HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-2018 PLANNING COMMISION AGENDA PACKETPlanning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2018 - 7:00 P M
City Hall - Council Chambers - S P E C IA L
P L ANNING COMMIS S ION ME E T ING
A GE NDA
I .C AL L T O O RD E R
A .RO L L C AL L/E S TAB L I S HM E NT O F Q UO RUM
B .P L E D G E O F AL L E G I ANC E
I I .AP P RO VAL O F M INUT E S
A .October 2, 2018 draft Regular Meeting Minutes
I I I .P UB L I C HE ARI NG S
I V.O T HE R B US I NE S S
A .P eriodic update of City's Shoreline M anagement P lan (S M P)
S taff to provide additional information and discussion on proposed changes to the
S MP based on state required changes and city-initiated changes.
B .Comprehensive Plan Land Use E lement Amendment - S pecial P lanning Areas
A mending the Special P lanning Areas Designation Section and Map 1.3 "Designated
A reas" of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan L and Use E lement.
C.Continued Discussion of docket items for Annual comprehensive P lan
Amendments - City initiated text and map amendments
I ncorporation of City of A uburn Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic P lan
V.C O M M UNIT Y D E V E L O P M E NT RE P O RT
Update on Community Development Services activities.
V I .AD J O URNM E NT
The City of Auburn Planning Commission is a seven member advisory body that provides
recommendations to the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land
use plans and related codes such as zoning. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the
Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission, other than approvals or amendments to the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, are not final decisions; they are in the form of
recommendations to the city council which must ultimately make the final decision.
Page 1 of 154
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
October 2, 2018 draft Regular Meeting Minutes
Date:
October 9, 2018
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Draft October 2, 2018 regular meeting minutes
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Planning Commission review and approve the October 2, 2018 minutes.
Background Summary:
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:October 16, 2018 Item Number:
Page 2 of 154
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 2, 2018
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
a.) ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Planning Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice-Chair Lee,
Commissioner Mason, Commissioner Stephens, Commissioner Shin,
Commissioner Khanal, and Commissioner Moutzouris.
Staff present included: Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner
Thaniel Gouk, Senior Planner Dustin Lawrence, and Planning Administrative
Assistant Kriss.
Members of the public present: There were no members of the public present.
b.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 5, 2018
Commissioner Lee moved and Commissioner Khanal seconded to approve the
minutes from the September 5, 2018 meeting as written.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7-0
III. PUBLIC HEARING
No items were brought forward for public hearing.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Periodic update of City’s Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)
Senior Planner Thaniel Gouk led the discussion of the City’s Shoreline Management
Plan update. Staff reviewed the “Shoreline Environment” designation maps along
with an explanation of the three “environment designations” within the SMP;
“Shoreline Residential”, “Urban Conservancy”, and “Natural”. These are like zoning
districts in that they regulate land uses and certain development standards.
Staff reported that the city received a grant, $25,000.00, from the WA State
Department of Ecology (DOE) to assist the city with the update. The city entered a
contract with the consulting firm: “The Watershed Company” who has worked with
other jurisdictions on their SMP updates and this experience will be beneficial to the
city as they work through the updates.
Page 3 of 154
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 2, 2018
Page 2
Staff explained the document is proposed to be updated in response to changes in
state laws, as required updates listed in the “DOE Checklist”, and there may be other
updates that are recommended by staff.
The Commission and staff discussed the last time the “shoreline environment”
designation maps were updated. Staff reported that the previous maps were from
2006 or 2007, prior to adoption of the Plan in 2009. Staff explained that not all of the
maps will be updated but the information generated will be part of the city’s mapping
layer within the Geographic Information System (eGIS) staff relies upon for various
information.
Staff explained that one of the staff recommended updates would include adding a
map of easements that allow public access along the river shoreline. These
historical easements were generally either created when lots were platted, or when
the State of Washington negotiated directly with property owners to obtain
easements along the Green River for public fishing.
Staff stated the updated map would likely not be published but be relied upon by staff
for current information as far as easements along the Green River through an eGIS
layer. The Commission and staff discussed how the easements along the Green
River are generated.
Staff reviewed the “DOE Checklist”, which lists changes in state laws. The checklist
summarizes amendments to state laws, rules and applicable updated guidance
adopted between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for local SMP
amendments. The form distributed was annotated by staff to indicate the changes
needed.
After discussing Item 2017, c., ‘exceptions to local review under the SMP’, the
Commission asked staff to provide a copy of the Ecology adopted rules that clarify
exceptions to shoreline substantial development permits. A Planning Commissioner
requested more information on what exceptions apply. Senior Planner Gouk
confirmed he would provide that information at the next meeting.
The commission asked what “guidance” referred to under Item 2016, b. is. Staff
explained, it is guidance provided for consultants for conducting reviews they
perform on wetland boundaries as they classify (based on saturation, soils and
vegetation).
As the Commission and Staff discussed 2007, a. clarification on “floodway”
established in FEMA maps, or floodway criteria set in the SMA, Chair Roland
expressed interest in having more information on this subject as the process
continues. Staff explained that the city’s Development Engineer is currently working
on revisions to the city’s floodplain administration regulations .Staff will be reviewing
each of these sets of regulations for consistency and as they move through to the
Commission.
Staff discussed 2007, c., Ecology’s rule listing statutory exemptions from the
requirement for a shoreline substantial development permit (SDP).
Page 4 of 154
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 2, 2018
Page 3
After completing review of the DOE Periodic Review Checklist, Commissioner
Stephens asked if a copy of the current SMP was available for review. Staff
confirmed that a copy is available and staff will send a hyperlink to the
Commissioners for access to the SMP document.
B. Continued Discussion of docket items for Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City initiated text and map amendments
Staff provided continued discussion regarding the docket of items slated for the 2018
annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Residential Transitional Overlay - Senior Planner Lawrence provided information
regarding the Residential Transition (RT) Overlay, as part of the city-initiated map
amendment. A Residential Transitional Overlay PowerPoint presentation was
presented. Staff explained that as part of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan adoption, a
Residential Transitional Overlay was added as a new mapped land use designation
with its own set of policy statement.
This update established the framework for the city to create a new zoning
designation and supplement existing zoning code requirements to assist with
providing better transitions between different types of land uses.
Senior Planner Lawrence explained that the areas included in the RT Overlay had a
previous land use designation of Single-Family. The current zoning of these areas
included the R-1, R-5, and R-7 Residential Zones.
Staff reviewed the intent, approaches in other jurisdictions, and practical difficulties of
the overlay. Examples were illustrated in the presentation provided to the
Commission by staff. Staff reviewed options that staff believes will aid the city with in
clarifying policy as the current policy may not be clear.
The Commission asked staff if the city had received any feedback from the public on
the current policy and RT Overlay designation. Senior Planner Lawrence reported
that the zoning in place currently is single-family, which is more restrictive.
Discussions with citizens have been favorable and do not appear to be a
burdensome, there is a potential for the property to be up-zoned, a benefit to those
developing which does not seem to be restrictive.
Planning staff confirmed that no discussions with citizens provided negative
feedback and because there are currently no specific zoning regulations to
implement the RT Overlay in place, no specific commitment is available or has been
made for potential development. Though the policy is in place within the 2015
Comprehensive Plan, no zoning designation has been completed. Senior Planner
Gouk stated he received one phone call asking about the RT Overlay, but most
persons seeking development are not aware the RT Overlay designation was
established within the Plan.
Planning Manager Dixon explained, if the map designation through a text
amendment is removed, the need for staff to provide subsequent zoning regulations
will be eliminated. Staff believes it is duplicative of some of the existing regulations
Page 5 of 154
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 2, 2018
Page 4
in place that achieves similar outcomes. Though the RT Overlay could be refined,
staff believes there are other ways to achieve the same dynamic of an overlay.
Three Private Map Amendments
Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon stated this year’s annual amendment would
include three privately-initiated map amendments. A PowerPoint presentation was
provided by staff for review of the private amendments:
CPM #2 – Senior Planner Gouk reported that CPM #2 is requested by Labrador
Ventures LLC to change the designation of three undeveloped parcels totaling 1.89
acres NE of 40th and I ST NE from the “Residential Transition Overlay” to “Multiple
Family Residential” and associated rezone from “R-7, Residential 7 dwelling units
per acre” to “R-20, 20 Dwelling Units Per Acre”.
Staff reviewed the location of the map amendment and stated that in response to the
required public notice one resident commented on the environmental SEPA decision.
This resident lives to the south of the property and requested the trees be preserved
on the property. Staff made contact with the commenter and explained the trees
were not located on this property. A staff report with detail and a formal
recommendation asking for approval will be provided at a future public hearing by
staff.
CPM #3 – Senior Planner Lawrence reported that a Request by Auburn School
District was received to change the designation of two developed parcels located
west of Pioneer Elementary from “Single Family Residential” to “Institutional” and
associated rezone from “R-7, 7 dwelling units per acre” to “I, Institutional” or “P-1,
Public Use”.
Staff reported that the Pioneer Elementary would eventually be rebuilt; it was built
back in the 50s and past its useful life. No comments from the community were
received on the environmental SEPA decision.
Commissioner Shin stated he is recusing himself from CPM #3 and CPM #4 because
the firm he is employed with does work for the Auburn School District.
CPM #4 – Senior Planner Lawrence explained that a request by Auburn School
District was received to change the designation of four parcels (3 developed) located
west of Kersey Way SE from “Residential Conservancy” to “Institutional” and the
associated rezone from “RC, Residential Conservancy” to “I, Institutional” or “P-1,
Public Use”.
Senior Planner Lawrence reported that comments were received in response to the
environmental SEPA decision. These were mainly from property owners located in
the subdivision to the west that expressed concerns about traffic, noise, and the
visual impacts of a new school. Comments in support of the rezone/school were
also received. Staff will subsequently provide copies of the comments in a more
formal report that will include a staff recommendation.
Page 6 of 154
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 2, 2018
Page 5
The school district will be proposing to build an elementary school for approximately
850 children. City staff have been meeting with the school district to discuss the
proposed permit application submittal and a schedule.
Commissioner Stevens asked if there would be a review of the traffic issues for the
area since staff is processing the application for a map change and rezone. Staff
reported that the school district has submitted a traffic study to accompany the map
change application and city staff will be reviewing the traffic study and coordinating
with Pierce County with any proposed road improvements.
Planning Manager Dixon reported that as part of the preliminary discussions for the
construction, it has been recommended that a traffic light be installed at the single
driveway along with widening of Kersey Way SE to provide turn lanes, specifically for
access to the school. Due to the topography, most of the widening of turn lanes
would take place on the school property on the south and west side of Kersey Way
to accommodate those turn lanes.
Chair Roland asked if there was a public street of 57th ST SE for the location of the
proposed school and Planning Manager Dixon responded, it is a private street that
currently provides shared access to the three homes,.
In conclusion, staff commented that the will be bringing the school district and City
capital facilities plans with a much larger packet that will include the details of all the
city-initiated and privately-initiated amendments for the Commission’s review. This
will be provided within the working binder for a future meeting.
The Commission and staff discussed the timeline expected for the public hearing on
the 2018 annual comprehensive plan amendments. Staff reported they would like to
come back October 16th for staff to present on some of the remaining docketed items
and then seeking to bring items forward for public hearing at the November 7, 2018
meeting.
V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon reported that a decision has been made by the
Mayor to split the former Community Development and Public Works Department into
two separate departments; the Department of Community Development as one and the
Public Works Department. Jeff Tate has been promoted to the Director of Community
Development. Ingrid Gaub has been promoted to Public Works Director.
At last night’s City Council Meeting, October 1st, the Mayor announced an official
proclamation designating October as “Community Planning Month”.
At the October 8th City Council study session meeting, the zoning code amendment for a
new definition for Nexus Youth and Families for “Community Support Facilities” will be
discussed. The proposed amendment is scheduled for action October 15th by the City
Council.
In follow up to a question at last month’s meeting, the multi-tenant building and shopping
center, which formerly housed Parker Paint store and the beauty school, across the
street from the city’s court building or police offices, at East Main Street and E Street, is
Page 7 of 154
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 2, 2018
Page 6
being updated with a new façade/facelift. The exterior of the building will be updated to
dress up the exterior of the structure. An artistic rendition of the exterior elevation was
provided by the architects and was shown on the screen.
As part of the façade improvement program, the Ryan Driessen Law Offices/building
behind what used to be the Liberty Tax offices will receive a façade improvement. It is
located at A Street SE, south of Main Street. Staff showed on the screen an artistic
rendition of the exterior of the completed project from the architect.
Planning Manager Dixon reported that the senior housing project located directly south
of city hall was submitted for design review, the city has recently issued the Design
Review Decision. Currently the city is working on the review of grading permits for the
project.
The building being developed at the SW Corner along S Division Street SW and 1st
Street SW, submitted as “The Auburn Apartments”, recently submitted their building
permit application. Staff provided the Commission with an artistic rendition of the
exterior of the building being proposed for “The Auburn Apartments”. The builder is the
same as completed the “Merrill Gardens at Auburn” project. However, this is not a
senior housing project.
The Planning Commission members expressed a concern for that there is not enough
downtown parking to support downtown businesses. Commissioner Lee expressed a
concern for the aging and handicapped population, to walk a block or so may create
accessibility issues and a hardship on the population.
Staff reported that within the DUC (Downtown Urban Center) parking is still required by
city regulation to be constructed as part of development. Each of the projects that has
been talked about is required to provide parking to support their use. The Commission
and staff discussed the parking displacement issues issued by construction on what is
currently surface lots. Staff provided information on parking options and issues with
creating new parking as parking displacement takes place. Planning Manager Dixon
stated that Sound Transit is pursuing an additional parking garage and the City is
pursuing some replacement surface lots but it cannot fully compensate. He remarked
the concerns regarding parking are noted.
The next meeting will be held October 16, 2018. The following meeting will be held
Wednesday, November 7th, moving it to Wednesday due to November 6th being Election
Day.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
Page 8 of 154
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Periodic update of City's Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)
Date:
October 9, 2018
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Memorandum and Exhibits
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Please see the attached memorandum and exhibits.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning
Councilmember:Staff:Gouk
Meeting Date:October 16, 2018 Item Number:
Page 9 of 154
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Roger Lee, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
FROM: Thaniel Gouk, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development
DATE: October 8, 2018
RE: Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update – Follow-up Info from October 2nd Meeting
At the October 2nd Planning Commission meeting, Staff discussed with the Commission several
items related to the required Shoreline Master Program (SMP) updated , including an
introduction to the SMP Designation Maps, updates that are mandated based on updates to
State laws since 2008, and some optional updates that Staff recommends looking into.
The Commission also requested that Staff follow-up on some items that were discussed,
including a link to the SMP document (emailed to Commissioners on 10/8/18) and more
information on a few items from the Department of Ecology (Ecology) update checklist
(Checklist). Ecology also provides a guidance document to accompany the Checklist which
includes more in-depth information and background on each item in the Checklist. As the
complete Checklist was provided to the Commission at the previous meeting, the complete
guidance document is included as Exhibit B.
The additional information requested by the Commission is included in items A, B, and C, below
and includes text from the Checklist first, then the text from the guidance document, followed
by Staff comments.
A. Ecology Checklist, Item 2017(c), which reads: “Ecology adopted rules that clarify exceptions
to local review under the SMA.”
Text from Ecology Guidance Document
2017 c. Exceptions to local review under the SMA
Ecology adopted WAC 173-27-044 to consolidate three separate laws that create special
exceptions to applicability of local Shoreline Master Programs. The rule clarifies that
requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter
of exemption, or other review conducted by a local government to implement the SMA do not
apply to:
remedial hazardous substance cleanup actions (1994 law),
boatyard improvements to meet NPDES requirements (2012 law), and
certain WSDOT maintenance and safety projects and activities (2015 law).
Page 10 of 154
Ecology also made housekeeping revisions to WAC 173-27-045, a separate rule that describes
developments that are not required to meet SMA requirements. The revisions delete reference to
RCW 90.58.390 (an emergency law that has since expired), and relocate the reference to the 1994
hazardous substance law to the new WAC 173-27-044.
Bills: ESSB 5994, effective 7/6/2015, EHB 2469, effective 6/7/2012. Laws: RCW 90.58.355; RCW
90.58.356; also see RCW 90.58.045; RCW 80.50. Rule: WAC 173-27-044 & WAC 173-27-045, effective
8/7/2017
Review considerations
The exceptions to SMP review covered under the statutes in these two rules apply whether or
not they are included in local SMPs. However, to ensure the statutory directives are implemented
consistently, Ecology recommends maintaining a section in their SMP that addresses these
exceptions.
NOTE: We do not recommend the SMP combine these “exceptions” from SMA permit
review directly into the list of “exemptions” from the requirement for a substantial
development permit under WAC 173-27-040. Projects that are listed as “permit-exempt”
still need to meet substantive standards of the SMA – whereas for these projects there is
no local review.
Example language
A local SMP may consolidate all the SMA exceptions to incorporate Ecology’s recently revised rules
with all applicable statutes as follows:
(XX) Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews
Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit,
variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management
Act do not apply to the following:
(i) Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a
remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order
issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the department of ecology when it
conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW.
(ii) Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to
RCW 90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water
treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national
pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general permit.
(iii) WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW
90.58.356, Washington State Department of Transportation projects and
activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a
substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of
exemption, or other local review.
(iv) Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement
pursuant to RCW 90.58.045.
(v) Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
process, pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
Page 11 of 154
Staff Comments
Staff proposes to address this item by adding the example/recommended language to
Section 4.2 ‘Applicability’ of the SMP.
Section 4.2 would then read as follows:
Page 12 of 154
B. Ecology Checklist, Item 2007(a), which reads: “The Legislature clarified options for defining
"floodway" as either the area that has been established in FEMA maps, or the floodway
criteria set in the SMA.”
