31 of 138
Exhibit A
_________________________________________________________________________
AMENDMENT NO. 4 to the Transit Service Direct Financial Partnership Agreement
between King County, City of Auburn and Pierce Transit
Page 3 of 3
4. Effective Date.
This Amendment No. 4 shall be effective upon execution by the Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives
to execute this Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement as of the date set forth below their
signatures.
KING COUNTY CITY OF AUBURN
By: ___________________________________ By: ____________________________
Rob Gannon Nancy Backus
General Manager, Metro Transit Division Mayor
Department of Transportation City of Auburn
Date:__________________________________ Date: ___________________________
PIERCE TRANSIT
By: ____________________________________
Sue Dreier
Chief Executive Officer
Pierce Transit
Date: __________________________________
Page 32 of 138
Page 33 of 138
Page 34 of 138
Page 35 of 138
Page 36 of 138
Page 37 of 138
Page 38 of 138
Page 39 of 138
Page 40 of 138
Page 41 of 138
Page 42 of 138
Page 43 of 138
Page 44 of 138
Page 45 of 138
Page 46 of 138
Page 47 of 138
Page 48 of 138
Page 49 of 138
Page 50 of 138
Page 51 of 138
Page 52 of 138
Page 53 of 138
Page 54 of 138
Page 55 of 138
Page 56 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 5335, I nterlocal Agreement regarding SCATBd
(Snyder)(10 Minutes)
Date:
December 5, 2017
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Draft Res olution No. 5335
Draft Interlocal Agreement
Operating Procedures
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
This is a f ollow-up to the Council discussion held on October 23, 2017 regarding the South
King County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd) Interlocal Agreement revisions.
Background:
SCATBd is a Board of elected officials representing South King County jurisdictions f or the
purpose of inf ormation sharing, consensus building, and coordinating to resolve
transportation issues, identif ying priorities, making recommendations, and promoting
transportation plans and programs that benefit the South King County area. The Board
operates under an interlocal agreement that is revised every 2 to 4 years. The last
agreement was approved by the City Council on August 5, 2013 and expires on December
31, 2017.
Attached please find the draft Interlocal agreement that has been reviewed by the members
of SCATBd, approved by the King County Council and discussed by City Council on
October 23, 2017. The agreement would provide for the continuation of the Board through
December 31, 2019 with the ability to extend through December 31, 2021. The interlocal
agreement adopts Operating Procedures for the Board, the notable proposed revisions from
the existing 2013 operating procedures as discussed on Oct 23, 2017 include the following:
Section 1.C. - Text has been added clarif ying the role of SCATBd.
Section 1.D. - This provides two additional jurisdictions with voting rights on Sound Transit
issues. These include Enumclaw and Black Diamond who are both currently located outside
the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) for Sound Transit. Note that in 2013 Maple Valley and
Covington were given voting rights on Sound Transit issues; however, only a portion of
Covington is within the RTA.
Page 57 of 138
Section 1.D. - Changes Pierce Counties status f rom a limited voting partner with the
opportunity to vote on “Other “ issues to a full non-voting member on all issues. This puts
Pierce County in the same class as WSDOT and Sound Transit on the Board.
Section 1.D. - Added Clarification as to why Renton is not a voting member on Sound
Transit issues. Renton is also a member of the Eastside Transportation Partnership and has
voting right on sound Transit issues on that board.
At the November 21, 2017 meeting of SCATBd, the concerns regarding the revision to
Section 1.D. allowing non-RTA cities to vote on Sound Transit issues were discussed. The
SCATBd members indicated that cities outside the RTA will be allowed to vote because of
the close proximity of those cities to RTA cities.
Since this is an I nterlocal Agreement, a resolution and the agreement will be bef ore Council
f or consideration on December 18, 2017.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Number:
Page 58 of 138
Resolution No. 5335
December 4, 2017
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 5335
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS OF
THE SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION
BOARD
WHEREAS, THE City of Auburn had entered into agreement with its
neighboring cities and transportation related jurisdictions to address the
cooperative inter-workings of the other jurisdictions on projects involving area
transportation projects; and
WHEREAS, the entity through which tese multi-agency agreements have
been channeled has been the South County Area Transportation Board
(SCATBd); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of such Agreements has been to recognize the
SCATBd as the transportation board for the South King County area to share
information, build consensus, and provide advice on plans, programs, policies
and priorities for countywide, regional, state and federal transportation
decisions; and
WHEREAS, the participating jurisdictions have commenced negotiation a
current Agreement; and
Page 59 of 138
Resolution No. 5335
December 4, 2017
Page 2
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to empower the Mayor to work with the other
jurisdictions to conclude negotiation of a new agreement and to execute the
same on behalf of the City of Auburn.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The Mayor is hereby authorized to negotiate the final details
of and execute an Agreement with the Couth County Area Transportation
Board, which Agreement shall be in substantial conformity with the Agreement
attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such other
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of
this legislation.
Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force
upon passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and Signed this _____ day of _________, 2017.
CITY OF AUBURN
NANCY BACKUS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Page 60 of 138
Resolution No. 5335
December 4, 2017
Page 3
______________________
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
Page 61 of 138
1
South County Area Transportation Board Agreement
Parties to Agreement
City of Algona
City of Auburn
City of Black Diamond
City of Burien
City of Covington
City of Des Moines
City of Enumclaw
City of Federal Way
City of Kent
City of Maple Valley
City of Milton
City of Normandy Park
City of Pacific
City of Renton
City of SeaTac
City of Tukwila
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
King County
Transmitted to parties for approval and signature on____________.
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and among the CITY OF ALGONA, hereafter called
“Algona”; the CITY OF AUBURN, hereafter called “Auburn”; the CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND,
hereafter called “Black Diamond”; the CITY OF BURIEN, hereafter called “Burien”; the CITY OF
COVINGTON, hereafter called “Covington”; the CITY OF DES MOINES, hereafter called “Des
Moines”; the CITY OF ENUMCLAW, hereafter called “Enumclaw”; the CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
hereafter called “Federal Way”; the CITY OF KENT, hereafter called “Kent”; the CITY OF MAPLE
VALLEY, hereafter called “Maple Valley”; the CITY OF MILTON, hereafter called “Milton”; the
CITY OF NORMANDY PARK, hereafter called “Normandy Park”; the CITY OF PACIFIC, hereafter
called “Pacific”; the CITY OF RENTON, hereafter called “Renton”; the CITY OF SEATAC, hereafter
called “SeaTac”; the CITY OF TUKWILA, hereafter called “Tukwila”; the MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN
TRIBE; and KING COUNTY, a legal subdivision of the State of Washington, hereafter called “King
County” as members of the South County Area Transportation Board.
WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement recognize that multi-jurisdictional transportation planning and
coordinated transportation plans benefit their citizens; and
WHEREAS, the South County Area Transportation Board has served as the central forum for
information sharing, consensus building, and coordination to develop recommendations for
transportation policies, projects and programs for the south King County area;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
Page 62 of 138
2
1.0 Purpose of this Agreement
The purpose of this Agreement is to recognize the South County Area Transportation Board as the
transportation board for the south King County area to share information, build consensus, and provide
advice on plans, programs, policies and priorities for countywide, regional, state and federal
transportation decisions.
2.0 Members and Voting
Members shall have full voting rights, limited voting rights or shall be non-voting members, as follows:
2.1 Members with Full Voting Rights: Only jurisdictions which are signatories to this agreement
shall have full voting rights on all of the following issues before the South County Area Transportation
Board, unless otherwise noted, including:
1. Administrative issues, such additional members and use of dues
2. Recommendations to Sound Transit on policies and capital and service plans and
implementation.
3. Recommendations to King County on Metro Transit planning, development and implementation
of products and services.
4. Identification of projects for the regional competition, if prescribed by the process approved by
the King County caucus of the Transportation Policy Board.
5. Recommendations to WSDOT on policies, programs and projects.
6. Recommendations to the PSRC on plans, policies, programs and projects such as Transportation
2040 updates and regional funding policies, strategies or programs.
7. Input to the State Legislature and committees and commissions established by the Legislature on
transportation policy, budget and priorities and legislative proposals and studies.
8. Recommendations to the federal delegation on federal legislation including reauthorization and
funding priorities and other transportation-related programs.
2.2 Members with Limited Voting Rights: The South County Area Transportation Board may add
members with limited voting rights on the issues such as those listed below by unanimous vote of the
parties to this agreement in attendance at a regular meeting.
1. Recommendations to WSDOT on policies, programs and projects.
2. Recommendations to the PSRC on plans, policies, programs and projects such as Transportation
2040 updates and regional funding policies, strategies or programs.
3. Input to the State Legislature and committees and commissions established by the Legislature on
transportation policy, budget and priorities and legislative proposals and studies.
4. Recommendations to the federal delegation on federal legislation including reauthorization and
funding priorities and other transportation-related programs.
2.2(a) Such members and voting rights, if any, shall be listed in operating procedures to be adopted by
the South County Area Transportation Board.
2.3 Non-Voting Members: The South County Area Transportation Board may add non-voting
members by unanimous vote of the parties to this agreement in attendance at a regular meeting. The
South County Area Transportation Board may remove non-voting members by a unanimous vote of the
parties to the agreement at a regular meeting.
2.3(a) Such members shall be included in operating procedures to be adopted by the South County Area
Transportation Board.
Page 63 of 138
3
3.0 Representation and Conduct
3.1 Representation of city and county members shall be as follows:
Full Voting Members Number of Representatives
City of Algona 1
City of Auburn 1
City of Black Diamond 1
City of Burien 1
City of Covington 1
City of Des Moines 1
City of Enumclaw 1
City of Federal Way 1
City of Kent 1
City of Maple Valley 1
City of Milton 1
City of Normandy Park 1
City of Pacific 1
City of Renton 1
City of SeaTac 1
City of Tukwila 1
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 1
King County 3
3.2 Elected officials shall be appointed to the South County Area Transportation Board by their
cities and counties for a one-year term. King County representation shall be a maximum of two
Councilmembers and the King County Executive.
3.3 Each city or county participating member may appoint an alternate for a one-year term.
Designated alternates may vote in place of designated voting representatives in the absence of the
designated representative.
4.0 Operating Procedures
4.1 The South County Area Transportation Board shall adopt operating procedures to specify limited
voting members and non-voting members, if any, dues for limited and non-voting members, if any, and
operational issues such as election of officers, formation of subcommittees and rules of order. A chair
and vice-chair shall be elected per the operating procedures and shall be responsible for setting meeting
agenda, running meetings and any other activities identified in the operating procedures.
5.0 Lead Agency
5.1 King County will be the Lead Agency for receipt and disbursement of funds collected through
annual dues, and general administrative and program support for the South County Area Transportation
Board. King County assumes wage and benefit costs of its staff performing Lead Agency
responsibilities to the extent that King County appropriates such funds. The Lead Agency, in its sole
discretion, shall determine the level of staffing available based upon funding.
5.2 Lead Agency responsibilities may be limited to: maintaining the South County Area
Transportation Board membership rosters and distribution lists; arranging for Board meetings, including
scheduling, agendas and rooms; collecting, administering and disbursing Board dues; providing Board
meeting support to the chair and vice chair; attending Board meetings; and preparing Board meeting
summaries.
Page 64 of 138
4
6.0 Financing and Cost Sharing Guidelines
6.1 Yearly Dues: The South County Area Transportation Board members shall pay a minimum of
$100.00 per full voting representatives in annual dues to remain members in good standing. The Lead
Agency will bill annually at the end of each year, and dues are to be paid within ninety days after receipt
of the invoice. Members not in good standing shall lose voting rights until the required dues are paid.
Additional dues above $100.00, and any dues required by limited or non-voting members, will be
determined by the South County Area Transportation Board as prescribed in the operating procedures.
Revenue from dues shall be used for special events, public education, or other expenses authorized by
the South County Area Transportation Board. The designated Lead Agency shall not be required to pay
yearly dues.
6.2 Annual Review of Financing: The South County Area Transportation Board shall determine by
June 30 of each year whether additional annual dues above $100.00 per voting representatives will be
required of the South County Area Transportation Board member jurisdictions for the following year.
6.3 Additional financial contributions: If additional financial contributions beyond an increase in
dues are determined to be necessary, costs shall be shared among all voting members, with an option for
King County to recuse itself from further financial obligations. Recused members may not vote on
determining the additional financial contribution or uses for the additional funds.
6.4 Modification to Agreement Required: If additional funds are determined to be necessary, a
modification to this agreement specifying cost-sharing, purpose, scope of work, administration,
collection and disbursement of funds and other details is required in order to obligate a member
jurisdiction to funding participation.
7.0 Withdrawal of a Party from this Agreement
Each party, for its convenience and without cause or for any reason whatsoever, may withdraw from
participation in this Agreement by providing written notice, sent certified mail, return receipt required,
to the chair of the South County Area Transportation Board at least thirty (30) days in advance of the
effective date of the withdrawal. A withdrawing party shall not be entitled to a refund of any payments
to the South County Area Transportation Board and shall pay any dues required to be paid under this
Agreement for costs which had been obligated prior to the effective date of the withdrawal. All
obligations other than dues cease upon withdrawal.
Each party’s funding to perform its obligations under the Agreement, beyond the current appropriation
year, is conditional upon appropriation by the party’s governing body of sufficient funds. Should such
an appropriation not be approved for a future year, a party may exercise its right to withdraw from the
Agreement.
8.0 Duration
This Agreement shall take effect upon being duly adopted by the governing bodies of all parties and
executed by the authorized representatives of all parties. This Agreement shall remain in effect until
December 31, 2019, provided that unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 9.0, this
Agreement shall be automatically extended upon the same terms or conditions for another term
commencing January 1, 2020 and ending no later than December 31, 2021.
Page 65 of 138
5
9.0 Termination
All parties to this Agreement must agree to terminate this Agreement in order for such termination to be
effective. If all parties desire to terminate this Agreement, they shall execute a Statement of
Termination. Upon termination, no party shall be required to make any additional contributions. Any
remaining funds shall be refunded to the parties to this Agreement according to Section 11.0.
10.0 Real and Personal Property
The acquisition of real property is not anticipated under this Agreement. Any personal property
acquired pursuant to this Agreement shall be held by the Lead Agency. In the event this Agreement
expires or is terminated in accordance with Section 8.0 or 9.0, any personal property other than cash
shall remain with the Lead Agency.
11.0 Return of Funds
At such time as this Agreement expires without being extended or revised, or is terminated in
accordance with Section 9.0, any unexpended and uncommitted funds shall be distributed
proportionately to those parties to this Agreement at the time of termination based on each party’s
percentage share of the total balance at the time of termination.
12.0 Filing
This Agreement shall be filed with the King County Department of Records and Elections.
13.0 Legal Relations
13.1 The parties shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
13.2 This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to any other
party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. No employees or agents
of one party or any of its contractors or subcontractors shall be deemed, or represent themselves to be,
employees of any other party.
13.3 Each party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party and all of its officials,
employees, principals and agents from all claims, demands, suits, actions, and liability of any kind
whatsoever which arise out of, are connected with, or are incident to any negligent acts of the first party,
its contractor, and/or employees, agents, and representatives in performing the first party’s obligations
under this Agreement. The parties agree that their obligations under this paragraph extend to claims
made against one party by the other party’s own employees. For this purpose, the parties, by mutual
negotiation, hereby waive any immunity that, as respects the other party only, would otherwise be
available against such claims under the industrial insurance provisions of RCW Title 51. In the event
either party incurs attorney’s fees, costs or other legal expenses to enforce the provisions of this section,
against the other party, all such fees, costs and expenses shall be recoverable by the prevailing party.
13.4 The provisions of this Section shall survive and remain applicable to each of the parties
notwithstanding any termination or expiration of this Agreement and notwithstanding a party’s
withdrawal from this Agreement.
Page 66 of 138
6
14.0 Entirety and Modifications
14.1 This Agreement merges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and agreements
between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties.
14.2 This Agreement may be modified or extended only by written instrument signed by all the
parties hereto.
15.0 Counterparts
The signature pages of this Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
shall be an original. For purposes of this Agreement, a duly authorized electronic signature constitutes
an original signature.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be signed and delivered by its
duly authorized officer or representative as of the date set forth below its signature.
City of Algona City of Auburn City of Black Diamond
By:_______________ By:_______________ By:_____________________
Date: _______________ Date: Date:______________
City of Burien City of Covington City of Des Moines
By:_______________ By:_______________ By:________________
Date:________ Date:_________ Date: ______________
City of Federal Way City of Kent City of Maple Valley
By: By:_______________ By:_________________
Date:______________ Date:_____________ Date: _______________
Page 67 of 138
7
City of Normandy Park City of Pacific City of Renton
By:________________ By:_______________ By:
Date:_______________ Date: _____________ Date: ______________
City of SeaTac City of Tukwila Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
By:_______________ By:________________ By:________________
Date:______________ Date: ______________ Date: ______________
King County
By:________________
Date: _______________
Page 68 of 138
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd)
OPERATING PROCEDURES
Revised September 28, 2017 November, 2013
The purpose of these procedures is to guide the conduct of business of the South County Area
Transportation Board (SCATBd) and its subcommittees Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)..
These procedures shall be reviewed and revised annually as needed.
I. SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd)
A. Mission:
The Board shall serve as a South County forum for information sharing, consensus
building, and coordination to resolve transportation issues, identify priorities, make
recommendations, and promote transportation plans and programs that benefit the
South County area. (Mission Statement adopted January 16, 1996)
B. Goals:
(Goals adopted July 19th, 1994, and subsequently amended)
Goal 1: Develop and promote a transportation system that will provide
personal mobility choices for South County residents consistent with
the transportation goals of the Growth Management Act and;
Goal 2: Develop and promote intermodal transportation and related actions
that accommodate economic development, through integrated,
efficient movement of people, freight and goods, within the South
County and contiguous areas.
C. Role:
The SCATBd is the forum established for the South King County area at which
elected officials may provide input into local, regional, state and federal
transportation-related issues or any other related issues as the members determine,
including, but not limited to, the following:.
A. Recommendations for Federal and State transportation legislation, regional project
identification, and Countywide project selection
B. Development and changes to the King County Metro Strategic Plan for Public
Transportation and implementation of transit service priorities
C. Recommendations to Sound Transit on its plans and implementation of projects and
services, consistent with the principle of subarea equity and other financial policies.
Page 69 of 138
2
2
D. Coordination with the Eastside Transportation Partnership and the SeaShore
Transportation Forum on national, state, countywide and regional transportation
issues.
E. Other transportation related issues as the members determine.
D. Membership and Voting:
Membership shall be extended to the following local jurisdictions and agencies. The
Board shall operate by consensus whenever possible, but in those matters requiring a
vote, voting shall be assigned as indicated below:
Page 70 of 138
3
3
The voting members of SCATBd and their voting rights shall be as follows:
Full Voting Members Number of
Reps.
Voting Rights
Membership
and Dues1
Sound
Transit2
Metro
Transit3
Regional
Competition4
Other5
City of Algona 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Auburn 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Black Diamond 1 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
City of Burien 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Covington 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Des Moines 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Enumclaw 1 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
City of Federal Way 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Kent 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Maple Valley 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Milton 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Normandy Park 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Renton6 1 Yes No Yes Yes* Yes
City of SeaTac 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Tukwila 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
City of Pacific 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
King County 37 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
The limited voting members of SCATBd and their voting rights shall be as follows:
Limited Voting Members Number of
Reps.
Voting Rights
Membership
and Dues
Sound
Transit
Metro
Transit
Regional
Competition
Other
Pierce County 1 No No No No Yes
The non-voting members of SCATBd shall be as follows:
Non-Voting Member Number of Representatives
Pierce Transit 1
Port of Seattle 1
Port of Tacoma 1
Puget Sound Regional Council 1
South Sound Chambers of Commerce Coalition 1
1Administrative issues, such additional members and use of dues
2 Recommendations to Sound Transit on policies and capital and service plans and implementation
3 Recommendations to King County Metro Transit on policies and capital and service plans and implementation
4 Identification of projects for the regional competition, if prescribed by process approved by the King County caucus of the
Transportation Policy Board (*projects in Renton south of the Cedar River)
5 Other recommendations including
Recommendations to WSDOT on policies, programs and projects.
Recommendations to the PSRC on plans, policies, programs and projects such as the Transportation 2040 update and
regional funding policies, strategies or programs.
Input to the State Legislature and committees and commissions established by the Legislature on transportation policy,
budget and priorities and legislative proposals and studies.
Recommendations to the federal delegation on federal legislation including reauthorization and funding priorities and
other transportation-related programs.
6 Renton is currently authorized to vote on Sound Transit matters only under the Eastside subarea, through the
Eastside Transportation Partnership.
7 King County has three representatives: two King County Councilmembers and the King County Executive
Page 71 of 138
4
4
Sound Transit 1
Washington State Department of Transportation 1
Pierce County 1
Other limited voting and non-voting members may be added as the Board determines. Each
limited voting and non-voting member should appoint one representative and one alternate to the
Board. The limited voting member designated alternate may vote in place of designated limited
voting representatives in the absence of the designated limited voting representative.
E. Officers:
1. Chair: Responsible for 1) conducting and ensuring fair opportunity for
discussion, 2) signing correspondence and speaking on behalf of SCATBd, 3)
providing direction on agenda preparation.
2. Vice-Chair: Responsible to act as chair in his/her absence.
3. Term of Office: One year from January. Elections in December, nominations in
November.
4. Officers must be elected officials.
F. Meeting Schedule:
The regular meeting date for SCATBd shall be the third Tuesday of the month, from
9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The meeting location shall be held at an appropriate location
within South King County. The agenda package shall be distributed in advance of the
meeting. Adjustments to the regular meeting schedule and meeting location shall
occur as needed.
G. Board Actions Require a Quorum of Full Voting Members:
1. A quorum is: 50 percent plus 1 full voting members.
2. Type of Actions Board Can Take: The Board may undertake activities
consistent with its purpose and shall prepare an annual calendar work program
for the following year for submittal to its member jurisdictions by January 31 of
each year, to be sent out to members periodically for feedback and updates..
3. Type of Actions Board Cannot Take: The Board cannot take action to
approve/disapprove or adopt any position on behalf of member
jurisdictions/agencies without authorization to do so from those jurisdictions.
In issuing communication or statements, the Board will act on behalf of the
entire region represented by South County Area Transportation Board and not
on it should be made clear that the Board is not acting on behalf of individual
its member jurisdictions/agencies.
4. Schedule for Action Items: Action items will be presented at one meeting and
acted on at a second meeting unless three-quarters of the voting Board members
present agree that the circumstances require action to be taken at that time
PROVIDED that there is a quorum of voting members (at least 50 percent plus
one).