Text from Ecology Guidance Document
2007 a. Options for defining floodway
The Legislature clarified options for defining "floodway" as either the area that has been established
in Federal Emergency Management Agency maps, or the floodway criteria set in the SMA. The “SMA
floodway” described in the SMA is essentially a biological definition, unlike the FEMA floodway which
is derived from a model.
Bill: HB 1413, effective 7/22/2007. Law: RCW 90.58.030.
Review considerations
Local governments should review their definition of “floodway” for consistency with the two options
under this statute.
Example language
Option 1. If a local government elects to use FEMA maps to define the floodway, Ecology
recommends the SMP include the following definition:
"Floodway" means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency
management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps. The floodway does not include
lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices
maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political
subdivision of the state.
The word “established” in this suggested definition is consistent with the SMA definition and
“effective” indicates that the map is FEMA’s approved FIRM – not a preliminary or draft map – and
also takes into account potential future changes to the maps. Reference to a specific dated version of
the FIRM is not required.
Option 2. If the SMA floodway is used, the definition in the SMP should be consistent with RCW
90.58.030(2)(b)(ii).
The SMA floodway “…consists of those portions of a river valley lying streamward from the outer
limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur
with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified,
under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of
vegetative ground cover condition, topography, or other indicators of flooding that occurs with
reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually.”
Staff Comments
The SMP currently uses a version of “Option 2”, which fully reads:
“Floodway” means those portions of the area of a river valley lying streamward from the outer
limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during periods of flooding that occur
with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually, said floodway being identified,
under normal condition, by changes in surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of
vegetative ground cover condition. The floodway shall not include those lands that can
reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by flood control devices maintained
Page 13 of 154
by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision
of the state.
As discussed during past meetings, the City’s Floodplain Development Regulations will likely
be updated in the next 6 months. Updated FEMA FIRM s (Flood Insurance Rate Map) are
expected to be fully adopted by the federal government at the beginning of 2019, and the
City’s update would follow soon after. By switching from Option 2 to Option 1, the City
could/would avoid needing to potentially change the existing definition within the SMP. In
addition, the definition as used practically, is consistent with the verbiage in Option 1. Staff
will be proposing to adopt Option 1.
C. Shoreline Exemptions
The third item that the Commission requested further information on was Ecology
Checklist, Item 2007(c), which referred to fish habitat enhancement projects, and included a
reference to developments that would be exempt from the SMP. Staff interprets this as a
request to have a list of what is exempt from obtaining a Shoreline Substantial Permit ; this
information is provided in the following screenshot. A complete list of exemptions can be
found in WAC 173-27-040.
Page 14 of 154
D. Public Participation Plan
One other item that Staff briefly mentioned at the last meeting was the Public Participation
Plan for the SMP Update that the City’s consultant Watershed has assist ed in preparing. A
draft version of this plan is attached as Exhibit A; please note that this is draft and has not
yet been formally submitted to Ecology.
Page 15 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
SMP Periodic Update – Public Participation Plan
Introduction
The City of Auburn is undertaking a periodic review of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as required by the
Washington state Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58.080(4). The SMA requires each SMP be reviewed, and
revised if needed, on an eight-year schedule established by the state Legislature. The review ensures the SMP stays
current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other Auburn plans and regulations, and is responsive to
changed circumstances, new information and improved data.
The purpose of this Public Participation Plan is to describe how Auburn will encourage early and continuous public input
throughout the SMP review process, including the steps that Auburn will take to provide opportunities for public
engagement and public comment, as well as Auburn contact information and web addresses.
This plan is a working document and will be adjusted as needed to provide for the greatest and broadest public
participation over the course of the periodic review process.
1.0 Public Participation Goals
Provide interested parties with timely information, an understanding of the process, and multiple opportunities to
review and comment on proposed amendments to the SMP.
Actively solicit information from citizens, property owners and stakeholders about their concerns, questions and
priorities for the periodic review process.
Encourage interested parties to informally review and comment on proposed changes to the SMP throughout the
process and provide those comments to decision makers.
Provide forums for formal public input at project milestones prior to decision-making by local officials.
Consult and consider recommendations from neighboring jurisdictions, federal and state agencies, and Native
American tribes.
2.0 Public Participation Opportunities
Auburn is committed to providing multiple opportunities for public participation throughout the process and will use a
variety of communication tools to inform the public and encourage participation, including the following:
2.1 Website
Auburn’s website will include a periodic review webpage where interested parties can access status updates, draft
documents, official notices, minutes and other project information. It can be found at:
http://www.auburnwa.gov/SMP. The webpage will be the primary repository of all information related to the periodic
review process, including draft documents, official notices, a Frequently Asked Questions section, and other project
information. The page will include who to contact for more information and an email link for questions and comments.
2.2 Notice mailing list
An email list of interested parties will be created, advertised and maintained by the Community Development Services
Department and will be used to notify interested parties regarding periodic review progress and participation
opportunities. Interested parties can be added to the list by contacting Thaniel Gouk, Senior Planner, at 253-804-5031
or tgouk@auburnwa.gov.
2.3 Open House
Auburn will initiate the periodic review with a community open house. Public comments received during the open
house will be posted on the periodic review webpage.
Exhibit A
Page 16 of 154
SMP Periodic Update – Public Participation Plan
2
2.4 Public Comment Periods and Hearings
The Planning Commission will be the primary forum for detailed review and recommendation to the Auburn City
Council. The Planning Commission will conduct a public comment period and at least one public hearing to solicit input
on the periodic review. Prior to the hearing, the Planning Commission will hold an introductory meeting to discuss the
periodic review and proposed SMP revisions. This meeting will also be open to the public and likely scheduled to occur
on the same evening as the Open House.
The Auburn City Council also will hold at least one introductory meeting before final adoption.
Auburn will coordinate with the Department of Ecology on public notification of comment periods and hearings to
take advantage of Ecology’s optional SMP amendment process that allows for a combined state-local comment period
(WAC 173-26-104).
Public notice of all hearings will state who is holding the comment period and/or hearing, the date and time, and the
location of any public hearing. Notices will be published per official policy and comply with all other legal requirements
such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. A notice will be sent to the email list (2.2, above) and the Department of
Ecology.
2.5 News media
The local news media will be kept up to date on the periodic review process and receive copies of all official notices.
2.6 Social media
The City of Auburn will provide notice of public meetings and other opportunities for public participation via typical
City public notice requirements, and in addition, its social media accounts, including Facebook, Next Door, and Twitter.
2.7 Ongoing Comment
All documents under consideration will be available on the periodic review webpage and available for review at
Auburn City Hall. Interested parties will be encouraged to provide comments by letter or e-mail. All comments will be
compiled and provided to the City Council and Planning Commission.
3.0 List of stakeholders
Auburn will reach out to the following stakeholders:
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Army Corps of Engineers
Muckleshoot Tribe
Puyallup Tribe
City of Algona
City of Covington
City of Federal Way
City of Kent
City of Pacific
King County
Pierce County
Mid-Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group
Green River Coalition
Futurewise
Puget Sound Energy
Valley Regional Fire Authority
Page 17 of 154
SMP Periodic Update – Public Participation Plan
3
Washington Environmental Council
4.0 Public Participation Timeline
The following is a general timeline including anticipated public participation opportunities. Auburn will coordinate with
the Department of Ecology throughout the process. A detailed timeline will be posted on the periodic review webpage.
September SMP Update Work Plan
October Public Participation Plan
Website launch
Email notification sent to interested parties
October - December Review SMP and other relevant City codes and policies
January SMP Open House
February - March Planning Commission review
Planning Commission public hearing
Public comment period on draft revisions
April - June Environmental review (SEPA)
Planning Commission recommendation to City Council
City Council review and final action
Page 18 of 154
[This page left intentionally blank]
Page 19 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
1
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
2017 .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
2016 ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
2015 ............................................................................................................................................................ 12
2014 ............................................................................................................................................................ 13
2012 ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
2011 ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
2010 ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
2009 ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
2007 ............................................................................................................................................................ 23
Example checklist ........................................................................................................................................ 27
Introduction
This document provides guidance for local governments on using the checklist required as part of the
periodic reviews of Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The
checklist and this guidance document will be amended regularly to stay current with amended laws and
rules. Check to see if you have the most current version before starting your review. Work closely with
the Ecology regional shoreline planner assigned to your jurisdiction throughout the review process.
The checklist is available as an MS Word document on Ecology’s webpage. For each year between 2007
and 2017 it provides a summary of state laws, rules and applicable updated guidance that may trigger
the need for local SMP amendments. If a given year is not listed here, there were no state laws or rules
or other applicable documents adopted or published during that year that would trigger a periodic
review obligation.
Each item starts with a description of the item and a link to the relevant law, rule or document. This is
followed by “Review Considerations” with general observations to aid local review. In some cases we
include Administrative tips related to the law or rule. The descriptions here are not intended as a
definitive or exhaustive analysis or interpretation of the item.
As described in Ecology’s rules, the checklist is used throughout the review process:
Exhibit B
Page 20 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
2
At the beginning of the periodic review, use the Review column to document review
considerations and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance. See
WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i).
At the end of the review process, use the Action column to indicate where the SMP addresses
applicable amended laws, or where no action is needed. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(d)(ii)(D) and
WAC 173-26-110(9)(b).
This guidance includes a sample checklist for a hypothetical city. When conducting reviews, we
recommend filling out the checklist for all the years listed. Some statutes provide options, and your
jurisdiction may decide to adopt one of these options even if elected officials chose not to do so during a
previous review. If an item has already been addressed simply note that in the review column. If an item
is not applicable, indicate N/A. If you have questions, or suggestions for improving this guidance
document, contact your Ecology regional shoreline planner.
2017
2017a. Cost threshold for substantial development ($7,047)
The Office of Financial Management (OFM) revised the cost threshold above which a development will
require a Substantial Development Permit (SDP) to $7,047. OFM is required to adjust the cost threshold
for inflation every five years. (From 2012 – 2017 the amount was $6,416.) The new threshold was
effective September 2, 2017.
Law: RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). State Register announcement: WSR 17-17-007.
Review considerations
Local governments are required to apply the new threshold of $7,047 starting September 2, 2017,
regardless of the threshold amount that is included in their SMP.
If a local SMP includes a specific cost threshold, it should be revised to $7,047. If an SMP does not
include an absolute number but relies on reference to statute, no change to the SMP is required.
ADMINISTRATIVE TIP: Revise permit application forms, websites or other administrative
documents to reflect the new cost threshold. There is no need to wait for an SMP amendment
to revise administrative documents.
2017 b. Definition of development
Ecology amended permit rules to clarify the definition of “development” does not include projects that
involve only dismantling or removing structures without any associated development or re-
development. This is not really a new interpretation, it simply codifies the primary holding of the 1992
WA State Supreme Court decision Cowiche Canyon v Bosley (118 Wn.2d 801). Ecology included the
clarification in rule to address a question about applicability of the SMA that arises frequently.
Rule: WAC 173-26-241(3)(e), effective 9/7/2017.
Page 21 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
3
Review considerations
It is not necessary to adopt this clarification into an SMP - local governments may look to the state rule
to answer questions should they arise. However, if a jurisdiction finds the clarification helpful, it may be
incorporated into the SMP.
Example language
If a local government chooses to incorporate this clarification, one option is to add a sentence in the
SMP definition of development. For example:
(XX) “Development" means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration
of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or
minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a
permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the
surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the act at any stage of water level.
“Development” does not include dismantling or removing structures if there is no
other associated development or re-development.
2017 c. Exceptions to local review under the SMA
Ecology adopted WAC 173-27-044 to consolidate three separate laws that create special exceptions to
applicability of local Shoreline Master Programs. The rule clarifies that requirements to obtain a
substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review
conducted by a local government to implement the SMA do not apply to:
• remedial hazardous substance cleanup actions (1994 law),
• boatyard improvements to meet NPDES requirements (2012 law), and
• certain WSDOT maintenance and safety projects and activities (2015 law).
Ecology also made housekeeping revisions to WAC 173-27-045, a separate rule that describes
developments that are not required to meet SMA requirements. The revisions delete reference to RCW
90.58.390 (an emergency law that has since expired), and relocate the reference to the 1994 hazardous
substance law to the new WAC 173-27-044.
Bills: ESSB 5994, effective 7/6/2015, EHB 2469, effective 6/7/2012. Laws: RCW 90.58.355; RCW 90.58.356;
also see RCW 90.58.045; RCW 80.50. Rule: WAC 173-27-044 & WAC 173-27-045, effective 8/7/2017
Review considerations
The exceptions to SMP review covered under the statutes in these two rules apply whether or not they
are included in local SMPs. However, to ensure the statutory directives are implemented consistently,
Ecology recommends maintaining a section in their SMP that addresses these exceptions.
NOTE: We do not recommend the SMP combine these “exceptions” from SMA permit review
directly into the list of “exemptions” from the requirement for a substantial development
permit under WAC 173-27-040. Projects that are listed as “permit-exempt” still need to meet
substantive standards of the SMA – whereas for these projects there is no local review.
Page 22 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
4
Example language
A local SMP may consolidate all the SMA exceptions to incorporate Ecology’s recently revised rules with
all applicable statutes as follows:
(XX) Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews
Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit,
variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management
Act do not apply to the following:
(i) Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial
action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant
to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the department of ecology when it conducts a
remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW.
(ii) Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW
90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an
existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national pollutant discharge
elimination system storm water general permit.
(iii) WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW
90.58.356, Washington State Department of Transportation projects and activities
meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial
development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other
local review.
(iv) Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant
to RCW 90.58.045.
(v) Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process,
pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW.
2017 d. Permit filing procedures
Ecology amended WAC 173-27-044 to incorporate a 2011 law relating to permit filing. These details are
important because the date of filing establishes the start of the Shorelines Hearings Board appeal
period. Changes include:
• “Date of filing” replaces “date of receipt” for shoreline permits sent to Ecology.
• Requires concurrent filing of permits if there are separate Substantial Development, Conditional
Use Permits, and/or Variances.
• Ecology will notify local government and the applicant of the date of filing by telephone or
electronic means followed by written communication.
The law clarified that local permit decisions shall be submitted to Ecology by return receipt requested
mail. This intent is to bring consistency and predictability to the timing of the appeal period. Using
return receipt mail allows local governments to calculate when the appeal period starts and ends
without contacting Ecology on every permit. This also helps them administer other related
Page 23 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
5
authorizations like building permits. Using return receipt mail allows local governments to control the
timing of the SHB appeal for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits and creates a record of the
transmittal, alleviating the scenario where a submittal is lost or delayed by the mail service.
Bill: SSB 5192, effective 7/22/2011. Law: RCW 90.58.140(6). Rule: WAC 173-27-130
Review considerations
The SMA amendment applied on its effective date in 2011, regardless of whether permit procedures are
specifically outlined in local SMPs. However, if an SMP describes the permit filing process, it should be
reviewed for consistency with the 2011 statutory amendments.
Example language
Below is an example of local permit filing procedures which incorporates the 2011 statute:
(XX) After all local permit administrative appeals or reconsideration periods are
complete and the permit documents are amended to incorporate any resulting changes,
[COUNTY/CITY] will mail the permit using return receipt requested mail to the
Department of Ecology regional office and the Office of the Attorney General.
Projects that require both Conditional Use Permits and or Variances shall be mailed
simultaneously with any Substantial Development Permits for the project.
(i) The permit and documentation of the final local decision will be mailed together
with the complete permit application; a findings and conclusions letter; a permit data
form (cover sheet); and applicable SEPA documents.
(ii) Consistent with RCW 90.58.140(6), the state’s Shorelines Hearings Board twenty-
one day appeal period starts with the date of filing, which is defined below:
(A) For projects that only require a Substantial Development Permit: the date
that Ecology receives the [COUNTY/CITY] decision.
(B) For a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Variance: the date that Ecology’s
decision on the CUP or Variance is transmitted to the applicant and
[COUNTY/CITY].
(C) For SDPs simultaneously mailed with a CUP or VAR to Ecology: the date
that Ecology’s decision on the CUP or Variance is transmitted to the applicant
and the [COUNTY/CITY].
2017 e. Forestry use regulations
Ecology amended forestry use regulations to clarify that a forest practice that only involves timber
cutting is not considered development under the SMA and does not require permits, but forestry
activities other than timber cutting may require a Substantial Development Permit (SDP). Ecology
adopted this housekeeping amendment to address a regularly recurring question which is partly
answered in Forest Practices Board laws and rules but not addressed in SMA rules. Forest Practices rule
WAC 222-50-020(2) states “A substantial development permit must be obtained prior to conducting
forest practices which are "substantial developments" within the "shoreline" area as those terms are
Page 24 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
6
defined by the Shoreline Management Act.” The authority for that rule is RCW 76.09.240(6). Timber
cutting alone is not development because it does not meet the statutory definition in RCW
90.58.030(3)(e)(a).
Rule: WAC 173-27-030(6), effective 9/7/2017.
Review considerations
It is not necessary to amend local SMP forestry regulations to reflect this clarification. However, it could
be helpful for jurisdictions with extensive commercial forestry, if questions about applicability of forest
practices laws and rules arise frequently.
Sample language
The language from the revised rule could be incorporated into forest use regulations:
A forest practice that only involves timber cutting is not a development under the act
and does not require a shoreline substantial development permit or a shoreline
exemption. A forest practice that includes activities other than timber cutting may be
a development under the act and may require a substantial development permit, as
required by WAC 222-50-020.
2017 f. Lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction
Ecology amended a permit rule that addressed lands within federal boundaries to clarify that areas and
uses in those areas that are under exclusive federal jurisdiction as established through federal or state
statutes are not subject to the jurisdiction of the SMA. For example, exclusive jurisdiction is ceded to the
United States in Rainier National Park (RCW 37.08.200), Olympic National Park (RCW 37.08.210), and for
acquisition of land for permanent military installations (RCW 37.08.180).
Rule: WAC 173-22-070, effective 9/7/2017.
Review considerations
It is not necessary to amend local SMPs to reflect this clarification. However, it could be included if a
jurisdiction faces questions about applicability of the SMP on lands with exclusive jurisdiction.
Sample language
The language from the revised rule could be incorporated as follows:
(XX) Areas and uses in those areas that are under exclusive federal jurisdiction as
established through federal or state statutes are not subject to the jurisdiction of
chapter 90.58 RCW.
Another option is to list the specific areas where the exclusive jurisdiction applies locally (e.g., National
Park or military base).
2017 g. Nonconforming uses and development
Ecology revised its rules for nonconforming uses and development. The introductory paragraph of the
rule was amended to clarify that unlike other permit and enforcement rules, this rule is a default rule
that only applies if a local government has no provisions in their local SMP addressing nonconforming
Page 25 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
7
uses. A primary goal of the revisions was to create separate sections for nonconforming uses,
nonconforming structures, and nonconforming lots. Many of the clarifications in this default rule were
borrowed from local government innovations developed during the comprehensive SMP updates.
Rule: WAC 173-27-080, effective 9/7/2017
Review considerations
For local governments that adopted their own tailored provisions for nonconforming use and
development during the comprehensive update, Ecology’s rule amendments will have no effect.
This rule will apply where a local government either has no provisions for nonconforming use and
development or has adopted WAC 173-27-080 by reference. Local governments that adopt this WAC by
reference or included its provisions within their SMP should review the new rule to determine whether
or how to modify how nonconforming use and development is regulated in their jurisdiction.
If a local government has already addressed nonconforming use and development but is considering
adopting clarifications, review the revised rule for ideas. Below is a summary of changes from Ecology’s
previous nonconforming use and development rule to help identify what is different:
(1) Definitions
This section creates separate definitions for nonconforming “use,” “structure” and “lots.” In the
previous version “use” and “structure” were combined into one definition, and the definition of “lots”
had been incorporated into the regulation itself rather than having a separate definition.
(2) Nonconforming structures
§ (2)(a) clarifies that existing legal nonconforming structures may continue. This addresses a concern
raised during comprehensive updates about the legal rights of nonconforming structures.
§ (2)(b) provides a general rule for expansions of nonconforming structures. The amendments clarify
that enlargement or expansions should meet applicable provisions of the SMP. (Many comprehensively
updated SMPs created specific allowances for expansion of nonconforming structures, embedded within
specific use regulations.) It also clarifies a general rule that a variance would be required for expansions
that increase the nonconformity if the SMP does not provide a specific allowance.
§ (2)(c) was not amended from the previous rule. It retains the existing authorization for expansions of
preferred single-family residences or addition of appurtenances through a conditional use permit.
§ (2)(f) adds a qualifier to a previous provision that required any nonconforming structure that is moved
any distance to meet all applicable provisions of the SMP. This provision was potentially a disincentive to
move structures away from the shoreline in circumstance where all dimensional standards (e.g., buffer
width) could not be met because of existing constraints (e.g., lot width, presence of a road). The
proposed change requires a nonconforming structure that is moved to move “as far as practical” from
the shoreline. This allows for the realities of any given parcel to be taken into account.
§ (2)(g) extends the time period for obtaining permits to replace damaged development from 6 months
to 2 years. Even in normal circumstances applications can take 6 months to prepare, so a longer
timeframe is warranted where a development has been damaged.
Page 26 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
8
§ 3. Nonconforming uses
§ (3)(a) preserves the existing regulation which clarifies that existing nonconforming uses may continue.
§ (3)(b) sets out the general rule that nonconforming uses shall not be enlarged or expanded without a
CUP, unless more specific regulations in the SMP apply.
§ (3)(c) modified an existing rule that said nonconforming rights expire if the use is discontinued for 12
months, by clarifying the nonconforming uses may be re-established through a CUP. It was also modified
to clarify that water-dependent uses that are episodically dormant or include phased or rotational
operations should not be considered “discontinued.”
Note the previous WAC 173-27-080(4) was deleted in its entirety. The rule had said if an updated SMP
requires a CUP for an existing use, that use should be considered a nonconforming use. The previous
rule was deleted because those uses should be treated no differently from other existing uses.
§ 4. Nonconforming lots
The only change was to move the definition into the definition section.
Example language
Local governments may incorporate the language from the revised rule either directly into their SMP, or
by reference. If the provisions are incorporated directly they may be modified or tailored.
(1) Definitions
(a) "Nonconforming use" means an existing shoreline use that was lawfully
established prior to the effective date of the act or the applicable master program, but
which does not conform to present use regulations due to subsequent changes to the
master program.
(b) “Nonconforming development” or “nonconforming structure” means an existing
structure that was lawfully constructed at the time it was built but is no longer fully
consistent with present regulations such as setbacks, buffers or yards; area; bulk;
height or density standards due to subsequent changes to the master program.
(c) “Nonconforming lot” means a lot that met dimensional requirements of the
applicable master program at the time of its establishment but now contains less than
the required width, depth or area due to subsequent changes to the master program.
(2) Nonconforming structures
(a) Structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use but are
nonconforming with regard to setbacks, buffers or yards; area; bulk; height or density
may continue as legal nonconforming structures and may be maintained and repaired.
(b) Nonconforming structures may be enlarged or expanded provided that said
enlargement meets the applicable provisions of the master program. In the absence of
other more specific regulations, proposed expansion shall not increase the extent of
nonconformity by further encroaching upon or extending into areas where
Page 27 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
9
construction would not be allowed for new structures, unless a shoreline variance
permit is obtained.
(c) Nonconforming single-family residences that are located landward of the ordinary
high water mark may be enlarged or expanded in conformance with applicable bulk
and dimensional standards by the addition of space to the main structure or by the
addition of normal appurtenances as defined in WAC 173-27-040 (2)(g) upon
approval of a conditional use permit.
(d) A structure for which a variance has been issued shall be considered a legal
nonconforming structure and the requirements of this section shall apply as they apply
to preexisting nonconformities.
(e) In the absence of other more specific regulations, a structure which is being or has
been used for a nonconforming use may be used for a different nonconforming use
only upon the approval of a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit may be
approved only upon a finding that:
(i) No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical; and
(ii) The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and
provisions of the act and the master program and as compatible with the uses in
the area as the preexisting use.
In addition, such conditions may be attached to the permit as are deemed necessary to
assure compliance with the above findings, the requirements of the master program
and the Shoreline Management Act and to assure that the use will not become a
nuisance or a hazard.
(f) A nonconforming structure which is moved any distance must be brought as
closely as practicable into conformance with the applicable master program and the
act.
(g) If a nonconforming development is damaged to an extent not exceeding seventy-
five percent of the replacement cost of the original development, it may be
reconstructed to those configurations existing immediately prior to the time the
development was damaged, provided that application is made for the permits
necessary to restore the development within two years of the date the damage
occurred.
(3) Nonconforming uses
(a) Uses that were legally established and are nonconforming with regard to the use
regulations of the master program may continue as legal nonconforming uses.
(b) In the absence of other more specific regulations in the master program, such uses
shall not be enlarged or expanded, except upon approval of a conditional use permit.
(c) If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve consecutive months or for
twelve months during any two-year period, the nonconforming rights shall expire and
Page 28 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
10
any subsequent use shall be conforming unless re-establishment of the use is
authorized through a conditional use permit which must be applied for within the two-
year period. Water-dependent uses should not be considered discontinued when they
are inactive due to dormancy, or where the use includes phased or rotational
operations as part of typical operations. A use authorized pursuant to subsection (2)(e)
of this section shall be considered a conforming use for purposes of this section.
(4) Nonconforming lot
A nonconforming lot may be developed if permitted by other land use regulations of
the local government and so long as such development conforms to all other
requirements of the applicable master program and the act.
2017 h. Periodic reviews
Ecology adopted rule amendments to clarify the scope and process for conducting periodic reviews of
SMPs required by RCW 90.58.080(4).
Rule: WAC 173-26-090, effective 9/7/2017.
Review considerations
This rule describes the process local governments must follow when conducting periodic reviews. It is
not necessary to include any of these new provisions in local SMPs – they provide direction on how to
undertake the periodic review process. If an SMP describes the periodic review scope and procedures,
consider reviewing that section of code for consistency with the periodic review rule.
Example language
If an SMP includes a description of periodic review procedures, and would like to add further
clarification, one option would be to cite Ecology’s WAC by reference. For example:
(X) The CITY/COUNTY will conduct the periodic review process consistent with
requirements of RCW 90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090.
2017 i. Optional SMP amendment process
This new rule establishes an optional SMP amendment process that allows for a shared local/state
public comment period for efficiency.
Rule: WAC 173-26-104, effective 9/7/2017.
Review considerations
Local governments that want to use these provisions should review local amendment procedures to
ensure there are no impediments to using this new option. (These provisions may be contained either in
the SMP or elsewhere in the land use code.) A key consideration is coordinating with Ecology on the
public comment period, as Ecology needs to send notice to the state interested parties list at the same
time as the local governments notice. Note that the optional process also asks local governments to
send a draft to Ecology for an initial determination before final local adoption. This has been a common
practice on an informal basis for many years and can be done without amending the SMP.
Page 29 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
11
2017 j. Submittal to Ecology of proposed SMP amendments
Ecology made a few minor amendments to WAC 173-26-110, the rule that describes what local
governments provide to Ecology for final review of SMP amendments. The rule clarifies that submittals
may be in digital form, and deleted the requirement to send two paper copies. It clarified that the
submittal should include a summary of amendments made in response to public comments. It also
clarified that local governments will submit their final periodic review checklist when taking action on
the periodic review.
NOTE: Ecology also made a few housekeeping amendments to WAC 173-26-120, which describes the
state process for reviewing SMPs. Those amendments should not trigger any amendments to SMPs. The
one exception might be the clarification from statute that SMPs are effective 14 days after Ecology’s
approval letter - this was adopted by the Legislature as described under 2010 amendments.
Rule: WAC 173-26-110, WAC 173-26-120, effective 9/7/2017.
Review considerations
If a local SMP includes a description of the SMP submittal process, they should review the amendments
for consistency.
2016
2016 a. Americans with Disabilities Act permit exemption
The legislature created a new shoreline permit exemption in 2016. Retrofitting an existing structure
does not require a Substantial Development Permit (SDP) if the project is undertaken to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act or otherwise provide physical access to a structure by individuals with
disabilities. The amended law was incorporated into Ecology’s rule in 2017.
Bill: SHB 2847, effective 6/9/2016. RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(xiii), WAC 173-27-040(2)(q).
Review considerations
This SMA amendment applied on its effective date, regardless of whether the exemption is specifically
listed in the SMP. For SMPs that simply cite the RCW list of exemption, no change is needed.
For SMPs that spell out all the statutory exemptions, add the new exemption to the list.
Example language
Local governments may incorporate the revised rule directly into exemption language:
(xx) The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive
purpose of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical access to the structure by
individuals with disabilities.
2016 b. Wetlands critical areas guidance
Page 30 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
12
Ecology published a revised Wetlands Guidance for Critical Areas Ordinance Updates in 2016. The new
guidebook replaces the former “Guidance for Small Cities.” There are separate versions for Eastern and
Western Washington. Ecology’s rule directs local governments to consult the department's technical
guidance documents on wetlands. The primary changes in this document are related to the new 2014
Washington state wetland rating system. Ecology’s 2003 rule directs local governments to use either the
state wetland rating system, or to develop their own scientifically based method for categorizing
wetlands.
Other changes addressed include: addition of a buffer table to be used if minimizing measures are not
used; emphasis on the requirement to provide wildlife corridors where possible in exchange for buffer
reduction; guidance on using wetlands for stormwater management facilities; revisions to exemptions
for small wetlands; recommended language addressing agricultural activities in non-VSP jurisdictions;
and addition of recent mitigation documents and guidance.
Rule: WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A) and (B); Guidance update: Wetlands guidance document, June 2016; 2014
Wetland rating system manuals.
Review considerations
The updated wetlands guidance is directed at updating critical areas ordinances (CAOs). The key
provision is the updates to the 2014 Wetland Rating System. Other guidance in the 2016 guidance
document may also be applicable. How this guidance applies to individual local government will vary
widely depending on how critical areas are addressed in the SMP. Consult Ecology’s regional planner for
tailored assistance on potential SMP wetland revisions.
2015
2015 a. 90-day target for local review for WSDOT project
The Legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) projects. The law also allows WSDOT projects that address safety risks to begin
21 days after the date of filing if the project will achieve no net loss of ecological functions.
Bill: ESSB 5994, effective 7/6/2015. Laws: RCW 47.01.485; RCW 90.58.140. Rule: WAC 173-27-125
Review considerations
It is not necessary to include these provisions in SMPs, but a reference could help ensure SMPs are
implemented consistent with the statute.
Example language
If a local governments chooses to incorporate this legislative direction into an SMP, one option is to use
the following language from the revised rule.
(XX) Special procedures for WSDOT projects.
(i) Permit review time for projects on a state highway. Pursuant to RCW
47.01.485, the Legislature established a target of 90 days review time for local
governments.
Page 31 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
13
(ii) Optional process allowing construction to commence twenty-one days after
date of filing. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.140, Washington State Department of
Transportation projects that address significant public safety risks may begin
twenty-one days after the date of filing if all components of the project will
achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
2014
2014 a. Replacement docks on lakes and rivers
The Legislature revised the cost threshold for requiring a Substantial Development Permit (SDP) for
replacement docks on lakes and rivers. The fair market value for purposes of an SDP exemption for a
dock in fresh water is raised to $20,000 (from $10,000) in certain circumstances. To clarify how the new
rule is different, here are the changes from the previous permit exemption law:
“This exception applies if either: (i) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not
exceed two thousand five hundred dollars; or (ii) In fresh waters the fair market value of the
dock does not exceed: (A) twenty thousand dollars for docks that are constructed to replace
existing docks, are of equal or lesser square footage than the existing dock being replaced; or
(B) tTen thousand dollars but for all other docks constructed in fresh waters. However, if
subsequent construction having a fair market value exceeding two thousand five hundred
dollars occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction, and the combined fair
market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount specified above, the
subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development for the purpose of this
chapter.”
NOTE: The Legislature also directed to OFM the dollar thresholds after July 2018. Ecology will revise the
checklist and this guidance document to reflect this change when the new number is effective.
Bill: SHB 1090, effective 6/12/2014. RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). Rule WAC 173-27-040(2)(h).
Review considerations
This SMA amendment applied on its effective date, regardless of whether the exemption is specifically
listed in the SMP. If an SMP simply cites the RCW for lists of exemption, no change is needed.
If an SMP repeats the WAC, modify the exemption section for consistency.
Example language
The new rule language could be incorporated directly into the SMP section on permit exemptions. For
example:
(XX) Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft
only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of
single-family and multiple-family residences. A dock is a landing and moorage
facility for watercraft and does not include recreational decks, storage facilities or
other appurtenances. This exception applies if either:
Page 32 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
14
(i) In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed two thousand five
hundred dollars; or
(ii) In fresh waters the fair market value of the dock does not exceed:
(A) twenty thousand dollars for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks,
are of equal or lesser square footage than the existing dock being replaced; or
(B) Ten thousand dollars for all other docks constructed in fresh waters.
However, if subsequent construction occurs within five years of completion of the
prior construction, and the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior
construction exceeds the amount specified above, the subsequent construction shall be
considered a substantial development for the purpose of this chapter.
2014 b. Floating on-water residences
The Legislature created a new definition and policy for “floating on-water residences (FOWRs).” FOWRs
that meet the new definition and were legally established before 7/1/2014 shall be considered a
conforming use, and must be accommodated through SMP regulations that will not effectively preclude
maintenance, repair, replacement, and remodeling. This bill responded to concerns raised in Seattle
regarding preservation of the existing floating home community. (See provisions for “floating homes”
under 2011 statutes. The statutes are similar but slightly different.)
Bill: ESSB 6450 effective 6/12/2014. Law: RCW 90.58.270. Rules: Definition: WAC 173-26-030(3)(d)(18); Use
regulation: WAC 173-26-241(3)(j).
Review considerations
If a jurisdiction has no existing FOWRs, no amendments are needed.
If a jurisdiction has existing FOWRs, the SMP should include a reference to the statute, or a definition
consistent with the statute, and a policy or regulation that clarifies the legal status of FOWRs. If the
jurisdictions SMP specifically regulates FOWR’s, then the regulations should be reviewed to make sure
they appropriately recognize on-going maintenance of FOWR. Local governments may apply reasonable
SMP regulations, permit conditions, or mitigation that will not effectively preclude maintenance, repair,
replacement, and remodeling of existing floating on-water residences and their moorages by rendering
these actions impracticable.
Example language
The new statutory definition can be included in the definition section or in the Residential Use section of
the SMP together with the new policy clarification. SMPs should already include a prohibition on
establishment of new overwater residences, as the Legislative amendments did not change this long-
standing policy. Additional policies or general development standards specific to floating on-water
residence can be added if existing floating on-water residences will be managed by a local SMP.
An example of how an SMP could incorporate the new statute in the context of the existing prohibition
on new floating homes:
Page 33 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
15
(XX) “Floating on-water residence” means any floating structure other than a floating
home, as defined by this chapter: (a) that is designed or used primarily as a residence
on the water and has detachable utilities; and (b) whose owner or primary occupant
has held an ownership interest in space in a marina, or has held a lease or sublease to
use space in a marina, since a date prior to July 1, 2014.