5. Minority Statements: Any individual full voting Board member or limited
voting member shall have the right at the time of the vote to request that a
statement of a minority position be included in Board communications or
otherwise distributed with an approved Board statement.
H. Subcommittees of the Board:
Page 72 of 138
5
5
Subcommittees of the Board shall be established as needed, such as a legislative
priorities committee or Technical Advisory Committee. .
Page 73 of 138
6
6
II. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A. Purpose:
The TAC shall provide technical assistance as requested by the Board and shall
advise the Board on emergent transportation issues for the Board’s consideration
including regional project identification and countywide project selection.
B. Membership:
Each SCATBd member (full, limited, or non-voting member) shall appoint an
appropriate representative to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
C. Meeting Schedule:
The TAC shall meet when requested by the Board to provide technical assistance and
advise on emergent transportation issues.
III. II. MEETING PROCEDURES OTHER
A. Standard Agenda:
The SCATBd agenda shall follow this standard format unless unusual circumstances
require a different arrangement.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Report of the Chair, Vice Chair, transportation agencies and organizations
4. Major Agenda Topics
5. Communications and Public Comment
6. Good of the Order
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Report of the Chair
4. Communications and Citizens’ Requests to Comment
5. Major Agenda Topics
B. Robert’s Rules of Order:
The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
shall govern the convention in all cases to which they are applicable and in which
they are not inconsistent with the South County Area Transportation Board Interlocal
Agreement and these operating procedures.
B.C. Audience Comments during Meetings:
At the Chair’s discretion, comments may be taken from the audience. The Chair
should call on audience members wishing to make comments. SCATBd members
can ask to have audience members speak. Audience comments should be limited to
two minutes.
C.D. Distribution of Materials:
Page 74 of 138
7
7
Letters and documents may be distributed with the agenda at the direction of the
Chair as authorized by the policies and procedures of the jurisdiction providing staff
support.
D.E. Citizen Involvement:
Interested citizen groups shall be placed on the distribution list for Board meetings to
ensure that those groups are kept informed of Board activities.
Page 75 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
118th Avenue SE Roadway (Snyder)(10 Minutes)
Date:
December 5, 2017
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
Augus t 28, 2017 Petition
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
I n August of 2017, the City received a petition regarding 118th Avenue SE f rom S 304th
Street northward to the end of the existing road. The Petition was submitted by 18 of the 34
properties that access 118th Avenue SE and 29 residents of the City of Kent. The Petition
requests that the City consider re-building a portion of the roadway.
Staf f will provide a presentation of the history of this roadway and options for the Council to
consider.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Gaub
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Number:
Page 76 of 138
Page 77 of 138
Page 78 of 138
Page 79 of 138
Page 80 of 138
Page 81 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Development Regulations Update, Round 2 (Snyder)(15
Minutes)
Date:
December 5, 2017
Department:
Community Development &
Public Works
Attachments:
Code Change Matrix
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
OVERVIEW
I n the first half of 2017, Mayor Backus directed staff to put together a list of potential code
amendments that were intended to eliminate or ease some of the challenges that developers
and city staff f ace when reviewing development proposals. The idea was to identif y areas
where greater efficiency and f lexibility could be achieved by eliminating or modif ying a city
code without compromising the greater objectives that the code was intending to achieve.
Mayor Backus direct staff to assemble the list, present it to City Council f or review and
f eedback, and to proceed with the process to make the code modif ications (assuming City
Council endorsed the list). On May 8, 2017, City staff presented the initial list of potential
code changes to City Council. After discussion, City Council endorsed the list.
UPDAT E OF M AY 8, 2017 LIST
Under cover of this memo is the May 8, 2017 list of endorsed code amendments. This list
contains status information about each item including identification of a lead (Community
Development or Engineering), a description of the process, identif ication of key dates related
to each item, ordinance numbers and adoption dates, and an estimate of the number of hours
that staff spent on each item.
NEXT ROUND OF CODE AM ENDM ENT S
Community Development has identif ied a suggestion f or the next round of potential code
amendments. Staf f is eager to hear any f eedback that City Council may have on this list.
Does this list make sense? Are there items on the list that are of concern? Is there
something missing f rom the list?
Of note, SEPA categorical exemptions are included on this list because it is a topic that has
come up during prior Council discussions. Thus far, staf f ’s approach to both rounds of code
updates is to identify “simple” code changes that provide meaningf ul and recurring positive
impact. Modifying the SEPA categorical exemptions could have meaningf ul and recurring
Page 82 of 138
positive impact, however, this code change is complex and time consuming. Staff will be
prepared to discuss f urther on December 11, 2017.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Numb er:
Page 83 of 138
MAY 8, 2017 CODE AMENDMENT LIST
Code Section &
Lead
Description City Council
Endorsement
Administrative Process Legislative Process Ordinance No.
& Date Adopted
Hours of
Labor
18.02.065
Community
Development
Density Calculation. This section defines the
method for calculating residential density. It
utilizes a net site area methodology vs. gross site
area.
Residential developers have expressed concern
over the number of lots that are lost when utilizing
net site area.
City Council endorses this
initiative at 5/8/17 Study
Session
6 members of Community Development met and
shared their experience in other jurisdictions and
their preferences for code changes. Staff also
met with members of both MBA organizations.
SEPA determination issued on 8/17/17; public
comment until 9/1/17; appeal period until
9/15/17
State Agency review initiated on 8/17/17
P.C. Introduction:
8/8/17
P.C. Public Hearing:
9/6/17
P.C. Decision:
9/6/17
Study Session:
12/11/17
Council Action:
TBD
Ordinance 6661
Date: TBD
77.5 hours
18.02.050.B.2
Community
Development
Commercial driveway throat depth standards.
Code requires a 40 foot depth for a commercial
driveway without any ability to deviate except
through Hearing Examiner variance.
Establish an administrative option for deviating
from this standard.
City Council endorses this
initiative at 5/8/17 Study
Session
Planning staff develops code amendment
proposal.
SEPA evaluation results in a determination of
exemption.
Study Session:
7/10/17
Council Action:
7/17/17
Ordinance 6657
July 17, 2017
24 hours
18.68.030.B.1.b
Community
Development
Comprehensive Plan map amendments are
considered by Planning Commission/City Council
while rezones are considered by Hearing Examiner.
This sets up a linear process which could be
consolidated.
Consolidate process to allow concurrent
consideration.
City Council endorses this
initiative at 5/8/17 Study
Session
Planning staff develops code amendment
proposal.
SEPA evaluation results in a determination of
exemption.
Study Session:
6/12/17
Council Action:
6/19/17
Ordinance 6655
June 19, 2017
28 hours
Title 17
Community
Development
Converting final plats to administrative decisions.
Pursuant to the 2017 State Legislature’s
amendment to RCW 58.17 allow final plats to be
considered as administrative decisions.
City Council endorses this
initiative at 5/8/17 Study
Session
Planning staff develops code amendment
proposal.
SEPA evaluation results in a determination of
exemption.
Study Session:
6/12/17
Council Action:
6/19/17
Ordinance 6654
June 19, 2017
37 hours
Page 84 of 138
Code Section Description City Council
Endorsement
Administrative Process Legislative Process Ordinance No.
& Date Adopted
Hours of
Labor
Chapter 18.25
Community
Development
Expand the scope and options within the infill
chapter of code in order to ease and/or incentivize
infill potential.
The two primary areas of challenge are the public
improvements and the inability to meet minimum
density.
City Council endorses this
initiative at 5/8/17 Study
Session
Planning staff rolled the minimum density
challenge into the density calculation code
amendments described in item #1 above.
P.C. Introduction:
8/8/17
P.C. Public Hearing:
9/6/17
P.C. Decision:
9/6/17
Study Session:
12/11/17
Council Action:
TBD
Ordinance 6661
Date: TBD
N/A (rolled
into density
calculation)
12.64A.020.A-B
Engineering
This section of code defines when new
development or redevelopment will be required to
construct half street improvements. Triggers for
redevelopment include the value of the
improvements compared to the property based on
the current County Assessor records, additional
parking, or additional driveway access points.
City Council endorses this
initiative at 5/8/17 Study
Session
TBD TBD TBD
ACC 13.32A
Engineering
This section of code defines when new
development or re-development will be required to
underground the overhead wiring that may span
their property frontage.
City Council endorses this
initiative at 5/8/17 Study
Session
TBD TBD TBD
Page 85 of 138
DECEMBER 11, 2017 POTENTIAL ROUND 2 CODE AMENDMENT IDEAS
Code Section Description City Council
Endorsement
Administrative Process Legislative Process Ordinance No.
& Date Adopted
Hours of
Labor
Title 18
Community
Development
Construction job shacks and sales offices. The
City’s standards are convoluted and have been
applied inconsistently. The typical scenarios are (1)
temporarily converting an SFR garage to a sales
office, (2) setting up a temporary mobile structure
for use by only contractors, (3) setting up a
temporary mobile structure to serve as a sales
office that allows access by public.
Estimated at
90 hours
Titles 12, 15, &
19
Community
Development
& Engineering
Fee assessment and collection. Different sections
of city code establish different requirements for
when fees are assessed and collected. Some codes
require fees be assessed at the time of application
submittal and collected at the time of permit
issuance; other sections require fees to be assessed
and collected at permit issuance.
Estimated at
20 hours
18.29.020
Community
Development
Several DUC standards are triggered when the
estimated value of the improvement exceeds 10%
of the value of the building. This threshold is
extremely low and has caused problems for
property owners to carry out minor improvements.
Estimated at
40 hours
18.31.020
Community
Development
In 2016 the building code increased the permit
exemption for the height limit for a fence from 6’
to 7’. The zoning code remains at 6’.
Estimated at
20 hours
ACC 18.50.070
Community
Development
Eliminating the requirement to carry a landscape
maintenance bond. It can be addressed through
code enforcement. The city has not collected on a
maintenance bond in many years.
Estimated at
20 hours
16.06.055
Community
Development
Raise the SEPA categorical exemptions to what is
allowed under WAC 197-11-800. Raising these
threshold limits requires a substantial amount of
work in order to meet the conditions upon which it
is allowed.
Estimated at
1,000 hours
Page 86 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Lea Hill Road & 104th Avenue Park - Future Plans (Snyder)(15
Minutes)
Date:
December 5, 2017
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
No Attachments Av ailable
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
As requested by Councilmembers, staff will provide a review of the potential f uture plans
associated with the park property transf erred to the City of Auburn from the State of
Washington and King County located along 104th Avenue SE and at the end of 102nd Avenue
SE along with a review of the potential roadway improvements along the Lea Hill Road/8th
Street NE corridor. Both projects are included in the City’s long range plans.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Snyder/Faber
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Number:
Page 87 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
2018 Arterial and Local Street Selection (Snyder)(10 Minutes)
Date:
December 5, 2017
Department:
CD & PW
Attachments:
2018 Citywide Pres ervation Street Selection Map
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Staf f will be reviewing the scope of work for the 2018 Arterial and Local Street Preservation
Projects at the December 11, 2017 Council Study Session. In addition to the grant funded
preservation projects scheduled to be completed in 2018, staff is anticipating a total Arterial
Preservation Program (Fund 105) budget of $1,700,000.00 in 2018, and a Local Street
Preservation Program (Fund 103) budget of $2,550,000.00. The pavement preservation
work selected for 2018 is shown on the attached map (2018 Citywide Preservation Street
Selection). The map is intended to be an overview of the Arterial and Local Street
Preservation Projects that will be constructed in 2018.
The 2018 Local Street Reconstruction Project will include all of the Local Streets that are
slated for pavement reconstruction: S 286th Street, 122nd Ave S, K Street NE, and 17th
Street NE as shown on the map. The 2018 Citywide Patch and Overlay Project will include all
of the non-grant f unded Arterial preservation streets, as well as the Local Streets that are to
receive a thin overlay (shown on the map). The grant f unded projects have been packaged
into separate projects and are anticipated to be delivered during the spring and summer of
2018.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Numb er:
Page 88 of 138
Page 89 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Planning Commission Recommendation – Amending Title 18
as it Relates to Calculating Residential Densities (Snyder)(20
Minutes)
Date:
December 5, 2017
Department:
Community Development &
Public Works
Attachments:
Staff Report - Calculating Dens ity Calculations
Attachment A - Code Amendments
Attachment B - S taff Report to Planning
Commis s ion for 8/8/2017
Attachment C - S taff Report to Planning
Commis s ion for the 9/6/17 Hearing
Attachment D - Lot Size and Width
Attachment E - Public Comments Submitted to
the Planning Commis s ion
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Snyder
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Numb er:
Page 90 of 138
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
CC: Mayor Nancy Backus
DATE: December 4, 2017
RE: Planning Commission Recommendation – Amending Title 18 as it Relates to
Calculating Residential Densities
Summary Statement
On September 6, 2017, the City of Auburn Planning Commission held a public hearing,
deliberated, and affirmatively voted to make a recommendation that City Council amend various
sections of Title 18 as they relate to the methodology that is used to calculate residential
densities when subdividing land. The Planning Commission voted in favor of all but one of
staff’s recommended code changes. Under cover of this memo are summary highlights of the
Planning Commission’s recommendation, a description of the staff recommendation that was
not accepted by the Planning Commission along with a presentation that was provided relative
to lot width and size standards, the staff reports provided to the Planning Commission, public
comments that were received, and an overview of the process.
Overview of Planning Commission Recommendation
1. Shift from utilizing a “Net Site Area” methodology to a “Gross Site Area” methodology.
Both developers and staff find the current language confusing and believe that it
leads to unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the Growth
Management Act. The current language also makes it very difficult for a property
owner or developer to know how many lots they can achieve through a subdivision
until well into the process (and after quite a bit of money is spent studying the site
and designing the layout).
The essence of the Net Site Area methodology is that areas of land must be
removed from a property before determining the potential number of lots that can be
created through a subdivision. A developer starts with the gross site (e.g. 5 acres),
must remove specific features from the gross site (e.g. let’s just say that adds up to
1.5 acres), and the density is calculated on the area that is left over (e.g. in this case,
that leaves 3.5 acres). If the property is zoned R5 (5 dwelling units per acre) it
means that the developer can achieve 18 lots.
The types of areas that must be removed include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat
areas, landslide areas, and public rights-of-way. The challenge to the developer is
that they are forced to delineate all of the critical areas and design all of the public
Page 91 of 138
Page 2 of 4
rights-of-way before they understand their lot potential. This is an expensive and
time consuming proposition that an owner needs to complete simply to understand
their lot yield.
Additionally, after this exercise is complete the overall density can decrease
significantly. While density can be achieved within the remaining land area, the
overall density is less than what is intended within the zone. For example, in the
above scenario, 18 lots on the remaining 3.5 acres meets density within the footprint
of the remaining lot area, but it does not meet GMA density objectives because the
final outcome is 18 lots on a 5 acre parcel which falls short of the minimum density of
the zone. This scenario has become the norm for land division – R5 properties are
not yielding the number of lots that are anticipated within the zone.
A shift to a Gross Site Area methodology establishes a simple and predictable
formula for calculating density. Density output is based on the raw acreage of the
land. A 5 acre parcel that is zone R5 must achieve between 20 and 25 lots. Critical
area regulations must still be adhered to, roads and sidewalks designed accordingly,
minimum lot sizes achieved, minimum lot widths adhered to, setbacks met, coverage
limits complied with, and all other development standards addressed.
2. Allow for the administrative decision to waive the requirement to meet minimum density
when a lot is encumbered by critical areas, conservation easements, utility easements,
or other encumbrances that make it impractical to meet the density requirement.
The rationale for this administrative allowance is to be able to address situations
where a significant portion of a property is encumbered with areas that have
development restrictions established (via code or recorded dedications). If a lot is
heavily encumbered by critical areas or an easement, it becomes increasingly
difficult to meet the minimum density requirements. For example, if a 10 acres only
has 1 acre of developable land, it will be impossible to achieve the minimum required
density (e.g. in the R5 zone where the minimum density is 4 dwelling units per acre,
the developer would be required to establish at least 40 lots on the 10 acre lot; since
9 acres cannot be disturbed it would require that all 40 lots be placed on the
remaining 1 acre – an outcome that is impossible to achieve). This provision allows
for staff to make an administrative decision to relieve the developer of the
requirement to achieve minimum density.
3. Exempt short subdivisions (9 lot subdivisions or less) from the requirement to meet
minimum density.
The rationale for this exemption is that it is usually very difficult for smaller lots to
achieve minimum density. For example, in the R5 zone this exemption would apply
to lots that are less than 2 acres in size. Because the minimum density in the R5
zone is 4 dwelling units per acre, a 2 acre lot must be divided into at least 8 lots.
More times than not, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve this
outcome which results in the lot not being subdivided at all – an outcome that is
contrary to our infill objectives.
A typical scenario is that a property owner would like to divide their 1 acre property
into two lots. They would like to keep their house on one of the lots and sell the
other portion in order to earn income. When they approach the City to inquire about
Page 92 of 138
Page 3 of 4
dividing their land they are surprised to learn that our city code does not allow a 1
acre property to be divided into 2 lots; instead, it must be divided into at least 4 lots.
Given the intention to keep the existing home it becomes impractical to divide the lot
without demolishing the home.
4. Eliminate the requirement that all subdivisions adhere to a “Minimum Average Lot Area”.
It remains unclear as to the purpose of this standard. Given that maximum density
limits the overall number of lots that can be created and that there is a minimum lot
size that must be adhered to, it is unclear what an average lot area standard
accomplishes. The only outcome is that some property owners have larger lots while
other property owners have smaller lots. But there is no public benefit for this
outcome.
Staff Recommendation Not Accepted by Planning Commission
1. Staff made a recommendation to the Planning Commission that they consider reducing
the minimum lot size in the R5 zone from 6,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet. The
rationale for this modification is to create more flexibility in the design of residential
communities and more opportunity to achieve a zoning designations intended density. It
is staff’s belief that the singular effect that this change would have is to potentially
reduce the size of a backyard. Here is why:
a. Density still controls the number of lots that can established within a zone.
Whether the minimum lot size is 500 square feet or 10,000 square feet, minimum
and maximum density limits define the number of lots that can be created.
b. Minimum lot width remains at its current standard of 50’. While the lot size may
decrease the lot width must remain at 50’. Attachment D provides visual
examples of how lot width has far greater impact on the appearance and feel of a
community than lot size. Larger lot widths also promote crime reduction efforts
by allowing the first floor of a home to have windows facing the street. Narrow
lots eliminate windows because it is just the garage that remains. It is an
accepted principle of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)
that the presence of first floor windows discourages crime because of the
perception that more people may be viewing the street.
c. Building setbacks must still be complied with. Front, side and rear yard setbacks
remain in force. Of particular note is that garages must be setback from the
street further than the house. This ensures that the pedestrian experience and
design of a community is not dominated by garage doors.
d. Stormwater standards must still be met. Modern storm water standards place a
heavy emphasis on treating storm water on site through the use of infiltration and
low impact development. Where soils are not conducive to infiltration lot sizes
will be forced to increase in size.
e. Compliance with environmental regulations must still be demonstrated.
It is staff’s opinion that the only sacrifice made as a result of allowing smaller lots is that
residential backyards will potentially be smaller. Attachment D provides illustrations that
help document this conclusion.
Page 93 of 138
Page 4 of 4
Process Overview
• July 31, 2017 – The formal notice of application date is established.
• August 8, 2017 – Staff introduce the matter to the Planning Commission during a
scheduled public meeting.
• August 14, 2017 – Staff submitted the request to publish the SEPA Notice of Hearing
and Notice of Application for the August 17, 2017 edition of the Seattle Times.
• August 17, 2017 – Staff submitted the draft amendments to the State Department of
Commerce in order to initiate state agency review as required by RCW 36.70A.106.
• August 17, 2017 – Received acknowledgement from State Department of Commerce
that the draft amendments had been submitted in compliance with RCW 36.70A.106.
• August 17, 2017 – The SEPA Notice of Hearing was published in the Seattle Times.
The notice initiated a comment period that expired on September 1, 2017 and an appeal
period that expired on September 15, 2017.
• September 1, 2017 – The comment period expired. 2 public comment letters were
submitted.
• September 6, 2017 – The Planning Commission public hearing was held. Planning
Commission deliberated and voted.
• September 15, 2017 – The appeal period expired. No appeals were filed.
Attachments:
A) Planning Commission recommended code amendments
B) Staff report transmitted to the Planning Commission for their August 8, 2017 meeting
C) Staff report transmitted to the Planning Commission for their September 6, 2017 hearing
D) Presentation of the impact of lot width in residential communities
E) Public comments submitted to the Planning Commission
Page 94 of 138
18.02.065 Methods of calculating density.
The permitted number of dwelling units or lots shall be determined as follows:
A. Net Site Area. The area of a site used to calculate the allowed number of dwelling units or lots shall exclude those areas
designated for public rights-of-way, except for the designation of additional right-of-way along arterials, private streets, vehicle
access easements, and on-site public or homeowners’ association-maintained recreation space if required.
Further, the net site area shall be subject to the following adjustments and limitations for critical areas:
1. Net site areas shall exclude streams, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, and high landslide hazards; and
2. Net site area shall include any required critical area buffer, seismic hazards, and flood hazard areas when calculating
base density, unless critical areas identified in subsection (A)(1) of this section are present; provided, that net site area
shall not include required critical area buffers when calculating minimum density. The allowed number of dwelling units
or lots for a site shall be computed by multiplying the net site area of the lot as calculated in this section by the
applicable residential base density number found in the development standards for each zone.
A. Gross Site Area. The gross site area shall be used to calculate both the minimum and maximum number of allowed dwelling
units or lots.
1. When calculations result in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number as follows:
i. Fractions of 0.50 or above shall be rounded up; and
ii. Fractions below 0.50 shall be rounded down.
2. Calculating Base Density. Base density is calculated by multiplying the gross site area by the upper limit of units or
lots allowed within the zone. For example, in the R-5 zone, where density range allows up to 5 dwelling units per acre:
4.3 acre gross site area x 5 units per acres = 21.5 (rounded up to 22)
3. Calculating Minimum Density. Minimum density is calculated by multiplying the gross site area by the lower limit of
units or lots allowed within the zone. For example, in the R-5 zone, where the density range allows as few as 4 dwelling
units per acre:
4.3 acre gross site x 4 units per acre = 17.2 (rounded down to 17)
4. Each lot shall meet the requirements established in Chapter 18.07 ACC for lot area, dimensions, setbacks and other
development standards.
Page 95 of 138
5. Where a proposed area for subdivision cannot meet minimum density due to encumbrance by critical areas and/or
their buffers, the applicant may seek to deviate from the minimum density which will be reviewed as an administrative
decision as part of the subdivision application. If the applicant seeks a variance from the development standards in
Chapter 18.07 ACC the variance shall be processed utilizing the provisions of ACC 18.70.010. Alterations of a critical
area or its buffer shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 16.10 ACC.