(XX) New over-water residential developments are prohibited. Existing floating on-
water residences legally established and moored within a marina within the
[COUNTY/CITY] prior to July 1, 2014 are considered a conforming use and should
be accommodated through reasonable permit conditions, or mitigation that will not
effectively preclude maintenance, repair, replacement, and remodeling of existing
floating on-water residences and their moorages by rendering these actions
impracticable.
2012
2012 a. SMP appeal procedures
The Legislature amended the SMA to clarify SMP appeal procedures. These provisions are not about
appeals of individual permits. They describe the appeal pathway after Ecology’s approval of a Shoreline
Master Program. For jurisdictions “fully planning” under GMA, Ecology’s approval of an SMP is to the
Growth Management Hearings Boards. For jurisdictions “partially planning” (Critical Areas and Resource
Lands only), appeals are to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
Bill: EHB 2671, effective 6/7/2012. Law: RCW 90.58.190
Review considerations
This law should not affect most SMPs, which do not typically outline the SMP appeal process. If an SMP
does describe the appeal steps for amendments to shoreline master programs, it should be reviewed for
consistency with RCW 90.58.190.
2011
2011 a. Federal wetlands delineation manual
Ecology repealed the State Delineation Manual rule and replaced it with a rule requiring that
identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries shall be done in accordance with the
approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements.
Rule: WAC 173-22-035, effective 3/14/2011. Guidance: Wetland Delineation Manual guidance.
Review considerations
All SMPs should use language from the new WAC because the state delineation manual rule has been
repealed. Consult Ecology’s website for wetland delineation manual guidance.
Page 34 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
16
Example language
The following language should be included in the applicable section of the SMP (or the applicable critical
areas code if wetland delineation is addressed in a CAO adopted by reference):
Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries shall be done in
accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable
regional supplements.
2011 b. Geoduck aquaculture
Ecology adopted extensive new rules for new commercial geoduck aquaculture. This rule was adopted
with advice from a stakeholder committee consistent with Legislative requirements of RCW 43.21A.681.
Rules: WAC 173-26-020(2); WAC 173-26-241(3)(b), effective 3/14/2011.
Review considerations
If a local government has no saltwater shorelines, no SMP amendments are needed.
If a local government has saltwater shorelines, aquaculture regulations should be reviewed for
consistency with the geoduck rules. Consult Ecology regional planner for recommendations.
Review for the following elements:
Review the definition of "aquaculture," to clarify it does not include wild geoduck harvest.
Review siting considerations to ensure commercial geoduck aquaculture is only allowed where
sediments, topography, land and water access support geoduck aquaculture operations without
significant clearing or grading.
Review permit requirements:
• Ensure that planting, growing, and harvesting of farm-raised geoducks requires a substantial
development permit if a specific project or practice causes substantial interference with normal
public use of the surface waters, but not otherwise. (The source of this provision was Attorney
General Opinion 2007 No. 1.) This provision clarifies that even though new geoduck operations
require a CUP, in some cases they may also need an SDP but only if the project causes
substantial interference with public access or passage.
• Ensure that local permit process provides public notice to all property owners within 300 feet of
the proposed project boundary, and notice to tribes with usual and accustomed fishing rights to
the area.
• The SMP should minimize redundancy between federal, state and local commercial geoduck
aquaculture permit application requirements. Measures to consider include accepting
documentation that has been submitted to other permitting agencies, and using permit
applications that mirror federal or state permit applications (such as the JARPA form). Permit
application requirements should be reviewed to ensure they include the following:
o A narrative description and timeline for all anticipated geoduck planting and harvesting
activities,
Page 35 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
17
o A baseline ecological survey of the proposed site to allow consideration of the ecological
effects,
o Measures to achieve no net loss of ecological functions consistent with the mitigation
sequence described in Ecology rules [WAC- 173-26-201 (2)(e)], and
o A description of management practices that address impacts from mooring, parking,
noise, lights, litter, and other activities associated with geoduck planting and harvesting
operations.
• Ensure new geoduck aquaculture projects require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). However,
local governments have discretion to determine whether to require a CUP for projects that
convert existing non-geoduck aquaculture to geoduck aquaculture. Review for the following:
o Subsequent cycles of planting and harvest shall not require a new CUP.
o Applicants may submit a single CUP for multiple sites within an inlet, bay or other defined
feature, as long as all sites are under control of the same applicant and within the same local
government jurisdiction.
o Review permit requirements to ensure the SMP allows work during low tides. SMP have
discretion to require limits and conditions to reduce impacts, such as noise and lighting, to
adjacent existing uses.
o Local governments should establish monitoring and reporting requirements necessary to
verify that geoduck aquaculture operations are in compliance with shoreline limits and
conditions set forth in CUPs and to support cumulative impacts analysis.
o Conditional use permits should be reviewed using the best scientific and technical
information available.
o Review requirements to apply best management practices to accomplish the intent of
limits and conditions.
o Local governments should review the detailed considerations found in WAC 173-26-
241(3)(b)(iv)(L)(I)-(XII).
2011 c. Floating homes
The Legislature declared floating homes permitted or legally established prior to January 1, 2011, must
be classified as a "conforming preferred use." SMPs may only impose reasonable conditions and
mitigation that will not effectively preclude maintenance, repair, replacement, and remodeling of
existing floating homes and floating home moorages by rendering these actions impracticable. The law
includes a definition of “floating homes.” This bill responded to concerns raised by the Seattle floating
home community regarding preservation of historic floating homes.
Bill: SHB 1783, effective 7/22/2011. RCW 90.58.270(5 and 6). Rules: Definition: WAC 173-26-030(3)(d)(17);
Use regulation: WAC 173-26-241(3)(j).
Review considerations
Local governments without floating homes need not amend their SMP to address this statute.
Jurisdictions with floating homes must include a definition consistent with the statute, and a policy or
regulation that clarifies the legal status of floating homes. In addition, regulations that address floating
homes should be reviewed to ensure the SMP only imposes reasonable conditions and mitigation that
Page 36 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
18
will not effectively preclude maintenance, repair, replacement, and remodeling of existing floating
homes and floating home moorages by rendering these actions impracticable.
Example language
The example definition can be included in the definition section or in the Residential Use section with
the example policy statement. Note that SMPs should already include a prohibition on establishment of
new overwater residences, as the Legislative amendments did not change this long-standing policy.
Additional policies or general development standards specific to floating homes can be added if existing
floating homes will be managed by a local SMP.
(XX) "Floating home" means a single-family dwelling unit constructed on a float, that
is moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in waters, and is not a vessel, even though
it may be capable of being towed.
(XXI) New over-water residences are not a preferred use and should be prohibited.
(XXII) A floating home permitted or legally established prior to January 1, 2011 is
considered a conforming preferred use. "Conforming preferred use" means that
applicable development and shoreline master program regulations may only impose
reasonable conditions and mitigation that will not effectively preclude maintenance,
repair, replacement, and remodeling of existing floating homes and floating home
moorages by rendering these actions impracticable. Floating homes should be
accommodated to allow improvements associated with life safety matters and property
rights to be addressed provided that any expansion of existing communities is the
minimum necessary to assure consistency with constitutional and other legal
limitations that protect private property.
2011 d. Option to classify existing structures as conforming
The Legislature created a new option: SMPs amended after September 1, 2011 may classify legally
established residential structures as conforming, even if they do not meet updated standards for
setbacks, buffers, or yards; area; bulk; height; or density. Redevelopment, expansion and replacement is
allowed, so long as it is consistent with the local SMP and No Net Loss requirements. Appurtenant
structures are included; bulkheads and other shoreline modifications and over-water structures are
excluded.
Bill: SSB 5451, effective 7/22/2011. RCW 90.58.620. Rule: WAC 173-26-241(3)(j).
Review considerations
This law is optional. It is one way local government can address existing development. Local
governments may also address existing structures by clarifying the existing rights and allowances for
nonconforming use and development without changing the legal status.
Page 37 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
19
2010
2010 a. Growth Management Act – Shoreline Management Act
clarifications
Both the GMA and SMA were amended to resolve differing and occasionally contrary legal
interpretations that had been issued at that time regarding the relationship between the laws.
The law included a number of provisions that clarified the applicability of SMA provisions during the
interim period before Ecology approved a comprehensively updated SMP that are no longer applicable.
For example, RCW 36.70A.480 clarifies that critical area regulations adopted under GMA apply within
shorelines until Ecology approves a comprehensive SMP update. It also created special GMA provisions
for existing “grandfathered” uses in the shoreline. The amendments clarified that critical areas in
shorelines must be regulated to “assure no net loss of shoreline ecological function” as provided in
Ecology’s SMP Guidelines rules. This provision applies to Ecology’s test for review of SMP amendments.
The Legislature also amended the effective date for SMP amendments. The effective date is fourteen
days from the date of Ecology’s written notice of final action to the local government stating Ecology has
approved or rejected the proposed SMP.
Bill: EHB 1653, effective 3/18/2010. Laws: RCW 90.58.610; RCW 36.70A.480. Rule: WAC 173-26-221(2)(a).
Review considerations
The statutory amendments were effective immediately upon adoption independent of local SMPs.
Jurisdictions with comprehensive SMP updates that were adopted before this law went into effect may
consider reviewing how their SMP address critical areas. Key considerations include clarifying what
critical area provisions are adopted by reference and whether or not exclusions apply. Contact Ecology’s
regional planner for assistance.
If an SMP describes the “effective date” of SMP amendments, it should be revised to clarify SMPs are
effective 14 days from Ecology’s written notice of final action.
2009
2009 a. Shoreline restoration projects within a UGA
The Legislature created new “relief” procedures for instances in which a shoreline restoration project
within an Urban Growth Area creates a shift in Ordinary High Water Mark, and this shift creates a
hardship for properties subject to new or extra regulation. The Legislature was responding to concerns
that SMP regulations on the Duwamish River in Seattle and other urban rivers have in some cases
stopped habitat restoration projects or resulted in a redesign that reduced the restoration benefits.
In most locations, the land area where shoreline regulations apply is measured 200 feet landward from
the Ordinary High Water Mark. The new law could be applied in cases where a habitat restoration
projects changes the location of the ordinary high water mark and therefore shifts the 200-foot area
where shoreline regulations apply. Property owners may request relief from shoreline regulations
Page 38 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
20
triggered by a restoration project, if the regulations would “preclude or interfere with use of the
property permitted by local development regulations, thus presenting a hardship to the project
proponent.”
Applications for relief are filed with the local government as part of a required permit such as a
shoreline permit (or a building permit if no shoreline permit is required). The request must meet the
criteria outlined in the Act. After local approval, the request is submitted to Ecology for review and
approval. A 20-day public notice period is required prior to Ecology’s decision, unless the relief issue is
already addressed in an SMP. Ecology must act within 30 days of the close of the public notice period or
within 30 days of receipt of the proposal if public notice is not required.
Bill: HB 2199, effective 7/26/2009. RCW 90.58.580. Rule: WAC 173-27-215
Review considerations
Local governments may want to include this option in local SMPs – though the process may be used
even if the provision is not in the SMP.
Example language
Option 1. Adopt Ecology rule by reference. If a local government elects to incorporate Ecology’s rule by
reference, a simple reference to the rules could be inserted into an applicable section of SMP code. For
example:
(X) The [COUNTY/CITY] may grant relief from shoreline master program
development standards and use regulations resulting from shoreline restoration
projects within urban growth areas consistent with criteria and procedures in WAC
173-27-215.
Option 2. Incorporate Ecology’s rule into an SMP. A more elaborate option is to incorporate the rule
provisions into their SMP. For example:
(X) Shoreline restoration projects—relief from shoreline master program development
standards and use regulations.
(1) Purpose of section. This section incorporates statutory direction from RCW
90.58.580. In adopting RCW 90.58.580, the legislature found that restoration of
degraded shoreline conditions is important to the ecological function of our waters.
However, restoration projects that shift the location of the shoreline can inadvertently
create hardships for property owners, particularly in urban areas. Hardship may occur
when a shoreline restoration project shifts Shoreline Management Act regulations into
areas that had not previously been regulated under the act or shifts the location of
required shoreline buffers. The intent of this section is to provide relief to property
owners in such cases, while protecting the viability of shoreline restoration projects.
(2) Conditions and criteria for providing relief. The [COUNTY/CITY] may grant
relief from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations
within urban growth areas when the following apply:
Page 39 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
21
(a) A shoreline restoration project causes or would cause a landward shift in the
ordinary high water mark, resulting in the following:
(i) Land that had not been regulated under this chapter prior to construction of
the restoration project is brought under shoreline jurisdiction; or
(ii) Additional regulatory requirements apply due to a landward shift in
required shoreline buffers or other regulations of the applicable shoreline
master program; and
(iii) Application of shoreline master program regulations would preclude or
interfere with use of the property permitted by local development regulations,
thus presenting a hardship to the project proponent;
(b) The proposed relief meets the following criteria:
(i) The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship;
(ii) After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from
the restoration project;
(iii) Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the
shoreline restoration project and consistent with the shoreline master program;
and
(iv) Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a
development permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is
not eligible for relief under this section; and
(c) The application for relief must be submitted to the department of Ecology for
written approval or disapproval. This review must occur during Ecology’s normal
review of a shoreline substantial development permit, conditional use permit, or
variance. If no such permit is required, then Ecology shall conduct its review when
[COUNTY/CITY] provides a copy of a complete application and all supporting
information necessary to conduct the review.
(i) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section, Ecology shall
provide at least twenty days notice to parties that have indicated interest to
Ecology in reviewing applications for relief under this section, and post the
notice on its web site.
(ii) Ecology shall act within thirty calendar days of the close of the public
notice period, or within thirty days of receipt of the proposal from
[COUNTY/CITY] if additional public notice is not required.
(3) The public notice requirements of subsection (2)(c) of this section do not apply if
the relevant shoreline restoration project was included in the [COUNTY/CITY]
shoreline master program, provided:
Page 40 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
22
(a) The restoration plan has been approved by Ecology under applicable shoreline
master program guidelines;
(b) The shoreline restoration project is specifically identified in the shoreline master
program or restoration plan or is located along a shoreline reach identified in the
shoreline master program or restoration plan as appropriate for granting relief from
shoreline regulations; and
(c) The shoreline master program or restoration plan includes policies addressing the
nature of the relief and why, when, and how it would be applied.
(4) A substantial development permit is not required on land within urban growth
areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030 that is brought under shoreline jurisdiction due
to a shoreline restoration project creating a landward shift in the ordinary high water
mark.
(5) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section unless the context
clearly requires otherwise.
(6) For the purposes of this subsection, "Shoreline restoration project" means a project
designed to restore impaired ecological function of a shoreline.
2009 b. Wetland mitigation banks
Pursuant to RCW 90.84, Ecology adopted a rule for certifying wetland mitigation banks. The purpose of
the rules is to encourage banking by providing an efficient, predictable statewide framework for the
certification and operation of environmentally sound banks. The goal of the rule is to (a) Provide timely
review of bank proposals; (b) Establish coordination among state, local, tribal, and federal agencies
involved in the certification of banks; (c) Ensure consistency with existing federal mitigation rules; and
(d) Provide incentives to encourage bank sponsors (sponsors) to locate and design banks that provide
the greatest ecological benefits.
The extensive rule includes an overview section, outlines the certification process, describes how to
establish and operate banks and use bank credits, establishes certification compliance requirements,
describes the roles of the parties involved in a bank, and establishes an appeals process.
Law: RCW 90.84. Rule: WAC 173-700, effective 10/4/2009, WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(F). Guidance: Ecology
webpage on wetland mitigation banks.
Review considerations
Ecology recommends local governments include SMP provision authorizing use of mitigation banks.
Example language
It is not necessary to adopt the contents of the state rule into SMPs. If mitigation banking in not already
allowed in a CAO adopted by reference, a simple statement could be incorporated into applicable SMP
section addressing wetlands compensatory mitigation:
(x) Credits from a certified mitigation bank may be used to compensate for
unavoidable impacts.
Page 41 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
23
2009 c. Moratoria authority
This law adds moratoria authority and procedures to the SMA, including a maximum duration of 18
months at the local level, plus a six-month review period at Ecology for a local Shoreline Master Program
amendment that is subject to a moratorium.
Review considerations
The moratoria procedures may be included in an SMP but it is not necessary – local governments can
simply rely on the statute or adopt these provisions into other ordinances. Or local governments may
incorporate statutory requirements into the SMP or other development regulations if desired, as long as
they are consistent with the statute.
Bill: HB 1379, effective 7/26/2009. Law: RCW 90.58.590. Rule: WAC 173-27-085
Example language
If a local government elects to address moratoria authority, the following incorporates RCW 90.58.590:
(X) Moratoria authority and requirements
(1) [COUNTY/CITY] has authority to adopting a moratorium control or other interim
control on development under RCW 90.58.590.
(2) Before adopting the moratorium must:
(i) Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control;
(ii) Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to justifications for
the proposed or adopted actions and explanations of the desired and likely outcomes;
(iii) Notify the department of Ecology of the moratorium or control immediately after
its adoption. The notification must specify the time, place, and date of any public
hearing.
(b) The public hearing must be held within sixty days of the adoption of the
moratorium or control.
(3) A moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six
months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances
necessitating the moratorium or control is developed and made available for public
review.
(4) A moratorium or control may be renewed for one or more six-month period if
[COUNTY/CITY] complies with the requirements in subsection (2) above before
each renewal.
2007
2007 a. Options for defining floodway
Page 42 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
24
The Legislature clarified options for defining "floodway" as either the area that has been established in
Federal Emergency Management Agency maps, or the floodway criteria set in the SMA. The “SMA
floodway” described in the SMA is essentially a biological definition, unlike the FEMA floodway which is
derived from a model.
Bill: HB 1413, effective 7/22/2007. Law: RCW 90.58.030.
Review considerations
Local governments should review their definition of “floodway” for consistency with the two options
under this statute.
Example language
Option 1. If a local government elects to use FEMA maps to define the floodway, Ecology recommends
the SMP include the following definition:
"Floodway" means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency
management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps. The floodway does
not include lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from flood waters by
flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal
government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
The word “established” in this suggested definition is consistent with the SMA definition and “effective”
indicates that the map is FEMA’s approved FIRM – not a preliminary or draft map – and also takes into
account potential future changes to the maps. Reference to a specific dated version of the FIRM is not
required.
Option 2. If the SMA floodway is used, the definition in the SMP should be consistent with RCW
90.58.030(2)(b)(ii).
The SMA floodway “…consists of those portions of a river valley lying streamward
from the outer limits of a watercourse upon which flood waters are carried during
periods of flooding that occur with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily
annually, said floodway being identified, under normal condition, by changes in
surface soil conditions or changes in types or quality of vegetative ground cover
condition, topography, or other indicators of flooding that occurs with reasonable
regularity, although not necessarily annually.”
2007 b. List and map of streams and lakes
These rule amendments clarify that comprehensively updated SMPs shall include a list and map of
streams and lakes that are in shoreline jurisdiction. (The SMP list and map will then supersede the list in
Ecology rules). The amendments also clarify that if a stream segment or lake is subsequently discovered
to meet the SMA criteria, the SMP shall be amended within three years of the discovery.
Rules: WACs 173-18-044; 173-18-046; 173-20-044; 173-20-046; and 173-22-050, effective 2/2/2007
Page 43 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
25
Review considerations
If a jurisdiction has identified any new streams or lakes since the comprehensive update, the lists and
maps should be updated.
2007 c. Fish habitat enhancement projects
Ecology’s rule listing statutory exemptions from the requirement for an SDP was amended to include
fish habitat enhancement projects that conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181.
Review considerations
This SMA amendment applied on its effective date, regardless of whether the exemption is specifically
listed in the SMP.
For SMPs that simply cite the RCW list of exemptions, no change is needed. For SMPs that list the
exemptions in detail, review to ensure fish habitat enhancement projects are include.
Rule: WAC 173-27-040(2)(p), effective 2/2/2007.
Example language
SMPs can include the lengthy exemption language directly from WAC 173-27-040, or may include a
simple reference to the relevant Ecology WAC and WDFW statute. For example:
(x) Consistent with WAC 173-27-040, a public or private project designed to improve
fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, that conforms to the provisions of
RCW 77.55.181
Other review elements
In addition to ensuring consistency with changes to state laws and rules, local governments will review
changes to their comprehensive plan or development regulations since their last SMP amendment and
revise the SMP for internal consistency, where necessary. For example, consider zoning code
amendments, annexations of shoreline areas, and amendments to critical area regulations.
Local governments should also incorporate changes deemed necessary to address changing local
circumstances, new information or improved data. This is an intentionally broad review category and
circumstances will vary widely. For example, an issue that might trigger a close review is a levee setback
project or natural channel migration that brought significant new areas into shoreline jurisdiction.
Local governments may also review implementation challenges that have arisen since the
comprehensive SMP update. Consider insights learned from permit review that could improve the
efficiency or effectiveness of the SMP. Consider reviewing Administrative Interpretations that have been
issued as a potential source of ideas to clarify the SMP.
The table below is one simple option for documenting these kinds of revisions. This table is likely too
simplistic for more complex amendments. This table may be revised and modified as needed, or local
governments may present information in whatever format makes sense. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i).
Page 44 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
26
SMP section Summary of change Review Action
Page 45 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
27
Example checklist
The following is an example checklist for a hypothetical City that comprehensively updated its SMP in
2015. This example illustrates how a checklist might look after final review and action at the end of the
review process.
Review: The Review column is used at the beginning of the review process to document how the item
applies to the city’s SMP to determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance. In some
cases the review may be iterative, if a review is extensive. This example checklist illustrates how the
review column might be written at the end of the review process to capture the final city finding and
recommendation for action.
Action: The Action column documents the City’s final action, indicating a citation to where the SMP code
addresses applicable amended laws, or indicates where no action is needed.
Row Summary of change Review Action
2017
a. OFM adjusted the cost
threshold for substantial
development to $7,047.
2015 SMP includes reference
to previous $6,416 cost
threshold.
X.2.14: definition of Substantial
Development amending SDP cost
threshold to new inflation-
adjusted amount of $7,047
NOTE: City website and permit
application forms were revised
with new cost thresholds.
b. Ecology permit rules
clarified the definition of
“development” does not
include dismantling or
removing structures.
2015 SMP does not clarify that
removing structures does not
constitute “development.”
This issue has come up at the
counter frequently enough
that staff recommend adding
this optional clarification to
the SMP.
X.2.10: amended definition of
development to include Ecology
example code.
c. Ecology adopted rules
clarifying exceptions to
local review under the
SMA.
Ecology’s revised rule
addressing exceptions
incorporated a 2015
Legislative statutory
exceptions for WSDOT
projects that went into effect
after the 2015 SMP was
approved. Other statutory
exceptions in WAC 173-27-044
and WAC 173-27-045 were in
the SMP but included among
the list of permit-exemptions.
X.2.15: statutory exceptions
moved from list of permit
exemptions to new section.
X.2.17: Created new section
consolidating all exceptions into
new section based on Ecology
example code.
Page 46 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
28
Row Summary of change Review Action
d. Ecology amended rules
clarifying permit filing
procedures consistent
with a 2011 statute.
2015 SMP describes filing
procedures for permit by
stating “permits shall be filed
with Department of Ecology
pursuant to WAC 173-27-
130.” Ecology amendments
apply to the city, but no local
amendments are needed.
N/A.
Note: Administrator amended
the SMP Staff Manual to clarify
concurrent filing of SDPs, CUPs
and Variances.
e.
Ecology amended forestry
use regulations to clarify
that forest practices that
only involves timber
cutting are not SMA
“developments” and do
not require SDPs.
Not applicable. No commercial
forestry in City.
N/A
f. Ecology clarified the SMA
does not apply to lands
under exclusive federal
jurisdiction
Not applicable. No lands with
exclusive federal jurisdiction
in city limits
N/A
g.
Ecology clarified “default”
provisions for
nonconforming uses and
development.
2015 SMP includes tailored
nonconforming use and
development provisions.
No amendments needed. City
will retain existing
nonconforming use and
development provisions.
h. Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the
scope and process for
conducting periodic
reviews.
2015 SMP already referenced
statutory obligation to
conduct reviews under RCW
90.58.080. City may follow
Ecology procedures for
conducing reviews without
amending the SMP.
No amendments needed.
i. Ecology adopted a new
rule creating an optional
SMP amendment process
that allows for a shared
local/state public
comment period.
2015 SMP does not address
the details of the SMP
amendment process. Staff
identified minor amendment
to Land Use Code ZZ.24.10
defining the local amendment
process to include reference
to joint notice process for SMP
amendments.
No amendment to SMP needed.
Minor amendment to Land Use
Code ZZ.24.10 added to the
docket for amendments in 2019
to ensure the process for shared
local/state comment period on
SMPs is clear.
j. Submittal to Ecology of
proposed SMP
amendments.
2015 SMP does not address
the details of the SMP
submittal process, relies on
state rule.
No amendments to SMP needed.
NOTE: Staff updated internal
procedures manual to clarify SMP
amendments are sent via email
attachment rather than 2 paper
copies.
Page 47 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
29
Row Summary of change Review Action
2016
a.
The Legislature created a
new shoreline permit
exemption for retrofitting
existing structure to
comply with the
Americans with
Disabilities Act.
2015 SMP does not include
new permit exemption for
retrofits to comply with ADA
X.2.15: new permit exemption
added consistent with Ecology
example code.
NOTE: City website and permit
application forms were revised
with new cost thresholds.
b. Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance
including implementation
guidance for the 2014
wetlands rating system.
City’s 2017 Critical Areas
Ordinance amended by Ord.
17-012 incorporated Ecology’s
new rating system and other
clarifications. City had
incorporated Ecology
recommendations on
wetlands (Ecology comment
letter of July 12, 2017).
X.5.23: Updated date of Critical
Areas Code adopted by reference
2015
a. The Legislature adopted a
90-day target for local
review of Washington
State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)
projects.
2015 SMP was adopted prior
to effective date of 2015
legislation.
X.3.14: adopted Ecology example
code incorporating direction to
conduct review consistent with
legislative targets.
2014
a. The Legislature raised the
cost threshold for
requiring a Substantial
Development Permit (SDP)
for replacement docks on
lakes and rivers to
$20,000 (from $10,000).
Incorporated into 2015 SMP. N/A. Addressed during
comprehensive update
b. The Legislature created a
new definition and policy
for floating on-water
residences legally
established before
7/1/2014.
The city includes no floating
on-water residences.
N/A
2012
a. The Legislature amended
the SMA to clarify SMP
appeal procedures.
SMP does not clarify SMP
appeal process. City will rely
on state laws and rules.
N/A
Page 48 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
30
Row Summary of change Review Action
2011
a. Ecology adopted a rule
requiring that wetlands be
delineated in accordance
with the approved federal
wetland delineation
manual.
Incorporated into 2015 SMP. N/A. Addressed during
comprehensive update
b. Ecology adopted rules for
new commercial geoduck
aquaculture.
No marine shorelines in city. N/A
c. The Legislature created a
new definition and policy
for floating homes
permitted or legally
established prior to
January 1, 2011.
No floating homes in city. N/A
d. The Legislature
authorizing a new option
to classify existing
structures as conforming.
Incorporated into 2015 SMP. N/A. Addressed during
comprehensive update
2010
a. The Legislature adopted
Growth Management Act
– Shoreline Management
Act clarifications.
Incorporated into 2015 SMP. N/A. Addressed during
comprehensive update
2009
a.
The Legislature created
new “relief” procedures
for instances in which a
shoreline restoration
project within a UGA
creates a shift in Ordinary
High Water Mark.
City had not incorporated this
new statutory option in the
2015 SMP. An applicant had
requested use of this process
in 2017, and new staff were
not aware of the provision. It
is not necessary to include
these into the SMP but
including it will help ensure
the option is better
understood.
X. 17.3.7: SMP amended to
include Ecology example code.
b. Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland
mitigation banks.
Incorporated into 2015 SMP. N/A. Addressed during
comprehensive update
c. The Legislature added
moratoria authority and
procedures to the SMA.
Incorporated into 2015 SMP. N/A. Addressed during
comprehensive update
Page 49 of 154
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist Guidance
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
31
Row Summary of change Review Action
2007
a.
The Legislature clarified
options for defining
"floodway" as either the
area that has been
established in FEMA
maps, or the floodway
criteria set in the SMA.
Incorporated into 2015 SMP. N/A. Addressed during
comprehensive update
b. Ecology amended rules to
clarify that
comprehensively updated
SMPs shall include a list
and map of streams and
lakes that are in shoreline
jurisdiction.
Incorporated into 2015 SMP. N/A. Addressed during
comprehensive update
c. Ecology’s rule listing
statutory exemptions
from the requirement for
an SDP was amended to
include fish habitat
enhancement projects
that conform to the
provisions of RCW
77.55.181.
Incorporated into 2015 SMP. N/A. Addressed during
comprehensive update
Page 50 of 154
[This page left intentionally blank]
Page 51 of 154
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Amendment - Special
Planning Areas
Date:
October 9, 2018
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Special Planning Areas - Memorandum
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Please see the attached memorandum and attachments.
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Teague
Meeting Date:October 16, 2018 Item Number:
Page 52 of 154
October 2018 1
Memorandum
To: Judi Roland, Chair, Planning Commission
Roger Lee, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Members
From: Alexandria Teague, Planner II, Department of Community Development
Date: October 8, 2018
Re: Text and Map Changes to the Special Planning Areas section of the Land Use Element
(City File No. CPM18-0002 P/T #6)
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE
By Ordinance No. 6584, the City of Auburn adopted a new Comprehensive Plan at the end of 2015 that
included a revised section in the Land Use Element titled “Special Planning Area Designation”. The
Special Planning Area Designation section provides descriptions, designation criteria, and policies for
each of the four (4) types of special planning areas. The four types of special planning areas include:
districts,
subareas,
impression corridors, and
gateways.
The special planning areas known as “subareas” are further broken down into five (5) different types of
subareas:
“Identified Areas”,
“Designated Areas”,
“Designated Areas – Economic Development Strategy Areas”,
“Designated Areas – Areas of Concern”, and
“Adopted Areas”.
These Special Planning Areas, discussed in Attachment A, are areas within the City of Auburn that
warrant additional emphasis in planning, investments, and policy development.
The policies contained within the Special Planning Area Designation section are intended to identify,
provide guidance for, and deal with the unique problems or opportunities that exist in certain specific
locations within Auburn. This section is “…useful in developing and applying implementing tools (such as
zoning provisions); for interpreting the associated land use designation Map (i.e. the Comprehensive
Plan Map) as it applies to specific regulatory decisions or development proposals; and in adjusting or
amending the associated land use designation map when changing conditions or land use markets
warrant” (Chapter 14 - Comprehensive Plan Map, Land Use Element, Amended 2011, pg. 14-1). While
the majority of the Special Planning Areas Designation section is derived from Chapter 14
Page 53 of 154
CPM18-0002
October 2018 2
“Comprehensive Plan Map”, of the previous, now archived, Comprehensive Plan, and was updated for
inclusion in the new Comprehensive Plan, it is in need of revision to improve its clarity and readability.
PROPOSAL
For the purpose of summarizing the changes for Planning Commission review, the proposed revisions to
the Special Planning Area Designation section have been categorized into “minor revisions” and “major
revisions”.
1.0 Minor revisions: minor revisions consist of the following changes:
1.1 Reorganization of designation criteria and policies;
1.2 Renumbering of designation criteria and policies;
1.3 Re-categorization of “Subareas”; and
1.4 Improving the section nomenclature (e.g. making sure titles are the same).
2.0 Major revisions: major revisions consist of the following changes:
2.1 Addition of policy language for “Designated Areas”;
2.2 Removal of Auburn Environmental Park/Green Zone as a “Designated Area – Economic
Development Strategy Area”;
2.3 Identification of priority impression corridors; and
2.4 Identification of priority gateways;
ATTACHMENT A REVISION LEGEND
Revisions in shown in Attachment A follow the guidelines below:
Insertions are shown in green, underlined text.
Additions to inserted text is shown in green, underlined, bold text.
Deletions are shown in red, strikethrough text.
Moves from are shown in blue, strikethrough text.
Moves to are shown in blue, underlined text.
Page 54 of 154
CPM18-0002
October 2018 3
1.0 MINOR REVISIONS
1.1 Reorganization of designation criteria and policies
Most of the revisions in Attachment A, fall under the category of reorganization. Throughout the
entire Special Planning Areas Designation section, text was moved from one area to another to
improve the reading flow of the document. Blue text is that which already exists in this section;
specifically, text moved from one location is shown in blue, strikethrough text, and the location it
was moved to is shown in blue bold, underlined text.
1.2 Renumbering of designation criteria and policies
Due to the reorganization of the entire Special Planning Areas Designation section, the policies were
renumbered to maintain sequential numbering.
1.3 Re-categorization of “Subareas”
Within the five previously mentioned subareas, 28 different and distinct subareas exist. The current
Comprehensive Plan Special Planning Areas Designation section lumps all of the 28 subareas, with
the exception of the three “Areas of Concern” into one category called “subareas”. This method of
categorization while simple, does not allow the City (staff) to denote the different types of subareas.
There is a need to distinguish and denote the subareas into specific categories as not all types of
subareas feature the same concerns, issues, long term focus, or and goals. Denoting the specific
types of subareas is necessary because it helps inform or outline the focus of the particular subarea.
For example, the “Areas of Concern” are denoted as a specific type of subarea in the current
Comprehensive Plan. Denoting “Areas of Concern” as a specific type of subarea is important
because it informs staff and decision-makers that the long term focus of these areas is to improve
the infrastructure within these areas.
Therefore, subareas have been re-categorized into three categories: one (1) general category, and
two (2) subcategories. The two (2) subcategories of subareas are proposed as “Areas of Concern”
and “Economic Development Strategy Areas”. As mentioned above, “Areas of Concern” are a
specific subcategory because it identifies areas in which the infrastructure needs to be improved
prior to or in conjunction with future redevelopment of the area. “Economic Development Strategy
Areas” have been identified as a specific subcategory as these areas warrant a particular focus on
economic growth and development. It should be noted that the “Areas of Concern” and “Economic
Development Strategy Areas” were identified and discussed in Chapter 14, the “Comprehensive Plan
Map” chapter of the previous, now archived, Comprehensive Plan (amended in 2011). Chapter 14 of
the archived Comprehensive Plan helped inform which subareas should be categorized as “Areas of
Concern” and “Economic Development Strategy Areas”.
1.4 Improving the section nomenclature (e.g. making sure titles are the same)
Several titles or terms were modified in order to either clarify or ensure that the nomenclature of
the section was consistent. For example, the title for the “Areas of Concern” was formally changed
to “Designated Areas – Areas of Concern” to reinforce the fact that they are a subcategory of
subareas.
Page 55 of 154
CPM18-0002
October 2018 4
2.0 MAJOR REVISIONS
2.1 Addition of policy language for “Designated Areas”
The current Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2015 under Ordinance No. 6584, does not contain
specific policies for the “designated subareas”. While the previous, now archived, Comprehensive
Plan (amended 2011) featured policies for each “designated area” these were removed during the
update of the current Comprehensive Plan. However, Staff has concluded that having specific
policies for the designated areas is necessary. The purpose of a subarea is to anticipate, support,
and guide long-term growth and redevelopment through planned development and a unique vision
for how that area should look and function in the future. Therefore, without specific policies for
each designated area, Staff cannot anticipate or identify unique problems or characteristics for a
particular area.