B. The minimum density requirements shall not apply to short plats that are processed under Chapter 17.09 ACC.
B. “Base density” refers to the maximum number of dwelling units or lots allowed for a specific zone without application of the
bonus density provisions of Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC, expressed as units per net acre. Base densities for residential zones
are specified in ACC 18.07.030.
C. “Base units” refers to the number of allowable dwelling units for a site, as determined by multiplying the base density of the
zone in which the site is located by the net site area.
For example, the R-5 zone has a base density of five units per acre; therefore, the maximum number of base units allowed on a
lot with 0.6 acres of net site area in the R-5 zone is three units.
DC. Bonus density, where applicable, shall be computed by adding the bonus units authorized by Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC
to the base units computed under this section.
E. When calculations result in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole number as follows:
1. Fractions of 0.50 or above shall be rounded up; and
2. Fractions below 0.50 shall be rounded down.
18.04.300 Density.
“Density” is a measure of population, housing units, or building area related to land area, and is expressed as a ratio, e.g., one
dwelling unit per acre. See ACC 18.02.065 for features that are deducted from site area in the city of Auburn’s calculation of
density for the methodology for calculating density.
18.04.301 Density, base.
“Base density” refers to the greatest number of dwelling units allowed without application of the bonus density provisions of
Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC per land area in a specific zone expressed as a ratio. For example, in a zone with a maximum
density of four units per acre, the maximum number of housing units allowed on a one-quarter-acre lot is one unit.
18.04.303 Density, minimum. Page 96 of 138
“Minimum density” refers to the least number of dwelling units allowed per land area in a specific zone, expressed as a ratio. For
example, in a zone with a minimum density of 12 units per acre, development of a two-acre lot would require a minimum of 24
units.
18.07.030 Development standards.
Table 18.07.030 Residential Development Standards
Standard RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
A Base density (units per
net acre) 0.25 1 5 7 10 16 20
B Minimum density (units
per net acre)1 0.25 1 4 5 8 12 15
C Minimum average lot area
per dwelling unit (square
feet)
174,240 35,000 8,000 6,000 4,300 2,700 2,175
DC Minimum lot area per
dwelling unit (square feet) 174,240 35,000 6,000 4,300 2,000 2,000 2,000
ED
Minimum lot width (feet)2 125 125 50 40
20 for
interior
lots; 35 for
exterior
lots
20 for
interior
lots; 35 for
exterior
lots
20 for interior
lots; 35 for
exterior lots
FE Minimum setbacks (feet)2,3
1 Residence front setback3 35 35 10 10 10 10 10
2
Garage (minimum front
setback required from
street access)3
20 20 20 20 20 20
20 unless alley-
loaded then 15
provided there
are 20 feet from
any garage
Page 97 of 138
Table 18.07.030 Residential Development Standards
Standard RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
3 Setback to any property
line for barns, stables, or
similar structures for
enclosure of large
domestic animals
For other animals, see the
supplemental
development standards
for animals in ACC
18.31.220
75 X X X X X X
4 Setback to any property
line for any corral,
exercise yard, or arena for
large domestic animals
For other animals, see the
supplemental
development standards
for animals in ACC
18.31.220
35 X X X X X X
5 Interior side setback 20 10 5 5 5 5 5
6 Street side setback3 35 20 10 10 10 10 10
7 Rear setback3 35 35 20 20 20 20 20
8 Rear setback, detached
structure
In all zones, 20 ft for
structure with vehicular
entrance oriented toward
street or public alley3
15 15 10 5 5 5 5
Page 98 of 138
Table 18.07.030 Residential Development Standards
Standard RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
GF Maximum lot coverage
(%) 25 35 40 50 60 70 70
HG Maximum impervious area
(%) 25 50 65 75 N/A N/A N/A
IH Maximum building height
(feet) 35 35 35 35 45 45 50
JI Maximum height of
accessory buildings and
structures
354 35 16 16 16 NA NA
KJ Minimum front setback
area landscape strip (feet) N/A N/A 5 5 10 10 10
LK Minimum side setback
area landscape strip (feet) N/A N/A 5 5 10 10 10
ML Minimum landscaped
open space (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 20 20
1. For purposes of calculating minimum density, critical area buffers are not included in net site area. See ACC 18.02.065 for
calculation of net acreage for minimum densitycalculating density.
2. All minimum lot widths, setbacks, and landscaping strips are subject to demonstration to the satisfaction of the city engineer
that all required utility infrastructure, access requirements, and street elements can be accommodated in accordance with
the design and construction standards.
3. In addition to meeting setback requirements, all structures must meet sight distance requirements in accordance with city
design and construction standards.
4. Barns and other specialized structures used for agricultural purposes may exceed the height limits.
Page 99 of 138
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Ron Copple, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
DATE: July 31, 2017
RE: Calculating Residential Densities
Summary Statement
Community Development and Public Works is seeking to pursue amendments to the Auburn
City Code to help simplify the layout standards for new residential subdivisions. The proposed
amendments will work to improve the methodology that the City Code utilizes when calculating
the potential number of new lots in the residential subdivision.
Background and Overview of Existing City Code
Auburn City Code establishes several different residential zoning designations. Each
designation is defined, in part, by its allowed density range (establishing both a minimum
density and maximum density within each zone). The residential designations and their
corresponding density is displayed in the following table.
Table 1
Zone RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
Minimum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
4
(4 houses
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
8
(8 houses
per acre)
12
(12
houses
per acre)
15
(15
houses
per acre)
Maximum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
7
(7 houses
per acre)
10
(10
houses
per acre)
16
(16
houses
per acre)
20
(20
houses
per acre)
The above standards generally only have application when considering a subdivision proposal.
In other words, there usually isn’t a need to apply the above density standards to existing
conditions, developments, or uses.
In addition to the minimum and maximum densities within each zone, there are a number of
other standards that apply when subdividing land. If a subdivision of land is proposed, not only
does the subdivision have to fall within the range of required densities of the underlying zoning
designation, each resulting lot must also meet a minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum
setback requirements, and an overall minimum average lot size across the entire subdivision.
Those additional standards are added to the table below.
Page 100 of 138
Page 2 of 6
Table 2
Zone RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
Minimum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
4
(4 houses
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
8
(8 houses
per acre)
12
(12
houses
per acre)
15
(15
houses
per acre)
Maximum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
7
(7 houses
per acre)
10
(10
houses
per acre)
16
(16
houses
per acre)
20
(20
houses
per acre)
Minimum
Lot Size
174,240
sq. ft.
35,000
sq. ft.
6,000
sq. ft.
4,300
sq. ft.
2,000
sq. ft.
2,000
sq. ft.
2,000
sq. ft.
Minimum
Avg. Lot
Size
174,240
sq. ft.
35,000
sq. ft.
8,000
sq. ft.
6,000
sq. ft.
4,300
sq. ft.
2,700
sq. ft.
2,175
sq. ft.
Minimum
Lot Width
125 ft. 125 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 20-35 ft. 20-35 ft. 20-35 ft.
All of the above standards must be achieved when designing the layout of a subdivision.
Additionally, the above standards apply only after identifying the area of a property that is
eligible to be subdivided. In other words, the above standards are not applied to the gross size
of a parcel; instead, they are applied to what the City Code refers to as “Net Site Area” which
requires that specific features of a property first be subtracted before determining lot potential.
Auburn City Code 18.02.065 defines the methodology for determining Net Site Area; this section
of code is provided below. If you find the language confusing, please continue reading past this
section to read a summary of the intent of this languag e, an overview of the challenges
experienced when applying this code, and suggestions for simplifying and clarifying the
methodology. During staff’s presentation, visual examples will be provided that help illustrate
density calculations using both the existing city code language as well as the proposed
language. The current methodology is provided as follows:
ACC 18.02.065
The permitted number of dwelling units or lots shall be determined as follows:
A. Net Site Area. The area of a site used to calculate the allowed number of dwelling
units or lots shall exclude those areas designated for public rights-of-way, except for the
designation of additional right-of-way along arterials, private streets, vehicle access easements,
and on-site public or homeowners’ association-maintained recreation space if required.
Further, the net site area shall be subject to the following adjustments and limitations for critical
areas:
1. Net site areas shall exclude streams, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, and high
landslide hazards; and
2. Net site area shall include any required critical area buffer, seismic hazards, and flood
hazard areas when calculating base density, unless critical areas identified in subsection
(A)(1) of this section are present; provided, that net site area shall not include required
critical area buffers when calculating minimum density. The allowed number of dwelling
units or lots for a site shall be computed by multiplying the net site area of the lot as
calculated in this section by the applicable residential base density number found in
the development standards for each zone.
B. “Base density” refers to the maximum number of dwelling units or lots allowed for a
specific zone without application of the bonus density provisions of Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC,
Page 101 of 138
Page 3 of 6
expressed as units per net acre. Base densities for residential zones are specified in
ACC 18.07.030.
C. “Base units” refers to the number of allowable dwelling units for a site, as determined by
multiplying the base density of the zone in which the site is located by the net site area.
For example, the R-5 zone has a base density of five units per acre; therefore, the maximum
number of base units allowed on a lot with 0.6 acres of net site area in the R-5 zone is three
units.
D. Bonus density, where applicable, shall be computed by adding the bonus units authorized by
Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC to the base units computed under this section.
E. When calculations result in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole
number as follows:
1. Fractions of 0.50 or above shall be rounded up; and
2. Fractions below 0.50 shall be rounded down.
Overview of Challenges and Suggestions
Lot Size Standards
In Table 2 there is a row that is titled “Minimum Average Lot Size”. After 9 years of this
standard existing in City Code, and dozens of completed subdivisions, it is unclear what this
standard accomplishes. While staff believes that it is appropriate to require that each individual
lot meet a minimum square footage, there does not appear to be a value in designing
subdivisions to also achieve an overall minimum average lot size. Using the R-5 zone as an
example, the current code requires that each lot must be at least 6,000 square feet in size and
that the overall subdivision should have an average lot size of at least 8,000 square feet. This
means that if there is one 6,000 square foot lot there must also be one 10,000 square foot lot in
order to meet the requirement for an average lot size of 8,000 square feet. Staff does not see
how this requirement adds value to the subdivision.
Additionally, because the overall density is still limited to 5 dwelling units per acre, the limitation
on the number of lots is achieved irrespective of lot size. To help make these numbers a little
more tangible, here are some figures to consider:
There are 43,560 square feet in one acre.
In the R-5 zone there is a limit of 5 dwelling units per acre.
43,560 square feet divided by 5 dwelling units = 8,712 square feet per lot. This means
that a minimum average lot size is already achieved simply by having a maximum
density.
Allowing each lot to be as small as 6,000 square feet gives the developer greater
flexibility when working around topography, wetlands, storm ponds, etc. While 5 lots that
are each 6,000 square feet only adds up to 30,000 total square feet (and thus, only a
little over 2/3 of an acre) the developer is also designing around other physical features
on the property that are not developable, is required to provide storm water facilities, and
must construct roads and sidewalks.
By virtue of the city code allowing a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet the city has
already determined that it is an adequate size for a lot within the R-5 zone. If it is
adequate for 1 lot why should it not be adequate for all lots?
The minimum lot width and setbacks within each zone also control subdivision design
and preclude undesirable lot configurations. In the R-5 zone each lot must be at least 50
Page 102 of 138
Page 4 of 6
feet in width and meet 5-foot side yard setbacks, 20-foot front yard sebacks, and 20-foot
rear setbacks. These standards continue to ensure that houses meet minimum
separations from each other.