Specific policies for the “designated” subareas, including Auburn Municipal Airport, BNSF Rail Yard,
Stuck River Road, Lakeview, Mt. Rainier; the “Economic Development Strategy Areas” were added
under the “Designated Areas Policies” (page 9) discussion in Attachment A. Note that the majority of
the changes are shown in green as the text for the policy language was derived from the previous,
now archived, Comprehensive Plan. Minor changes, shown in green, underline bold text, were
added to a few of the designated areas policies. The purpose of these minor changes is to update or
provide clarification to the policy.
2.2 Removal of Auburn Environmental Park (AEP)/Green Zone as a “Designated Area” from the
designated areas list.
The AEP/Green Zone designated area was originally an “Economic Development Strategy Area”
special planning area within the previous, now archived Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the
AEP/Green Zone was to “…create an economically enhanced area that complements the Auburn
Environmental Park and sustains environmentally sensitive industries”. To complement the
designation of this area as an economic development strategy area, in 2006 (Ordinance No. 6036),
the City adopted the EP, Environmental Park zoning district (EP zone), and a majority of the area was
zoned EP. The EP zone was intended to focus on medical, biotech and “green” technologies
including energy conservation, engineering, water quality, and similar uses.
Its designation as a special planning area was carried over in the current Comprehensive Plan
adopted in 2015 (Ordinance No. 6584). Specifically, in the current Comprehensive Plan it is a
“designated area”. However, since the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the portion of the
area zoned EP has been rezoned to M-1, Light Industrial (rezoned in 2017 under Ordinance No.
6660). The area was rezoned from EP to M-1 due to the lack of private sector investment into the
privately owned properties within the EP zone, while substantial investment within the nearby M-1
and M-2 zoned properties occurred. Therefore, the focus on medical, biotech and “green”
technologies or environmentally sensitive industries was no longer viable. Consequently, the need
for the area to remain as a designated area or economic development strategy area no longer exists.
Therefore, the proposal is to remove the AEP/Green zone from the list of designated areas and
removed it from Map 1.3, the “Special Planning Areas – Designated Areas” map, of the
Comprehensive Plan. Attachment B depicts the removal of the AEP/Green Zone from the list of
designated areas.
Page 56 of 154
CPM18-0002
October 2018 5
2.3 Identification of priority impression corridors
The City of Auburn adopted a new Comprehensive Plan at the end of 2015 (Ordinance No. 6584)
that included a new section in the Land Use Element titled “Special Planning Area Designation”.
Impression corridors were adopted as a new special planning area within the new Comprehensive
Plan. Impression corridors are aligned with a particular street, trail, river, stream, or specific linear
corridor. The purpose of the impression corridors is to identify the key passageways in which
residents, businesses, and visitors move throughout the City. Currently, 25 impression corridors are
identified in the special planning area designation section of the Comprehensive Plan. While each of
these corridors are key passageways throughout the City, due to the sheer number of impression
corridors, some focus and refinement of priority corridors is necessary. Distinguishing key corridors
provides direction to the City on which impression corridors take precedent. Priority is given to the
impression corridors that are a part of a subarea.
2.4 Identification of priority gateways
The City of Auburn adopted a new Comprehensive Plan at the end of 2015 (Ordinance No. 6584)
that included a new section in the Land Use Element titled “Special Planning Area Designation”.
Gateways were adopted as a new special planning area within the new Comprehensive Plan.
Gateways are specific places, intersections, or blocks within the City. Gateways are essential
locations because they constitute the first impression of Auburn. Currently, eight (8) gateways are
identified in the special planning area section of the Comprehensive Plan. While each of the
gateways constitutes a “first impression” into the City, the identification of key gateways is
necessary. Distinguishing key gateways provides direction to the City on which gateways take
precedent. Priority is then given to the gateways that are along a priority impression corridor.
Priority gateways function as a entrance to an impression corridor.
NEXT STEPS
Staff would like to proceed with publishing a hearing notice and conducting a hearing on these changes
to the Comprehensive Plan for the November 7th Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Proposed Changes to Special Planning Areas Section of the Land Use Element
B – Existing & Revised Special Planning Areas Map 1.3
C – Special Planning Areas Maps 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 (FOR REFERENCE ONLY – no changes proposed)
Page 57 of 154
ATTACHMENT A - Proposed Changes to Special Planning Areas
Designation Section of the Land Use Element
Special Planning Area Designation
Description
“Special Planning Areas” are consist of Districts, subareas, Impression Corridors, and Gateways within Auburn
that warrant additional emphasis in planning, investments, and policy development. Each may be recognized
separately within the Comprehensive Plan, as an Element of the Comprehensive Plan, or as an subarea plan
(discussed below). There are a variety of reasons for designating and distinguishing a special planning area, and
once designated, a variety of potential outcomes. Reasons for designating a special planning area include:
• Areas of high visibility and traffic. These areas create an impression or image of Auburn. It is therefore
particularly important to ensure that they are attractive and well maintained. Examples include Auburn Way
South and associated major highway on- and off-ramps.
• Land use activities that warrant joint planning between the City and owner/operator. In addition to
developing approaches and strategies for the core land use activity, there may be additional emphasis on
ensuring compatibility with surrounding land uses. Examples include, Green River College, the Auburn Municipal
Airport, and Emerald Downs Thoroughbred Horse Racetrack.
• Neighborhoods in which a resident and merchant live and conduct daily business and leisure.
Neighborhoods may also be distinguished by physical setting, physical separations, and similarity over an area.
Examples include downtown, Lea Hill, and Lakeland.
• Areas with a focused desire to create greater physical and economic cohesiveness. These may be large
planned developments or clusters. Examples include the Auburn North Business Area and Mt. Rainier Vista.
• Areas with an existing built environment or an existing regulatory framework that does not, in itself, meet
the expectations of the seven values that underscore the Comprehensive Plan. Examples include the need for
multimodal connections between West Hill and Lea Hill to north and downtown Auburn.
Page 58 of 154
2
Designation Criteria
1. Districts: : The geographic limit of districts and areas that make up the this category of Special Planning
Areas extends beyond an alignment with any particular street, trail, river, stream, or other linear corridor.
Districts may contain other smaller Special Planning Areas, such as subareas. Additionally, districts are
generally consistent with the geography of one of the eight “neighborhoods”₁ identified in the 2014 City of
Auburn Community Vision Report. Generally speaking, districts are identified for the purpose of creating
identity. This means that the land use designations and overarching policies and implementing regulations are
not going to change from one district to the next. Instead, Districts are important for event planning, establishing
park and open space level-of-service standards, and promoting community identity.
₁ The eight “neighborhoods” are identified for comprehensive planning purposes only, as neither the City nor its
neighborhoods have elected to officially designate the boundaries of City neighborhoods.
Districts (see Map 1.2)
• West Hill North Auburn
• Lea Hill
• Downtown
• South Auburn
• Plateau
• Lakeland
• Southeast Auburn
2. Subareas: Subareas are smaller in geography than a district. Though relatively large, multiple subareas may be
located within a single district. Subareas allow for the refinement and recognition of existing unique
characteristics within a district. Subareas are intended to anticipate, support, and guide long-term growth and
redevelopment through planned development and a unique vision for how that area should look and function in
the future. It can also be used to provide flexibility when there is uncertainty regarding how an area may be most
appropriately developed in the future.
Uses and intensities within Special Planning Areas are determined for each area through individual planning
processes. Subarea planning emphasizes infrastructure development, appropriate land uses, connectivity
throughout the planned area, and connections to multimodal transportation opportunities outside of the planned
area.Each Subarea Plan must be consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Thirty-twoTwenty-eight (28) subareas currently exist. (including the nine economic development strategy areas
discussed below). These subareas are categorized into five different types of subareas: as
• Identified Areas; ,
• Designated Areas, ; Adopted Areas,
o Economic Development Strategy Areas (a “Designated Areas” sub-category); and
Page 59 of 154
3
o Areas of Concern (another “Designated Areas” sub-category); and
• Adopted Areas.
Subareas can move through the process of Identification, Designation, and Adoption by official action of the
Auburn City Council in (three) stages or by a single action. Uses, intensities, and infrastructure development
determined for each subarea or planned area through individual planning processes. Connectivity throughout the
planned area, and connections to multimodal transportation opportunities outside of the planned area are also
emphasized through the individual planning process. The result of each individual planning process is the
adoption of Comprehensive Plan element or subarea plan for the particular subarea by City Council. Each Plan
element must be consistent with the general goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and
oOnce adopted, subarea plans are intended to guide the future development of each respectively adopted
subarea. on a planned basis.
Identified areas have been identified as a subarea within the Comprehensive Plan. Designated Areas have
been designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, which defines detailed boundaries of the area.
Adopted Areas include an Adopted Subarea Plan incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan that
establishes the purpose of its designation, goals and policies, and implementation strategies. Areas of
Concern, discussed in further detail below, are established because they represent areas that require a
close assessment of and an emphasis on infrastructure development and planning.
Subareas can move through the process of Identification, Designation, and Adoption by official action of
the Auburn City Council in (three) stages or by a single action. Once adopted, subarea plans are intended
to guide the future development of each respectively adopted subarea on a planned basis. Uses and
intensities within Special Planning Areas are determined for each area through individual planning
processes. Each Subarea Plan must be consistent with the general goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Key policies of the six Subarea Plans are listed below.
As an adopted document of the Comprehensive Plan, the Subarea Plans are subject to a re- view, and if
necessary, revision to address changes in conditions, issues, or even characteristics of the planned areas.
A review and revision of Subarea Plan will also include the review and, if necessary, a revision of zoning
regulations and design standards. Updated and future Subarea Plans will either supplement existing
goals, policies, and implement strategies, or replace existing Comprehensive Plan designations and
policies.
In 2005, City Council adopted six Economic Development Strategy Areas under Resolution No. 3944.
These areas, initially identified by a focus group of diverse business and com- munity interests, are
targeted for population and employment growth within the planning horizon of the City’s 20-year growth
target (2031). Two additional economic development strategy areas were identified in 2010. In 2012, the
City Council added another economic development strategy area, revised the planning horizon to 50
years, and modified the boundaries of the economic development strategy areas to correlate the areas
with areas with priority business sectors. The boundaries of the economic development strategy areas
are incorporated as subarea plans of the Comprehensive Plan.
Areas of Concern are established because they represent an area that features a lack in the infrastructure
and services (e.g. municipal water and sewer service, urban roads, traffic demand, and storm water
management) necessary to support increase in density or other development. While this Plan may not
fully represent the intensity of uses that could ultimately be supported in these areas (in part due to the
Page 60 of 154
4
current weakness of the City’s infrastructure to support future growth). Development intensification
within the Area
of Concern needs to be coordinated with the necessary infrastructure and services to
support growth.
Subareas
Identified Areas
2a. Identified Areas: Identified areas have beenare identified as a subarea within the Comprehensive
Plan, but have not been established on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Therefore, the specific and detailed
boundaries of an identified subarea have not been defined. Identification of a subarea within the
Comprehensive Plan occurs by official action of the City Council.
Identified Areas.
• Auburn Golf Course
• GSA/Boeing
• Green River College
• Mary Olsen Farm
• Les Gove Campus
• Emerald Downs
• Auburn High School
Designated Areas (see Map 1.3)
2b. Designated Areas: Designated Areas have been designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map,
which defines the specific and detailed boundaries of the area. Designation of an area on the
Comprehensive Plan Map occurs by official action of the Auburn City Council. It is intended that
future development of these areas will be guided by individual Plan element or subarea plan of the
Comprehensive Plan. Updated and future The future Ssubarea Pplans will either supplement existing
goals, policies, and implement strategies, or replace existing Comprehensive Plan designations and
policies for the area within the specific and detailed boundary.
Designated Areas (see Map 1.3).
• Auburn Environmental Park
• Auburn Municipal Airport
• 15th St SW/West Valley Hwy N
• BNSF Rail Yard
• A St SE
• Stuck River Road
Page 61 of 154
5
• M St SE
• SE 312th/124th Ave
• Auburn Way South Corridor
• Auburn Way North Corridor
• Lakeview
• NW Manufacturing Village
• Mt. Rainier
2b(1). Designated Areas - Areas of Concern:
Areas of Concern are a specific type (or subcategory) of designated area. Areas of Concern are
established because they represent an area that features a lack in the infrastructure and services (e.g.
municipal water and sewer service, urban roads, traffic demand, and storm water management)
necessary to support increase in density or other development. These areas require a close
assessment of and an emphasis on infrastructure development and planning to support further
development. While this Plan may not fully represent the intensity of uses that could ultimately be
supported in these areas (in part due to the current weakness of the City’s infrastructure to support
future growth). Development intensification within the Area of Concern needs to be coordinated with
the necessary infrastructure and services to support growth.
Designated Areas – Areas of Concern (see Map 1.3)
• AWS/Auburn Black Diamond Rd.
• Pike Street NE
• 8th Street NE
2b(2). Designated Areas - Economic Development Strategy Areas: The Economic Development
Strategy Areas are a specific type (or subcategory) of designated area. In 2005, City Council adopted
six Economic Development Strategy Areas under Resolution No. 3944. These areas, initially identified
by a focus group of diverse business and community interests, are targeted for population and
employment growth within the planning horizon of the City’s 20-year growth target (2031). Two
additional economic development strategy areas were identified in 2010. In By 2012, the City Council
added three additional another economic development strategy areas, , bringing the total to nine (9)
strategy areas. revised the planning horizon to 50 years, and modified the boundaries of the
economic development strategy areas to correlate the areas with areas with priority business sectors.
During the City’s 2015 update of the Comprehensive Plan the list of economic development strategy
areas to reflect current conditions and status of these areas. As such, two of the original six economic
development strategy areas was removed from the list. The Urban Center, one of the original six
development strategy areas, was removed as it is no longer a designated area. The Urban Center,
also known as “Downtown Auburn” or the “Downtown Urban Center” is an adopted area (since 2001)
and features its own subarea plan. The Auburn Environmental Park (AEP)/Green Zone has also been
removed as an economic development strategy area. The AEP/Green Zone economic development
Page 62 of 154
6
strategy area was previously zoned EP, Environmental Park Zone. The intent of this zone was to
encourage economic development in the form of medical, biotech and “green” technologies
including energy conservation, engineering, water quality and similar uses. Through Ordinance No.
6660 City Council rezoned the AEP/Green Zone from EP, Environmental Park Zone to M-1, Light
Industrial, hereby effectively removing the need to designate the AEP/Green Zone as an specific
economic development strategy area.
The current economic development strategy areas are included below. The boundaries of the
economic development strategy areas are incorporated as designated subareas “Designated Areas –
Special Planning Areas” map of the Land Use Element. plans of the Comprehensive Plan.
Designated Areas – Economic Development Strategy Areas (see Map 1.3)
• A St SE (corridor)
• Auburn Way South (AWS) Corridor
• Auburn Way North (AWN) Corridor
• M St SE (between AWN and AWS)
• SE 312th/124th Ave
• NW Manufacturing Village
• 15th St SW/West Valley Hwy N
Adopted Areas (see Map 1.4)
2c. Adopted Areas: Adopted Areas include an Adopted Subarea Plan incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan that establishes the purpose of its designation, goals and policies, and
implementation strategies. Adoption of a subarea plan occurs by official action of the City Council. As
an adopted document of the Comprehensive Plan, the subarea Plans are subject to a review, and if
necessary, revision to address changes in conditions, issues, or even characteristics of the planned
areas. The review and revision a subarea Plan will also include the review and, if necessary, a revision
of zoning regulations and architectural design standards.
Adopted Areas (see Map 1.4)
• Downtown (Ordinance No. 5549)
• Auburn Adventist Academy (Resolution No. 2254)
• Auburn North Business Area (Resolution No. 2283)
• Lakeland Hills (Resolution No. 1851)
• Lakeland Hills South (County H.E. Case Z15/ UP70)
• Northeast Auburn (Ordinance No. 6183)
Areas of Concern
AWS/Auburn Black Diamond Rd.
Page 63 of 154
7
Pike Street NE
8th Street NEAuburn Way South Corridor
Auburn Way North Corridor
3. Impression Corridors: Impression corridors are aligned with a particular street, trail, river, stream, or
specific linear corridor. Some corridors may be part of a subarea, in which case the Impression Corridor
policies are additive to the a Subarea subarea Pplan. Impression corridors enhance the areas in which
residents, businesses, visitors move throughout the City. The benefit of an impression corridor is two- fold:
residents know that the City is invested in the aesthetic of main thoroughfares and businesses can build off of
the design and aesthetic provided by the impression corridor. Improvements or modification to impression
corridors consist of aesthetic signage, landscaping, and monument features, and the rehabilitation or removal
of existing buildings and property. Impression Corridor boundaries and policies are formally designated by
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Priority is given to the impression corridors that are a part of a subarea.
Priority impression corridors are the thoroughfares in which residents, businesses, visitors move throughout a
specific subarea. The priority impression corridors are italicized below.
Impression Corridors (see Map 1.5)
• Auburn Way North
• Auburn Way South
• Auburn Black Diamond Road
• A Street SE/Auburn Avenue
• C Street SW
• Division Street
• M Street/Harvey Road
• Main Street
• 8th Street NE
• 15th Street SW
• West Valley Highway
• 15th Street NW/NE
8th Street NE
Main Street
• Division Street
• 132nd Street SE
• SE 320th Street
Page 64 of 154
8
• SE 312th Street
• SE 304th Street
M Street/Harvey Road
• R Street
• Lake Tapps Corridor
• West Valley Highway
• Auburn Black Diamond Road
• Green River Road
• 37th Street NW
• S 277th Street
• Interurban Trail
• Green River
• White River
• Mill Creek
4. Gateways: Gateways are specific places, intersections, or blocks within the City. These essential locations
are established because they constitute the first impression into of Auburn. Gateways are intended to create
a “welcome” into distinct areas of the City or into the City itself. They are therefore highly important to plan,
construct, maintain, and enhance their appearance and function. Gateway locations and policies are formally
designated by adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Priority is given to those gateways that are along an
priority impression corridor. Priority gateways function as a entrance to an impression corridor. The priority
gateways are italicized below.