Staff believes that the minimum average lot size requirement should be removed from each
residential zoning designation.
Calculating Density
Most readers of the code language sited in the previous section find it confusing. This leads to
numerous questions about how to determine Net Site Area and the resulting allowed density.
Equally, it has resulted in inconsistent application of its requirements by staff.
The essence of ACC 18.02.065 is that areas of land must be removed from a property before
determining the potential number of lots that can be created through a subdivision. A developer
starts with the gross site (e.g. 5 acres), must remove specific features from the gross site (e.g.
let’s just say that adds up to 1 acre), and the density potential is calculated on the area that is
left over (e.g. in this case, that leaves 4 acres). If the property is zoned R-5 (5 dwelling units per
acre) it means that the developer can achieve 20 lots (4 acres x 5 dwelling units per acre).
Staff believes that there are two general considerations that should be given for revising ACC
18.02.065:
(1) Restructure the language so that it is easier to understand, and
(2) Revisiting the appropriateness of determining lot potential utilizing net site area or gross
site area.
The greatest need for restructuring the language is in ACC 18.02.065.A. The entirety of this
section is made confusing because the features that are intended to be included and/or
excluded are described in narrative format rather than a simple list. The narrative format utilizes
commas and includes exceptions that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Staff proposes to
restructure this language so that it includes a section of features that should be deducted from
the gross site area and features that should not be deducted (and therefore remain as part of
the net site area). The attached draft code language attempts to better organize the
methodology.
Staff is also recommending that the Net Site Area methodology be replaced with a Gross Site
Area methodology. Because each zone includes a requirement that a subdivision comply with
both the minimum density and the maximum density and because there is a minimum lot size
and width, staff believes that calculating density using Gross Site Area will achieve the
following:
Simplicity – it is far easier for the applicant and city staff to understand the subdivision
potential when using Gross Site Area. The Gross Site Area is a number that is a known
quantity at the outset whereas Net Site Area is not fully understood until well into the
design process.
Predictability – Feasibility analysis, property transactions, and pre-application meetings
will all be based upon the same understanding of the lot potential. Also, because many
permit, utility connections and impact fees are based on the number of lots created, it
will be easier to understand these types of upfront costs.
Page 103 of 138
Page 5 of 6
Flexibility – The applicant and city can exercise greater creativity in designing lot and
road layouts when working around wetlands, steep slopes, storm water ponds, and other
constraints that exist on a property.
Greater Infill Potential – A fundamental goal of the Growth Management Act is to
encourage growth within cities in order to reduce the pressure of sprawl in the
surrounding farm, forest and open space lands. Over the last decade, without a single
exception, utilizing Net Site Area to calculate density has reduced lot potential by an
average of 1 lot for every 1 acre of land that is being subdivided (e.g. applicants have
achieved 4 dwelling units per acre instead of 5 dwelling units per acre).
Allowance to Deviate from Minimum Density
Minimum density is a necessary standard when considering methods for achieving infill
objectives. In fact, cities are obligated under several court decisions related to the Growth
Management Act to achieve an overall citywide density of at least 4 dwelling units per acre.
While this standard is generally easy to comply with for larger subdivisions, it has become a
barrier for smaller land divisions and/or divisions of lands that are heavily encumbered with
critical areas. Staff suggests that two principles be included within the draft language that
create flexibility related to how minimum density standards are applied.
First, proposed code section ACC 18.02.065.B would allow short plats to have full relief from the
minimum density standard. Short plats are subdivisions of 9 lots or less. In the R-5 zone this
would apply where an applicant is attempting to further subdivide a parcel that is under 2 acres
in size. Over the last 10 years, staff has informed dozens of property owners who are interested
in dividing their land that they must meet a minimum density requirement. They expect that they
can’t exceed the upper range of their zoning density but are surprised that they must also meet
a minimum density. The reason that the minimum density becomes problematic is because
smaller parcels tend to have atypical lot configurations, an existing residence that the owner
would like to retain, or have utility or driveway configurations that reduce the owner’s ability to
create more lots.
A typical example is a .60 acre parcel where the owner would like to divide the land in half,
intends to remain living in an existing home already on the property, and would like for the newly
created vacant parcel to be marketable for construction of an additional home. Unfortunately,
when the owner inquires with the City, staff must inform them that they must divided their land
into at least 3 parcels in order to meet the minimum density requirement. A .60 acre parcel
divided in half results in two .30 acre parcels. In the R-5 zone this type of land division fails to
meet the minimum density requirement because .30 acre lots are nearly a third of an acre in
size and must instead be 1/5th of an acre. Time after time, the City has turned away potential
short plat customers because it is not possible to meet the minimum density. Proposed ACC
18.02.065.B is intended to overcome this by granting full relief. While minimum density is a
necessary tenant of the Growth Management Act, so too is incentivizing infill. The current
standards generally preclude infill on smaller lots.
Second, proposed code section ACC 18.02.065.A.5 allows similar relief for traditional
subdivisions (divisions of land into more than 9 lots) when a property is heavily encumbered
with critical areas. Relief of the minimum density standard can be granted through the land
division process where the applicant is able to demonstrate that the critical are footprint is
encumbering the land to such an extent that it is impossible to meet the minimum density. For
example, a 10 acre lot that has 9 acres of wetland only leaves 1 acre that may be developed. If
the zoning is R-5 and the minimum density is 4 dwelling units per acre, it is impossible to place
Page 104 of 138
Page 6 of 6
the requisite 40 dwelling units on the remaining 1 acre and still meet the minimum lot size of
6,000 square feet (6,000 square feet x 40 dwelling units = 240,000 square feet; 240,000 square
feet / 43,560 square feet = 5.51 acres). In this type of scenario, staff believes that relief should
be granted from the minimum density while requiring that each lot meet the minimum lot size.
Conclusions
Staff has prepared a preliminary series of draft code amendments that are intended to
accomplish the following:
(1) Modify ACC 18.07.030.C to eliminate the requirement that the developer achieve an
overall minimum average lot size across the entire subdivision.
(2) Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to reorganize the code so that it is easier to understand how to
calculate density.
(3) Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to change the method of calculating density from Net Site Area
to Gross Site Area.
(4) Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to allow for administrative consideration of deviations to the
minimum density requirement.
(5) Add ACC 18.02.065.B which exempts short plats from the requirements to meet
minimum density.
Questions
(1) Does the Planning Commission concur with the suggestions offered by staff?
(2) Are there questions or ideas that the Planning Commission would like staff to consider
before bringing code amendments forward for public hearing?
(3) Is Planning Commission comfortable with scheduling a public hearing for August 8,
2017?
Attachments
Draft Code Amendments
Page 105 of 138
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Ron Copple, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
DATE: August 29, 2017
RE: Calculating Residential Densities
Update from August 8, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting
This memo and the attachments are identical to the materials that were previously transmitted
to the Planning commission in anticipation of the August 8, 2017 meeting. Since the August 8,
2017 Planning Commission meeting staff had the opportunity to discuss the draft modifications
with the King Snohomish Master Builder’s Association (MBA). MBA membership asked staff to
consider the merits of the significant impact that lot width has on the appearance, feel and
function of a community and their opinion that lot size has much less impact. The MBA
provided several examples of communities that have 40, 50 and 60 foot lot widths. The MBA
also suggested that 50 foot lot widths provide an ideal balance between aesthetics, parking,
density, design, marketability, and constructability. The MBA urged staff to consider the
benefits of lot width over lot size when
It is important to note that the City’s predominant residential zone – R-5, already establishes a
minimum lot width of 50 feet. The MBA has suggested that the City hold strong to this standard
but to consider reducing the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-5 zone. The MBA
contends that lot size has less impact on the aesthetics, parking, design, functionality and feel of
a community – provided that the allowed density range is established in city code and the
minimum lot width does not fall below 50 feet.
As a result of the feedback provided above, staff began looking at built subdivisions with
different lot widths and lot sizes to try to better understand how a community looks, feels and
functions. A powerpoint slideshow is attached to this memo as Exhibit B. The slides are
intended to serve as a visual aid when considering the impacts of lot width and lot size.
The slides provide examples of communities that were developed with 35 foot lot widths, 40 foot
lot widths, and 50 foot lot widths. The following staff observations are provided:
1. All three communities have average lot sizes of 4,000 square feet or smaller. The
community with 35 foot lot widths has 3,200 square foot lots. The community with 50
foot lot widths has 3,400 square foot lots.
2. Narrower lots forces construction of a home that is dominated with a first floor garage
presence. The wider 50 foot lots enable construction of a façade that offers more
architectural intrigue than a garage. Furthermore, because Auburn’s city code requires
a larger setback from the road to the garage than the rest of the home, it ensures that
Page 106 of 138
Page 2 of 7
the appearance of the community while walking or driving is not dominated by garage
doors.
3. Communities with narrower lots that are dominated by garage doors are in conflict with
efforts to deter crime. This is because there are fewer windows on the front façade and
the windows that are present on the front of the home are on the second floor. The first
floor of homes in these communities are void of windows. It is a proven principal of
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) that ground floor windows
send a very real message to criminals that there is a high likelihood that they will be
seen.
4. The two communities with 35 and 40 foot lot widths lack any on street parking. While
the builder can easily construct a home on a 35 or 40 foot lot the future occupants will
struggle with a lack of parking. This is a proven experience in Auburn where the City
receives ongoing parking complaints once all of the homes are occupied.
5. Within the two communities with narrower lots it is also far more challenging to identify
locations for mail boxes, fire hydrants, street lighting, landscaping, and other
improvements that are located within the right of way and sidewalk areas.
Staff believes that the comments and opinion provided by MBA have merit and that lot width
had a far greater impact on the quality of community that is created than lot size (provided a
maximum density is adhered to and the total number of lots can not be exceeded when
subdividing land). It is particularly striking to look at the last slide in the powepoint and note that
the community with 35 foot lot widths and the community with 50 foot lot widths have very
similar lot sizes yet present a very different appearance, feel, and function. As a result, staff
believes that it is appropriate to consider reducing the minimum lot size in the R-5 zone from
6,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet.
It is also important to note that a reduction in minimum lot size does not enable the creation of
more lots since the density range within the R-5 zone already limits the maximum density at 5
dwelling units per acre. In other words, irrespective of the minimum lot size, a 5 acre property in
the R-5 zone is limited to a maximum lot yield of 25 lots under either scenario.
Summary Statement
Community Development and Public Works is seeking to pursue amendments to the Auburn
City Code to help simplify the layout standards for new residential subdivisions. The proposed
amendments (attached as Exhibit A) will work to improve the methodology that the City Code
utilizes when calculating the potential number of new lots in the residential subdivision.
Background and Overview of Existing City Code
Auburn City Code establishes several different residential zoning designations. Each
designation is defined, in part, by its allowed density range (establishing both a minimum
density and maximum density within each zone). The residential designations and their
corresponding density is displayed in the following table.
Table 1
Zone RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
Minimum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
4
(4 houses
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
8
(8 houses
per acre)
12
(12
houses
per acre)
15
(15
houses
per acre)
Page 107 of 138
Page 3 of 7
Maximum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
7
(7 houses
per acre)
10
(10
houses
per acre)
16
(16
houses
per acre)
20
(20
houses
per acre)
The above standards generally only have application when considering a subdivision proposal.
In other words, there usually isn’t a need to apply the above density standards to existing
conditions, developments, or uses.
In addition to the minimum and maximum densities within each zone, there are a number of
other standards that apply when subdividing land. If a subdivision of land is proposed, not only
does the subdivision have to fall within the range of required densities of the underlying zoning
designation, each resulting lot must also meet a minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum
setback requirements, and an overall minimum average lot size across the entire subdivision.
Those additional standards are added to the table below.
Table 2
Zone RC R-1 R-5 R-7 R-10 R-16 R-20
Minimum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
4
(4 houses
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
8
(8 houses
per acre)
12
(12
houses
per acre)
15
(15
houses
per acre)
Maximum
Density
.25
(1 house
per 4
acres)
1
(1 house
per acre)
5
(5 houses
per acre)
7
(7 houses
per acre)
10
(10
houses
per acre)
16
(16
houses
per acre)
20
(20
houses
per acre)
Minimum
Lot Size
174,240
sq. ft.
35,000
sq. ft.
6,000
sq. ft.
4,300
sq. ft.
2,000
sq. ft.
2,000
sq. ft.
2,000
sq. ft.
Minimum
Avg. Lot
Size
174,240
sq. ft.
35,000
sq. ft.
8,000
sq. ft.
6,000
sq. ft.
4,300
sq. ft.
2,700
sq. ft.
2,175
sq. ft.
Minimum
Lot Width
125 ft. 125 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 20-35 ft. 20-35 ft. 20-35 ft.
All of the above standards must be achieved when designing the layout of a subdivision.
Additionally, the above standards apply only after identifying the area of a property that is
eligible to be subdivided. In other words, the above standards are not applied to the gross size
of a parcel; instead, they are applied to what the City Code refers to as “Net Site Area” which
requires that specific features of a property first be subtracted before determining lot potential.
Auburn City Code 18.02.065 defines the methodology for determining Net Site Area; this section
of code is provided below. If you find the language confusing, please continue reading past this
section to read a summary of the intent of this languag e, an overview of the challenges
experienced when applying this code, and suggestions for simplifying and clarifying the
methodology. During staff’s presentation, visual examples will be provided that help illustrate
density calculations using both the existing city code language as well as the proposed
language. The current methodology is provided as follows:
ACC 18.02.065
The permitted number of dwelling units or lots shall be determined as follows:
A. Net Site Area. The area of a site used to calculate the allowed number of dwelling
units or lots shall exclude those areas designated for public rights-of-way, except for the
Page 108 of 138
Page 4 of 7
designation of additional right-of-way along arterials, private streets, vehicle access easements,
and on-site public or homeowners’ association-maintained recreation space if required.
Further, the net site area shall be subject to the following adjustments and limitations for critical
areas:
1. Net site areas shall exclude streams, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, and high
landslide hazards; and
2. Net site area shall include any required critical area buffer, seismic hazards, and flood
hazard areas when calculating base density, unless critical areas identified in subsection
(A)(1) of this section are present; provided, that net site area shall not include required
critical area buffers when calculating minimum density. The allowed number of dwelling
units or lots for a site shall be computed by multiplying the net site area of the lot as
calculated in this section by the applicable residential base density number found in
the development standards for each zone.
B. “Base density” refers to the maximum number of dwelling units or lots allowed for a
specific zone without application of the bonus density provisions of Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC,
expressed as units per net acre. Base densities for residential zones are specified in
ACC 18.07.030.
C. “Base units” refers to the number of allowable dwelling units for a site, as determined by
multiplying the base density of the zone in which the site is located by the net site area.
For example, the R-5 zone has a base density of five units per acre; therefore, the maximum
number of base units allowed on a lot with 0.6 acres of net site area in the R-5 zone is three
units.
D. Bonus density, where applicable, shall be computed by adding the bonus units authorized by
Chapter 18.25 or 18.49 ACC to the base units computed under this section.
E. When calculations result in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded to the nearest whole
number as follows:
1. Fractions of 0.50 or above shall be rounded up; and
2. Fractions below 0.50 shall be rounded down.
Overview of Challenges and Suggestions
Lot Size Standards
In Table 2 there is a row that is titled “Minimum Average Lot Size”. After 9 years of this
standard existing in City Code, and dozens of completed subdivisions, it is unclear what this
standard accomplishes. While staff believes that it is appropriate to require that each individual
lot meet a minimum square footage, there does not appear to be a value in designing
subdivisions to also achieve an overall minimum average lot size. Using the R-5 zone as an
example, the current code requires that each lot must be at least 6,000 square feet in size and
that the overall subdivision should have an average lot size of at least 8,000 square feet. This
means that if there is one 6,000 square foot lot there must also be one 10,000 square foot lot in
order to meet the requirement for an average lot size of 8,000 square feet. Staff does not see
how this requirement adds value to the subdivision.
Additionally, because the overall density is still limited to 5 dwelling units per acre, the limitation
on the number of lots is achieved irrespective of lot size. To help make these numbers a little
more tangible, here are some figures to consider:
There are 43,560 square feet in one acre.
Page 109 of 138
Page 5 of 7
In the R-5 zone there is a limit of 5 dwelling units per acre.
43,560 square feet divided by 5 dwelling units = 8,712 square feet per lot. This means
that a minimum average lot size is already achieved simply by having a maximum
density.
Allowing each lot to be as small as 6,000 square feet gives the developer greater
flexibility when working around topography, wetlands, storm ponds, etc. While 5 lots that
are each 6,000 square feet only adds up to 30,000 total square feet (and thus, only a
little over 2/3 of an acre) the developer is also designing around other physical features
on the property that are not developable, is required to provide storm water facilities, and
must construct roads and sidewalks.
By virtue of the city code allowing a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet the city has
already determined that it is an adequate size for a lot within the R-5 zone. If it is
adequate for 1 lot why should it not be adequate for all lots?
The minimum lot width and setbacks within each zone also control subdivision design
and preclude undesirable lot configurations. In the R-5 zone each lot must be at least 50
feet in width and meet 5-foot side yard setbacks, 20-foot front yard setbacks, and 20-foot
rear setbacks. These standards continue to ensure that houses meet minimum
separations from each other.
Staff believes that the minimum average lot size requirement should be removed from each
residential zoning designation.
Calculating Density
Most readers of the code language sited in the previous section find it confusing. This leads to
numerous questions about how to determine Net Site Area and the resulting allowed density.
Equally, it has resulted in inconsistent application of its requirements by staff.
The essence of ACC 18.02.065 is that areas of land must be removed from a property before
determining the potential number of lots that can be created through a subdivision. A developer
starts with the gross site (e.g. 5 acres), must remove specific features from the gross site (e.g.
let’s just say that adds up to 1 acre), and the density potential is calculated on the area that is
left over (e.g. in this case, that leaves 4 acres). If the property is zoned R-5 (5 dwelling units per
acre) it means that the developer can achieve 20 lots (4 acres x 5 dwelling units per acre).
Staff believes that there are two general considerations that should be given for revising ACC
18.02.065:
(1) Restructure the language so that it is easier to understand, and
(2) Revisiting the appropriateness of determining lot potential utilizing net site area or gross
site area.
The greatest need for restructuring the language is in ACC 18.02.065.A. The entirety of this
section is made confusing because the features that are intended to be included and/or
excluded are described in narrative format rather than a simple list. The narrative format utilizes
commas and includes exceptions that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Staff proposes to
restructure this language so that it includes a section of features that should be deducted from
the gross site area and features that should not be deducted (and therefore remain as part of
the net site area). The attached draft code language attempts to better organize the
methodology.
Page 110 of 138
Page 6 of 7
Staff is also recommending that the Net Site Area methodology be replaced with a Gross Site
Area methodology. Because each zone includes a requirement that a subdivision comply with
both the minimum density and the maximum density and because there is a minimum lot size
and width, staff believes that calculating density using Gross Site Area will achieve the
following:
Simplicity – it is far easier for the applicant and city staff to understand the subdivision
potential when using Gross Site Area. The Gross Site Area is a number that is a known
quantity at the outset whereas Net Site Area is not fully understood until well into the
design process.
Predictability – Feasibility analysis, property transactions, and pre-application meetings
will all be based upon the same understanding of the lot potential. Also, because many
permit, utility connections and impact fees are based on the number of lots created, it
will be easier to understand these types of upfront costs.
Flexibility – The applicant and city can exercise greater creativity in designing lot and
road layouts when working around wetlands, steep slopes, storm water ponds, and other
constraints that exist on a property.
Greater Infill Potential – A fundamental goal of the Growth Management Act is to
encourage growth within cities in order to reduce the pressure of sprawl in the
surrounding farm, forest and open space lands. Over the last decade, without a single
exception, utilizing Net Site Area to calculate density has reduced lot potential by an
average of 1 lot for every 1 acre of land that is being subdivided (e.g. applicants have
achieved 4 dwelling units per acre instead of 5 dwelling units per acre).
Allowance to Deviate from Minimum Density
Minimum density is a necessary standard when considering methods for achieving infill
objectives. In fact, cities are obligated under several court decisions related to the Growth
Management Act to achieve an overall citywide density of at least 4 dwelling units per acre.
While this standard is generally easy to comply with for larger subdivisions, it has become a
barrier for smaller land divisions and/or divisions of lands that are heavily encumbered with
critical areas. Staff suggests that two principles be included within the draft language that
create flexibility related to how minimum density standards are applied.
First, proposed code section ACC 18.02.065.B would allow short plats to have full relief from the
minimum density standard. Short plats are subdivisions of 9 lots or less. In the R-5 zone this
would apply where an applicant is attempting to further subdivide a parcel that is under 2 acres
in size. Over the last 10 years, staff has informed dozens of property owners who are interested
in dividing their land that they must meet a minimum density requirement. They expect that they
can’t exceed the upper range of their zoning density but are surprised that they must also meet
a minimum density. The reason that the minimum density becomes problematic is because
smaller parcels tend to have atypical lot configurations, an existing residence that the owner
would like to retain, or have utility or driveway configurations that reduce the owner’s ability to
create more lots.
A typical example is a .60 acre parcel where the owner would like to divide the land in half,
intends to remain living in an existing home already on the property, and would like for the newly
created vacant parcel to be marketable for construction of an additional home. Unfortunately,
when the owner inquires with the City, staff must inform them that they must divided their land
into at least 3 parcels in order to meet the minimum density requirement. A .60 acre parcel
Page 111 of 138
Page 7 of 7
divided in half results in two .30 acre parcels. In the R-5 zone this type of land division fails to
meet the minimum density requirement because .30 acre lots are nearly a third of an acre in
size and must instead be 1/5th of an acre. Time after time, the City has turned away potential
short plat customers because it is not possible to meet the minimum density. Proposed ACC
18.02.065.B is intended to overcome this by granting full relief. While minimum density is a
necessary tenant of the Growth Management Act, so too is incentivizing infill. The current
standards generally preclude infill on smaller lots.
Second, proposed code section ACC 18.02.065.A.5 allows similar relief for traditional
subdivisions (divisions of land into more than 9 lots) when a property is heavily encumbered
with critical areas. Relief of the minimum density standard can be granted through the land
division process where the applicant is able to demonstrate that the critical are footprint is
encumbering the land to such an extent that it is impossible to meet the minimum density. For
example, a 10 acre lot that has 9 acres of wetland only leaves 1 acre that may be developed. If
the zoning is R-5 and the minimum density is 4 dwelling units per acre, it is impossible to place
the requisite 40 dwelling units on the remaining 1 acre and still meet the minimum lot size of
6,000 square feet (6,000 square feet x 40 dwelling units = 240,000 square feet; 240,000 square
feet / 43,560 square feet = 5.51 acres). In this type of scenario, staff believes that relief should
be granted from the minimum density while requiring that each lot meet the minimum lot size.