Gateways (see Map 1.6)
• Auburn Way North and Auburn Avenue (where the roads converge)
• East Main Street and M Street NE/SE (at the intersection)
• All roads with an entry into the city
• Auburn Way South betweenand 4th Street SE and
• Auburn Way S and 6th Street SE
• West Main Street between C Street NW and B Street NW
• All roads with an entry into the city
• Hwy 167 Off Ramps
Page 65 of 154
9
• SR 18 Off Ramps
Implementing Designations
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Master Plans
Policies
District Policies.
LU-123 Through regulation, capital investment, and community planning, identify, pro- mote and market
district identity.
Subarea Policies.
LU-124 Each subarea will contain a description of its purpose, boundary, and its own vision, goals, policies
and strategies.
Designated Areas Policies.
LU-125 BNSF Rail Yard - This approximately 150 acre Special Planning Area is located in the south-central
portion of the City and surrounded by SR-18 to the North, Ellingson Road to the South, C Street SW to the
west and A Street SE to the East. The Special Planning Area should consider both sides of C Street and A
Street. Consideration should be given to:
1. The needs of Burlington Northern.
2. Providing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access across the site to connect the southeast and
southwest sides of the city.
3. Providing a more visually appealing "entry corridor" into the City from the south along A and C
Streets.
4. Allowing for a mix of uses including single and multifamily development and commercial and
industrial uses where appropriate.
LU-126 Stuck River Road - A portion of the Stuck River Road Special Planning Area is currently the site of a
large sand and gravel mining operation. This area and other adjacent land comprising a total of approximately
664 acres has been designated as a long term resource area (mineral resource area), so development of the
Special Area Plan for this area should be a low priority as mining is expected to continue on this site for as
long as 30 years. The land uses for the Stuck River Road Special Planning Area will be determined through the
subarea planning process and the City Council’s adoption of the subarea plan. Potential land uses applied
through the subarea planning process could include single-family residential, multi-family residential,
commercial, institutional, and recreational. Some light industrial uses may be appropriate for consideration
and designation through the subarea planning process if the uses are “industrial or business park” in
character, conducted entirely within an enclosed building, and exhibit a high degree of performance
standards and are non-nuisance in nature and if appropriately limited in extent and location. A mix of housing
types ranging from single family residential to multi-family residential is appropriate for this planning area.
Page 66 of 154
10
The subarea plan should be adopted taking into consideration the period during which mining is expected
and the intent of the ultimate development of the area. An active permit has been processed by the City with
respect to the mining activity on a portion (approximately 664 acres) of the mineral extraction operation. The
permit process should continue, however, any permit for mining in the mineral resource area should be
granted for the life of the resource, with reviews conducted periodically (every five years) to determine
whether changes in the originally proposed mineral extraction operation have arisen and give rise to the
need for additional or revised permit conditions to address the new impacts (if any) of any such changes. Any
permit applications for additional acreage within the mineral resource area shall be processed by the City.
Development of this area should not occur until adequate public facilities are available to support the
development consistent with City concurrency policy.
The City recognizes the potential for expanding the Stuck River Road Special Planning Area to include
additional land east of Kersey Way and north of the Covington-Chehalis power line easement, and will
consider a proposal by all affected property owners. If the area is expanded, the number of non-multiple
family, non-manufactured home park dwellings units may be increased proportionate to the increase in
acreage. Any such proposal shall specifically apportion the types and quantities of development to occur
within each separate ownership.
LU-127 Lakeview - The Lakeview subarea is currently the site of two independent sand and gravel mining
operations. While mining activity continues in the eastern operation, indications in 1995 are that the western
operation has ceased. Activity in the western portion is now limited to a concrete batch plant and future site
reclamation. Following reclamation, the area should be developed as a primarily single family residential
neighborhood of low to moderate urban density. A planned development would be particularly appropriate
for this approximately 235 acre site. The permitted development density of the site will depend heavily upon
the ability of the transportation system near the site to handle the new uses. Consideration shall be given to
the environmental, recreational and amenity value of White Lake, the historical and cultural significance, as
well as tribal ownership and jurisdiction of to the Muckleshoot Tribe in the development of the Lakeview
Plan element. Permit applications have been accepted and are currently being processed by the City with
respect to the mining activity on the eastern portion of the area. The permit process should continue,
however, any permit for continued mining in this portion of the area should be limited to 10 years to
encourage completion of the mining, and subsequent reclamation by the property owner in preparation for
development. The Lakeview Plan element should be adopted prior to the City’s acceptance or processing of
any other permit applications for the mining operation in the Lakeview Special Planning Area. The
environmental information and analysis included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Lakeview
(November 1980), shall be considered in the development of the Lakeview Plan element. While heavy
commercial or industrial uses would not be appropriate as permanent uses of this area, conversion of the
area now zoned for heavy industry to office commercial (or similar) uses would be appropriate.
LU-128 Mt. Rainier Vista - This 145 acre subarea is located south of Coal Creek Springs Watershed. Overall
development of the Mt. Rainier Vista subarea plan shall be consistent with the following conditions:
1. Primary consideration in use and development of the property shall be given to protection of Coal
Creek Springs' water quality. Development types, patterns and standards determined to pose a substantial
risk to the public water source shall not be allowed.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units will be determined as part of any sub-area plan process.
Dwelling units shall be located within portions of the property where development poses the least risk of
contamination for Coal Creek Springs. Lands upon which any level of development would have a high risk for
Page 67 of 154
11
contaminating the water supply shall not be developed, but would be retained as open space. The
development pattern shall provide for a logical transition between areas designated for rural uses and those
designated for single family residential use. All dwelling units shall be served by municipal water and sanitary
sewer service, and urban roads. If 53rd Street S.E. is the major access to serve the Special Planning Area, the
developer will be responsible for developing the street to urban standards, from the property owners’
eastern property line that abuts 53rd Street, west to the intersection of 53rd and Kersey Way.
3. Percolation type storm sewer disposal systems shall not be permitted. All surface water drainage
shall be conveyed consistent with the City’s current storm drainage standards. Treatment of stormwater shall
occur prior to its discharge to any surface water body, consistent with standard public works or other
requirements in general effect at the time of development.
4. The site shall be zoned temporarily, at one unit per four acres, until the sub-area plan is completed
and the long-term urban zoning determined.
5. The Mt. Rainier Vista special planning area boundary may be modified through the development of
the subarea plan.
6. The Mt. Rainier Vista and Stuck River Road Special Planning Areas shall be coordinated subarea plans.
LU-129 Auburn Municipal Airport Area - The area east of Auburn’s Municipal Airport is an features industrial
land use designations. While industrial type uses are now located here, the area is highly suited for air related
activities. The City will encourage use in this area to take advantage of its proximity to the Airport and control
adverse effects to airport operations.
Designated Areas - Areas of Concern Policies.
LU-150130 AWS/Auburn Black Diamond Rd – The area between Auburn-Black Diamond Road and
the Burlington Northern Railroad currently lacks urban facilities necessary to support urban
development. Major development proposals shall be carefully assessed under SEPA to ensure that the
development can be supported by the available facilities. Once property owners are able to demonstrate
to the City that they can provide urban services (municipal water and sewer service, urban roads and
storm water management) necessary to support the intensity of development proposed within the entire
area, the Plan designation and zoning for this area should be changed to an urban residential or
commercial classification. The appropriate classification(s) shall be determined after a review of the
development proposal and the pertinent Comprehensive Plan policies.
LU-151131 Pike Street NE – The area located north of 8th NE, east of Harvey Road, and south of 22nd
NE is inadequately served by residential arterials. No increase in density or other development which
would increase traffic demand in this area should be approved.
LU-152132 8th Street NE – The areas paralleling 8th Street NE located between Auburn Way and M Street are
designated for multiple family residential while 8th Street NE is designated as a minor arterial. However, the
road is not currently constructed to this standard and is not able to support current traffic demand
adequately. The Plan designation would greatly increase traffic volumes. Implementation of the Plan
designations should not occur until 8th Street NE is constructed to the adequate arterial standard and water
service is upgraded. Up zones should not be granted from current zoning until these stems are upgraded or
guaranteed.
Designated Areas - Economic Development Strategy Areas Policies.
Page 68 of 154
12
LU-133 – The City should adopt a formal subarea plan for each of the seven economic development strategy
areas (listed below) as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Each economic development strategy area
subarea plan should identify the uses, intensities, and infrastructure development necessary to support the
types of business and activities that are most consistent with community aspirations. Each subarea plan
should address and include policies regarding the expected level of housing density (or residential growth
targets) and employment growth targets.
• Auburn Way South Corridor
• Auburn Way North Corridor
• NW Auburn Manufacturing Village
• 15th St. SW/C St. SW/West Valley Hwy. N
• A St. SE
• SE 312th St. /124th Ave SE
• M St. SE between Auburn Way N and Auburn Way S
Adopted Areas Subarea Plan Policies. Subarea plans are components of the Comprehensive Plan.
LU-13425 Adoption or revision of a subarea plan will be treated as a comprehensive plan amendment and
will comply with the Growth Management Act, Countywide planning policies, Vision 2040, and the Core
Comprehensive Plan.
LU-126 Auburn Adventist Academy - Adopted under Resolution No. 2254 on November 14, 1991. The
Auburn Adventist Academy is primarily a secondary school operated by the Washington Conference of
Seventh-Day Adventists. Since the school is sited on a larger complex that formerly housed a mill, the
Academy has also sought to include industrial uses that support the mission of the school. The
industrial uses provide employment opportunities, learning experiences, and vocational education for
students of the Academy. The re-use of existing buildings and redevelopment of buildings lost to a fire in
1989 are the focal points of the industrial development. In addition to institution- al and industrial uses,
the Academy is also interested in agricultural uses for commercial and vocational purposes and currently
operates a landing strip for aviation training. The plan focuses on providing predictability to planning, zoning,
subdivision, and development decisions made by the City.
LU-13527 Auburn North Business Area - Adopted under Resolution No. 2283 on March 2, 1992. The
Auburn North Business Area Special Planning Area Plan was the result of a comprehensive planning
study due to increased development pressure north of the Central Business District. Since the Central
Business District, which contains Downtown, the core of Auburn, is adjacent to these areas, future
development in this area is crucial. A comprehensive and cohesive direction was also needed based on
increased development proposals and rezone requests. In addition to development concerns, many of the
considerable undeveloped parcels contain wetlands. All of these factors made development controls beyond
zoning and development regulations advisable.
LU-13628 Lakeland Hills - Adopted under Resolution No. 1851 on April 18, 1988. Lakeland Hills
area lies between the Stuck River and the southern City limits of Auburn in the most southwestern part of
the City. The area consists of planned residential and commercial subdivisions, and is
Page 69 of 154
13
predominately residential in nature, offering a range of housing types, including single family and
multi-family dwellings. The Lakeland Hills Plan was intended to provide long-term predictability to both
the City and potential developers. As a planned community, development and design must be consistent with
the policy guidance of the Lakeland Hills Plan.
LU-13729 Lakeland Hills South - Approved under Pierce County Hearing Examiner Case Z15/UP70.Lakeland
Hills South lies south of the Lakeland Hills special plan area and is the most southwestern part of the City.
The area is predominately residential, allowing for a range of housing types, with commercial uses,
including Lakeland Town Center, in the center. Nonresidential uses, including civic, religious, and
municipal services are allowed throughout the area through an Administrative Use Permit. Unlike
Lakeland Hills, Lakeland Hills South was accepted into Auburn was a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The Lakeland Hills PUD, originally the Lakeland Hills South Planned Development District (PDD), was
approved under Pierce County Hearing Examiner Case no Z15-UP70 in 1990. Lakeland Hills South PUD is
intended to provide enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative development
standards. As a PUD, specific development and design standards are prescribed.
LU-1380 Auburn Downtown Plan (Urban Center) - Adopted under Ordinance No. 5549 on May 21, 2001.
Downtown Auburn is the business, governmental, and cultural hub of Auburn, its physical and cultural
heart. Many stores, restaurants, service providers, and small offices are well-represented throughout
this district. Downtown hosts many community events and activities, such as the weekly Auburn
International Farmers Market in the summer, Soundbites! Concert Series (in the City Hall Plaza) and the
Veterans Day Parade. Downtown features public art that includes temporary installations such as
Pianos on Parade and a permanent outdoor Downtown Sculpture Gallery with rotating pieces. This
dynamism is possible because the district is a collection of uses that co- exist in close proximity to one
another. Due to the value, importance, and complexity of this district, The Auburn Downtown Plan
identified four general needs to be addressed by the plan:
• Update of the existing plan in order to continue Downtown revitalization
• Concern over the reopening of Stampede Pass
• Multiple large projects proposed for Downtown
• Scarce private investment
In conjunction with project-based items, a regulatory element that emerged from the goals of the Auburn
Downtown Plan was the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zoning district, which was established in 2007. While the
DUC zoning district is intended specifically to address the needs of downtown, though the implementation of
policies identified by the Downtown Auburn Plan , many challenges related to public and private investment,
development, and strategic planning have yet to be addressed as downtown has evolved.
LU-13931 Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area – Adopted under Ordinance No. 6183 on June 5, 2008. The Plan
was prepared in fulfillment of the policies included in the Comprehensive Plan for the area between Auburn Way
North and the Green River, south of 277th Street (52nd Street NE) and north of approximately 37th Street NE in
the City of Auburn (Map No. 14.2). The planning area was narrowed to an area covering approximately 120 acres,
north of 45th Street NW and between Auburn Way North and the existing I Street NE right-of-way. The Northeast
Auburn/ Robertson Properties Special Area Plan focuses on proposed develop of the Auburn Gateway project
area, a 60-acre group of properties owned or under consideration for purchase by Robertson Properties Group,
owners of the Valley 6 Drive-In Theater. The plan calls for a mix of office, retail, and multifamily development
Page 70 of 154
14
under a new zoning designation (C-4, Mixed Use Commercial) for the central portion of this planning area,
created to accommodate mixed use development. The plan calls for phased development in coordination with
the provision of new roads, stormwater and other utilities, and flood management measures.
Impression Corridor Policies.
LU-14032 Create specific plans for each identified corridor, outlining development policies and regulations,
necessary capital improvements, and implementation strategies. In the absence of any specific corridor plans,
this section contains general policies that are to be applied within designated impression corridors.
LU-14133 Coordinate corridor planning, design, construction, and maintenance with other agencies, such as
BNSF, the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. Where
one agency may more effectively manage the corridor, management or ownership consolidation is appropriate.
LU-14234 Promote the elimination or renovation of existing derelict or unmaintained structures, signs,
fences, and properties along impression corridors through regulatory or enforcement mechanisms
LU-14335 Work with private and public property owners to educate, create incentives, and enforce
regulations that are intended to improve the overall appearance of identified corridors.
LU-14436 Emphasize the design, orientation, construction materials, landscaping, and site layout for
development proposals of new and existing buildings along impression corridors. New construction and the
renovation of existing buildings create important opportunities for enhancing the appearance of impression
corridors.
LU-14537 Establish regulations that ensure coordinated, attractive commercial signage is of an appropriate
size and quantity. Signage regulations along these corridors may be different than those in other areas.
LU-14638 Take advantage of opportunities to pro- vide informational signs, wayfindingg
signs, and traffic control signs that are attractive, useful, and integrated into a larger citywide signage plan or
policy.
LU-14739 Outdoor storage of materials, inventory, and other goods and off-street surface parking should be
located at the rear of the property. If outdoor storage cannot be located in the rear of the property, then
it should be screened from view from adjacent rights-of-way.
LU-1480 Design, construct, and enhance impression corridors to accommodate multimodal uses.
LU-1491 Design and construct vehicular access points in a manner that consolidates access points serving
multiple uses.
LU-15042 Signage, landscaping, and monument features should be used to establish prominent access
points.
LU-15143 Discourage aerial utilities.
LU-15244 Invest in impression corridors by acquiring rights-of-way, constructing and widening sidewalks,
installing landscaping, building center medians, constructing parklets, providing street furniture, and
constructing other improvements.
Gateway Policies. Gateways are specific places, intersections, or blocks within the City. These essential
locations are established because they constitute the first impression into of Auburn. Gateways are intended
Page 71 of 154
15
to create a “welcome” into distinct areas of the City or into the City itself. They are therefore highly
important to plan, construct, maintain, and enhance their appearance and function. Gateway locations and
policies are formally designated by adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
LU-15345 Prioritize by rank all gateways and develop potential opportunities and designs for each location.
LU-15446 Develop land use regulations that incorporate gateway priorities and concepts into private
development proposals that are located at identified gateways.
LU-15547 Coordinate with the Washington State Department of Transportation to under- stand
options and implement actions at gateway location. Many of the gate- way locations are within the
WSDOT right-of-way.
LU-15648 Develop design layouts for gateway locations. Designs will identify key areas that greet residents
and visitors as they enter the City or downtown center, opportunities for signage and monument features,
and landscaping.
LU-15749 Maintain established gateways.
Areas of Concern Policies. These areas represent areas requiring a close assessment of and an emphasis on
infrastructure development and planning to support further development.
LU-150 AWS/Auburn Black Diamond Rd – The area between Auburn-Black Diamond Road and the
Burlington Northern Railroad currently lacks urban facilities necessary to support urban development.