Conclusions
Staff has prepared a preliminary series of draft code amendments that are intended to
accomplish the following:
(1) Modify ACC 18.07.030.C to eliminate the requirement that the developer achieve an
overall minimum average lot size across the entire subdivision.
(2) Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to reorganize the code so that it is easier to understand how to
calculate density.
(3) Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to change the method of calculating density from Net Site Area
to Gross Site Area.
(4) Modify ACC 18.02.065.A to allow for administrative consideration of deviations to the
minimum density requirement.
(5) Add ACC 18.02.065.B which exempts short plats from the requirements to meet
minimum density.
Questions
(1) Does the Planning Commission concur with the suggestions offered by staff?
(2) Are there questions or ideas that the Planning Commission would like staff to consider
before bringing code amendments forward for public hearing?
(3) Is Planning Commission comfortable with scheduling a public hearing for August 8,
2017?
Attachments
Draft Code Amendments
Page 112 of 138
35 Foot Lot Width –3,200 square foot lots
Page 113 of 138
40 Foot Lot Width –4,000 square foot lots
Page 114 of 138
50 Foot Lot Width –3,400 square foot lots
Page 115 of 138
35 Feet
Limited on street parking
Garage door is the front
Minimal yard
40 Feet
Limited on street parking
Garage door is the front
Yard spacing
50 Feet
Some on street parking
House façade prominent
Adequate yard
Page 116 of 138
35 Feet
Limited on street parking
Garage door is the front
Minimal yard
Not CPTED Friendly (invites crime)
40 Feet
Limited on street parking
Garage door is the front
Yard spacing
Not CPTED Friendly (invites crime)
50 Feet
Some on street parking
House façade prominent
Adequate yard
Fairly CPTED Friendly (lots of windows)
Page 117 of 138
Page 118 of 138
R5 Zone –5.00 Acre Lot
Page 119 of 138
R5 Zone –5.00 Acre Lot –25 6,000 sq. ft. Lots
Page 120 of 138
R5 Zone –5.00 Acre Lot –25 4,500 sq. ft. Lots
Page 121 of 138
Other Factors to Consider
•Irrespective of Lot Size, Zoning Density Limits Still Prevails
•Setbacks, Coverage Limits, and Other Standards Must Still be Met
•Stormwater Standards Must Still be Satisfied
•Engineering Standards Must Still be Satisfied (Road Widths, Driveway
Spacing, Lighting, Landscaping, Sidewalks, etc.)
•Environmental Protection Standards Must Still be Met
•Long Range Utility and Transportation Plans Assume Maximum Density
Buildout
•Enables Amenities and Better Use of Common Areas
•Reduces the Need for the Developer to Seek Deviations from Other
Standards in Order to Realize Lot Potential (Larger Lots Leave Less Space for
Roads, Sidewalks, Utilities, Amenities)
Page 122 of 138
Page 123 of 138
Page 124 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Dangerous Dogs (Lee)(10 Minutes)
Date:
December
6, 2017
Department:
Police
Attachments:
Memorandum 12/04/17
City Code 6.35 - Dangerous Dogs
Budget
Impact:
Auburn
Police
Department
procedure
in handling
Dangerous
Dog and
Potentially
Dangerous
dog cases.
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Lee
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Number:
Page 125 of 138
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 4, 2017
TO: Mayor Nancy Backus
FROM: Assistant Chief of Police Pierson
SUBJECT: Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs
The purpose of this memorandum is to outline how the police department has been handling
Dangerous Dog and Potentially Dangerous dog cases and the quantity of such cases. The
memorandum will be structured in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) format to answer a
series of questions and concerns posed by Auburn City Council. Auburn City Code 6.35 and
the definitions of Dangerous Dog, Potentially Dangerous Dog and finally Proper enclosure of a
dangerous dog are included by reference.
1. How many animal related calls for service has the Police Department handled
over the last two years? In addition, what has been the typical response by the
Animal Control Authority?
2016
2017
(YTD) Total
Animal Calls
for Service 1,883 1,649 3,532
Most of animal control type contacts are based on education. The ACO handles
160 calls for service each month and addresses each one uniquely based on the
circumstances.
2. How many animal related reports and investigations have been completed over
the last two years?
2016
2017
(YTD) Total
Animal Cases/Report Written 186 160 346
Page 126 of 138
Addressee Name
Page 2 of 3
Date of Memo Here
Typically, the officer would issue a warning notice, infraction or criminal citation and
possibly impound the animal. During the second quarter of 2017, the following were
issued by the ACO: 25 Warnings, 124 Infractions, 17 criminal citations and 56 animals
were impounded.
3. How many breed specific Potentially Dangerous Dog registrations does the City
of Auburn currently have on file with the City Clerk’s Office?
There are currently 372 dogs that have registered with the city exclusively due to the
dog’s breed. (See ordinance 6.01.010.A.25.d) Of the 372 registrations, 216 are Pit-Bull
Terrier or mix of this breed. There is no fee for this type of registration unless the dog is
involved in an event that deems them Potentially Dangerous such as:
a. While unprovoked, it attacked, bit endangered or injured a human or a domestic
animal OR
b. It has chased or approached a person upon a street, sidewalk, or public grounds
in a menacing fashion.
*if either (a) or (b) are applicable, then the owner of such animal shall pay a yearly
$100 fee.
4. How many dogs are registered as Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous due to
their action under sections (a) and (b) above?
There are currently 13 dogs that are registered with the City of Auburn as Potentially
Dangerous due to their actions, and 12 Dangerous Dog registrations. In both
categories only seven of these dogs are the Pit-Bull Terrier Breed.
If a dog is declared Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous, the owner has the right to
appeal the decision to the Animal Control Authority, which is designated by the Chief of
Police. Currently, the Assistant Chief of Police is conducting these appeals. (See ACC
6.35.020) The police department has conducted 13 hearings with all but one upheld as
declared by the Animal Control Officer.
5. How many Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous Dog complaints have been
investigated by Animal Control? And how many of these cases were breeds that
meet the Potentially Dangerous criteria?
2016 2017 Total
Potentially Dangerous/Dangerous Dog
Cases (approx.*) 61 48
109
Page 127 of 138
Addressee Name
Page 3 of 3
Date of Memo Here
As you can see, although the ACO has investigated 109 cases of Dangerous or
Potentially Dangerous dogs, only 25 have registered their animals with the city as a
result of acts deeming them Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous. Currently, the
Animal Control Officer does not follow up on each declaration of Dangerous or
Potentially Dangerous. This is due, in part, to the fact that there is only one Animal
Control Officer. In 2018, Council has approved an additional officer.
As a note, in both years, “Pit-Bull Terriers” consisted of 78 of the cases investigated.
The remaining were other breeds that either met the breed designation as Potentially
Dangerous, or the dog’s actions dictated the declaration by the Animal Control Officer.
*Cases were identified by word searching in the narrative of the investigation.
6. How has some of these Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous Dog cases been
investigated?
2016 2017
Infractions 4 3
Citations 33 21
Impounds 9 7
Pit-Bull Terrier Breed 41 (67%) 37 (77%)
7. Are there any pro-active measures that the Animal Control Authority is utilizing to
manage or enforce the statutes reference Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous
Dogs in the city?
As noted earlier, the Animal Control Officers do not follow up on all Potentially
Dangerous Dogs based on the breed specific registration requirement. Having to follow
up on 372 registrations every year would be very time consuming and problematic
given there will only be two Animal Control Officers in the city.
Pro-active measure in the future could be in the form of more community awareness
and education as to the ordinance and it’s requirements.
Page 128 of 138
Page 129 of 138
Page 130 of 138
Page 131 of 138
Page 132 of 138
Page 133 of 138
Page 134 of 138
Page 135 of 138
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Matrix
Date:
December 5, 2017
Department:
Administration
Attachments:
Matrix
Special Focus Areas Key
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:December 11, 2017 Item Number:
Page 136 of 138
Updated 12-05-2017
NO.TOPIC Chair STAFF LEAD(S)STUDY SESSION REVIEW
DATE(S)
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
SUMMARY ACTION DATE
1
Capital Projects Update and
Featured Capital Project
Discussion
Chair Wagner
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Snyder 12/11/2017
2
Community Sustainability
Series: Economic and
Statutory Considerations for
Municipalities
Chair Wagner
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Snyder Rescheduled for future
meeting
3 IT Update on Digital Parity Chair Wagner
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Haugan 12/11/2017
4 Code Enforcement
Presentation
Chair Wagner
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Snyder 2018
5
Property at 104th and 102nd
and Plans for the Green River
Park
Chair Wagner
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Snyder 12/11/2017
6 118th Avenue SE Roadway
Issue
Chair Wagner
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Snyder 12/11/2017
7 Density Calculation Chair Wagner
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Snyder 12/11/2017
8 Centers Designation
Overview
Chair Wagner
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Snyder 12/11/2017
9 Traffic Calming Chair Wagner
Vice Chair DaCorsi Director Snyder 2/26/2018
10 Business Shopping Carts Chair Peloza
Vice Chair Baggett Director Snyder 3/1/2018
11 Cemetery Update Chair Peloza
Vice Chair Baggett Director Faber TBD
12 Sister Cities Update Chair Peloza
Vice Chair Baggett Director Hinman TBD
13 Multimedia - Website Design Chair Peloza
Vice Chair Baggett Director Hinman TBD
14
Update on Court-DV
Filings/Hearings and DV
Model Firearms Program
Chair Peloza
Vice Chair Baggett City Attorney Heid
TBD
15 Auburn Avenue Theater Chair Peloza
Vice Chair Baggett Director Faber 1/8/2018
16 Homelessness Update
Chair Trout-Manuel
Vice Chair Deputy Mayor
Wales
Director Hinman TBD
COUNCIL MATRIX
Page 137 of 138
Revised 06-12-2017
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES FINANCE & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC WORKS & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES
HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING CITY BUDGET & AMENDMENTS UTILITIES POLICE
PUBLIC WELLNESS RISK MANAGEMENT ZONING, CODES & PERMITS SCORE JAIL
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES EQUIPMENT RENTAL INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT COURT
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES FACILITIES TRANSPORTATION PARKS & RECREATION
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CITY REAL PROPERTY STREETS ANIMAL CONTROL
COMMUNITY SERVICES LEGAL ENGINEERING SOLID WASTE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES CAPITAL PROJECTS EMERGENCY PLANNING
MEDICAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY AIRPORT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AIRPORT BUSINESSES
CULTURAL ARTS & PUBLIC ARTS SISTER CITIES
PLANNING MULTIMEDIA
Councilmember Trout-Manuel, Chair Councilmember Baggett, Chair Councilmember Wagner, Chair Councilmember Peloza, Chair
Deputy Mayor Wales, Vice Chair Councilmember Wagner, Vice Chair Councilmember DaCorsi, Vice Chair Councilmember Baggett, Vice Chair
2017 MEETING DATES 2017 MEETING DATES 2017 MEETING DATES 2017 MEETING DATES
March 13, 2017 March 27, 2017 April 10, 2017 April 24, 2017
May 8, 2017 May 22, 2017June 12, 2017 June 12, 2017May 22, 2017 June 26, 2017
July 10, 2017 July 24, 2017August 14, 2017 August 14, 2017July 24, 2017 August 28, 2017
September 11, 2017 September 25, 2017 October 9, 2017 October 23, 2017
November 13, 2017 November 27, 2017 December 11, 2017 December 26, 2017
SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS
Page 138 of 138