Major development proposals shall be carefully assessed under SEPA to ensure that the development
can be supported by the available facilities. Once property owners are able to demonstrate to the City
that they can provide urban services (municipal water and sewer service, urban roads and storm water
management) necessary to support the intensity of development proposed within the entire area, the
Plan designation and zoning for this area should be changed to an urban residential or commercial
classification. The appropriate classification(s) shall be determined after a review of the development
proposal and the pertinent Comprehensive Plan policies.
LU-151 Pike Street NE – The area located north of 8th NE, east of Harvey Road, and south of 22nd NE is
inadequately served by residential arterials. No increase in density or other development which would
increase traffic demand in this area should be approved.
LU-152 8th Street NE – The areas paralleling 8th Street NE located between Auburn Way and M Street are
designated for multiple family residential while 8th Street NE is designated as a minor arterial. However, the road
is not currently constructed to this standard and is not able to support current traffic demand adequately. The
Plan designation would greatly increase traffic volumes. Implementation of the Plan designations should not
occur until 8th Street NE is constructed to the adequate arterial standard and water service is upgraded. Up
zones should not be granted from current zoning until these stems are upgraded or guaranteed.
Page 72 of 154
51STAVESS277THST
C ST SW8TH ST NE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
WA
Y
S
EPEASLEYCANYONRDS
1
0
7
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN STAUBURNAVENE
29TH ST SE17THSTSE
SE281STST
B ST NW15THSTNW
INDUSTRYDRSWRIVERWALKDRSETERRACEDRNWWMAINSTASTNW
EASTVALLEYHWYEASTSES 316TH ST
37THSTNE
WESTVALLEYHWYNSE 304TH ST
4TH ST SE
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
PKWYSEISTNESE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
ELLINGSON RD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
37THSTNW
SE304THWAY
16THSTNW
LEAHILLRDSE
6TH ST SE
15TH ST NE
14TH ST NW
321STSTS
41ST ST SEDSTNEAU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
SWESTVALLEYHWYSAUBURNWAYN3RDSTSWASTNE
LAKELANDHI
LLSWAYSE132NDAVESE124THAVESER ST SEM ST SEO ST SWM ST NEC ST NW112THAVESEORAVETZRDSEDSTNW104THAVESEEDGEWOOD
FEDERAL WAY
COVINGTON
SUMNER
PACIFIC
ALGONA
PIERCE COUNTY
KING COUNTY
H
WY
1
6
4
HWY18HWY167
Printed Date: 3/16/2017
Map ID:/0¼½¾1
MiDistricts
(Map 1.2)
The information shown and/or distributed
is for general reference purposes only
and does not necessarily represent exact
geographic or cartographic data.
The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy.
Green River
Green River
W
hite River
White RiverLake Tapps
Special Planning Areas
LEA HILL
NORTH AUBURNWEST HILL
DOWNTOWN
SOUTH AUBURN
PLATEAU
SE AUBURN
LAKELAND
City Limits
City LimitsCity LimitsKENT
ma P 1.3 – designated areas51STAVESS277THST
C ST SW8TH ST NE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
WA
Y
S
E
1 32N D W AYSEPEASLEYCANYONR
D
S
1
0
7
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN STAUBURNAVENE
29TH ST SE 17 TH ST SE
3RD ST NE
SE 281ST ST
B ST NW15TH ST NW
INDUSTRYDRSWRIVERWALK DR SETERRACEDRNWW MAIN ST
EASTVALLEYHWYEASTSES 316TH ST
37TH ST NE
WESTVALLEYHWYNSE 304TH ST
3RD ST NW
4TH ST SE
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
PKWY SEISTNE SE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
ELLINGSON RD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
3 7TH ST NW
10TH ST NW
ASTNWSE304THWAY16TH ST NW
CROSS ST SE LEAHILLR D S E
6TH ST SE
15TH ST NE
14TH ST NW
321ST ST S
10TH ST NE
41ST ST SEDS TNEAU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
SWESTVALLEYHWYSAUBURNWAYN3RDSTSWASTNE
LAKELANDHI
LLSWAYSE132NDAVESE124THAVESER ST SEM ST SEO ST SWM ST NEC ST NW112THAVESEORAVETZRDSEDSTNW104THAVESEEDGEWOOD
FEDERAL WAY
COVINGTON
SUMNER
PACIFIC
ALGONA
PIERCE COUNTY
KING COUNTY
HWY164 HWY18HWY167Printed Date: 3/16/2017
Map ID:/0 ¼½¾1
Mi
The information shown and/or distributed
is for general reference purposes only
and does not necessarily represent exact
geographic or cartographic data.
The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy.
SE 312th ST/
124th Ave
Auburn
Way N
Corridor
NW Auburn
Manufacturing
Village
Airport
Pike
St NE
M St SE
8th St NE
West
Auburn
Auburn
Environmental Park
15th St SE / C St SW
West Highway N
A St SE
Auburn Way
S Corridor
Lakeview Auburn Black
Diamond Rd SE
Stuck
River Road
Mount
Rainier
Vista
Designated Areas
Lake TappsWhite RiverW
hite River
Green River
Green River
City LimitsCity Limits
Designated Areas
(Map 1.3)
Special Planning Areas
City Limits
KENT
Page 73 of 154
S 27 7TH ST
C ST SW8TH ST N E
K
E
R
S
E
Y
W
A
Y
S
E
1 32N D W AYSE1
0
7
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN ST
ASTSEAuburn Ave29TH ST SE 17 TH ST SE
3RD ST NE
EASTVALLEYHWYESE 281ST ST
RIVERWALK D R SE15TH ST NW
INDUSTRYDRSWTERRACEDRNWW MAIN ST51STAVESS 316TH ST
37TH ST NE
WESTVALLEYHWYN3RD ST SE
SE 304TH ST
3RD ST NW 124THAVESE4TH ST S E
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
PKWY SEISTNE SE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
3 7TH ST NW
10TH ST NW
ASTNWSE304THWAYLEAHILLR D S E
16TH ST NW
CROSS ST SE
6TH ST SE
15TH ST NE
14TH ST NW
1 0TH ST NE
41ST ST SED STNEEASTVAL
L
EYRD S E
PEASLE Y C A NYONRDS
A
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
S 132NDAVESEWESTVALLEYHWYSAUBURNWAYN3RD S T SWB ST NWASTNELAKELANDHI
LLSWAYSER ST SEM ST SEO ST SWM ST NEC ST NW112THAVESEORAVETZRDSEDSTNWRONCROCKETTDRNW104THAVESEEDGEWOOD
COVINGTON
FEDERAL WAY
SUMNER
PACIFIC
PIERCE COUNTY
KING COUNTY
ALGONA
HWY164 HWY18HWY167Printed Date: 10/1/2018
Map ID: 6061/0 ¼½¾1
Mi
The information shown and/or distributed
is for general reference purposes only
and does not necessarily represent exact
geographic or cartographic data.
The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy.
SE 312th ST/124th Ave
AuburnWay NCorridor
NW AuburnManufacturingVillage
Airport PikeSt NE
M St SE
8th St NE
WestAuburn
15th St SE / C St SWWest Highway N
A St SE
Auburn WayS Corridor
Lakeview Auburn BlackDiamond Rd SE
StuckRiver Road
MountRainierVista
Designated Areas
Lake TappsWhite RiverW
hite River
Green River
Green River
City LimitsCity Limits
Designated Areas
(Map 1.3)
Proposed Special Planning Areas
City Limits
KENT
Page 74 of 154
maP 1.2 – distriCts maP51STAVESS277THST
C ST SW8TH ST NE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
WA
Y
S
EPEASLEYCANYONRDS
1
0
7
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN STAUBURNAVENE
29TH ST SE 17 TH ST SE
SE 281ST ST
B ST NW15TH ST NW
INDUSTRYDRSWRIVERWALK DR SETERRACEDRNWW MAIN ST
ASTNWEASTVALLEYHWYEASTSES 316TH ST
3 7 TH ST NE
WESTVALLEYHWYNSE 304TH ST
4TH ST SE
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
PKWY SEISTNE SE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
ELLINGSON RD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
3 7TH ST NW
SE304THW AY16TH ST NW
LEAHILLR D S E
6TH ST SE
15TH ST NE
14TH ST NW
321ST ST S
41ST ST SEDS TNEAU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
SWESTVALLEYHWYSAUBURNWAYN3RDSTSWASTNE
LAKELANDHI
LLSWAYSE132NDAVESE124THAVESER ST SEM ST SEO ST SWM ST NEC ST NW112THAVESEORAVETZRDSEDSTNW104THAVESEEDGEWOOD
FEDERAL WAY
COVINGTON
SUMNER
PACIFIC
ALGONA
PIERCE COUNTY
KING COUNTY
H
WY
1
6
4
HWY18HWY167
Printed Date: 3/16/2017
Map ID:/0 ¼½¾1
MiDistricts
(Map 1.2)
The information shown and/or distributed
is for general reference purposes only
and does not necessarily represent exact
geographic or cartographic data.
The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy.
Green River
Green River
W
hite River
White RiverLake Tapps
Special Planning Areas
LEA HILL
NORTH AUBURNWEST HILL
DOWNTOWN
SOUTH AUBURN
PLATEAU
SE AUBURN
LAKELAND
City Limits
City LimitsCity LimitsKENT
Page 75 of 154
maP 1.4 – adoPted areas
Downtown
Lakeland
Hills
Academy
Auburn North
Business
Area
Northeast
Auburn
Lakeland
Hills
South51STAVESS277THSTC ST SW8TH ST NE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
WA
Y
S
E
1 32N D W AYSEPEASLEYCANYONR
D
S
1
0
7
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN STAUBURNAVENE
29TH ST SE 17 TH ST SE
SE 281ST ST
B ST NW15TH ST NW
INDUSTRYDRSWRIVERWALK D R SETERRACEDRNWW MAIN ST
EASTVALLEYHWYEASTSES 316TH ST
37TH ST NE
WESTVALLEYHWYNSE 304TH ST
3RD ST NW
4TH ST SE
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
PKWY SEISTNE SE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
ELLINGSON RD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
3 7TH ST NW
ASTNWSE304THWAY16TH ST NW
CROSS ST SE LEAHILLR D S E
6TH ST SE
15TH ST NE
14TH ST NW
321ST ST S 10TH ST NE
41ST ST SED STNEA
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
SWESTVALLEYHWYSAUBURNWAYN3RDSTSWASTNE
LAKELANDHILLSWAYS
E 132NDAVESE124THAVESER ST SEM ST SEO ST SWM ST NEC ST NW112THAVESEORAVETZRDSEDSTNW104THAVESEEDGEWOOD
FEDERAL WAY
COVINGTON
SUMNER
PACIFIC
ALGONA
PIERCE COUNTY
KING COUNTY
HWY164 HWY18HWY167Printed Date: 3/16/2017
Map ID:/0 ¼½¾1
Mi
The information shown and/or distributed
is for general reference purposes only
and does not necessarily represent exact
geographic or cartographic data.
The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy.
Adopted Areas
Lake TappsWhite RiverW
hite River
Green River
Green River
City LimitsCity Limits
Adopted Areas
(Map 1.4)
Special Planning Areas
City Limits
KENT
Page 76 of 154
Downtown
Lakeland
Hills
Academy
Auburn North
Business
Area
Northeast
Auburn
Lakeland
Hills
South51STAVESS277THSTC ST SW8TH ST NE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
WA
Y
S
E
132NDWAYSE
PEASLEYCANYONR
D
S
1
0
7
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN STAUBURNAVENE
29TH ST SE17THSTSE
SE281STST
B ST NW15THSTNW
INDUSTRYDRSWRIVERWALKDRSETERRACEDRNWWMAINST
EASTVALLEYHWYEASTSES 316TH ST
37TH ST NE
WESTVALLEYHWYNSE 304TH ST
3RD ST NW
4TH ST SE
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
PKWYSEISTNESE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
ELLINGSON RD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
37THSTNW
ASTNWSE304THWAY16THSTNW
CROSS ST SELEAHILLRDSE
6TH ST SE
15TH ST NE
14TH ST NW
321STSTS10TH ST NE
41ST ST SEDSTNEA
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
SWESTVALLEYHWYSAUBURNWAYN3RDSTSWASTNE
LAKELANDHILLSWAYS
E132NDAVESE124THAVESER ST SEM ST SEO ST SWM ST NEC ST NW112THAVESEORAVETZRDSEDSTNW104THAVESEEDGEWOOD
FEDERAL WAY
COVINGTON
SUMNER
PACIFIC
ALGONA
PIERCE COUNTY
KING COUNTY
HWY164HWY18HWY167
Printed Date: 3/16/2017
Map ID:/0¼½¾1
Mi
The information shown and/or distributed
is for general reference purposes only
and does not necessarily represent exact
geographic or cartographic data.
The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy.
Adopted Areas
Lake TappsWhite RiverW
hite River
Green River
Green River
City LimitsCity Limits
Adopted Areas
(Map 1.4)
Special Planning Areas
City Limits
KENT
ma P 1.5 – im Pression Corridors51STAVESS277THST
C ST SW8TH ST NE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
WA
Y
S
E
1 32N D W AYSEPEASLEYCANYONR
D
S
1
0
7
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN STAUBURNAVENE
29TH ST SE 17 TH ST SE
3RD ST NE
SE 281ST ST
B ST NW15TH ST NW
INDUSTRYDRSWRIVERWALK DR SETERRACEDRNWW MAIN ST
EASTVALLEYHWYEASTSES 316TH ST
37TH ST NE
WESTVALLEYHWYNSE 304TH ST
3RD ST NW
4TH ST SE
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
PKWY SEISTNE SE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
ELLINGSON RD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
3 7TH ST NW
10TH ST NW
ASTNWSE304THWAY16TH ST NW
CROSS ST SE LEAHILLR D S E
6TH ST SE
15TH ST NE
14TH ST NW
321ST ST S
10TH ST NE
41ST ST SEDS TNEAU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
SWESTVALLEYHWYSAUBURNWAYN3RDSTSWASTNE
LAKELANDHI
LLSWAYSE132NDAVESE124THAVESER ST SEM ST SEO ST SWM ST NEC ST NW112THAVESEORAVETZRDSEDSTNW104THAVESEEDGEWOOD
FEDERAL WAY
COVINGTON
SUMNER
PACIFIC
ALGONA
PIERCE COUNTY
KING COUNTY
HWY164 HWY18HWY167Printed Date: 3/16/2017
Map ID:/0 ¼½¾1
Mi
The information shown and/or distributed
is for general reference purposes only
and does not necessarily represent exact
geographic or cartographic data.
The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy.
Impression Corridors
Green River
Green River
W
hite River
White RiverLake TappsCity LimitsCity Limits
Impression Corridors
(Map 1.5)
Special Planning Areas
City Limits
KENT
Page 77 of 154
maP 1.6 – gateways maP
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(51STAVESS 27 7TH ST
C ST SW8TH ST NE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
WA
Y
S
E
1 32N D W AYSEPEASLEYCANYONR
D
S
1
0
7
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN STAUBURNAVENE
29TH ST SE 17 TH ST SE
3RD ST NE
SE 281ST ST
B ST NW15TH ST NW
INDUSTRYDRSWRIVERWALK D R SETERRACEDRNWW MAIN ST
EASTVALLEYHWYEASTSES 316TH ST
37TH ST NE
WESTVALLEYHWYNSE 304TH ST
3RD ST NW
4TH ST SE
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
PKWY SEISTNE SE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
ELLINGSON RD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
3 7TH ST NW
10TH ST NW
ASTNWSE304THWAY16TH ST NW
CROSS
S
T
S
E LEAHILLR D S E
6TH ST SE
15TH ST NE
14TH ST NW
321ST ST S
10TH ST NE
41ST ST SED STNEA
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
SWESTVALLEYHWYSAUBURNWAYN3RDSTSWASTNE
LAKELANDHI
LLSWAYSE132NDAVESE124THAVESER ST SEM ST SEO ST SWM ST NEC ST NW112THAVESEORAVETZRDSEDSTNW104THAVESEEDGEWOOD
FEDERAL WAY
COVINGTON
SUMNER
PACIFIC
ALGONA
PIERCE COUNTY
KING COUNTY
HWY164 HWY18HWY167Printed Date: 3/16/2017
Map ID:/0 ¼½¾1
Mi
The information shown and/or distributed
is for general reference purposes only
and does not necessarily represent exact
geographic or cartographic data.
The City of Auburn makes warranties as to its accuracy.
!(Gateways
Lake TappsWhite RiverW
h
i
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
Green R
i
v
e
r
Gr
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
City LimitsCity Limits
Gateways
Special Planning Areas
(Map 1.6)
KENT
City Limits
Page 78 of 154
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Continued Discussion of docket items for Annual
comprehensive Plan Amendments - City initiated text and map
amendments
Date:
October 9, 2018
Department:
Community Development
Attachments:
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Budget Impact:
Current Budget: $0
Proposed Revision: $0
Revised Budget: $0
Administrativ e Recommendation:
Background Summary:
In the fall of 2015, the City of Auburn embarked on a process to develop an Economic
Development Strategic Plan. The Plan development was guided by the City’s Economic
Development section of the Administration Department and prepared for the purpose of
guiding the City’s economic development and activities and investment over the next decade.
To assist in this endeavor, the City hired a team of expert consultants in specialized subject
areas that included TIP Strategies (an economic development consultant), Heartland (a real
estate advisory & investment consultant), and the Retail Coach (a retail recruitment &
development consultant). This consultant team (“Team”) built on the then, recent “Imagine
Auburn” public outreach and participation plan that had been implemented for the preparation
of the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The City’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted by
Ordinance No. 6584 on December 4, 2015.
The development of the resultant, Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan, took 11
months to prepare and included its own outreach effort to inform its contents. The Team
conducted extensive public input reaching out to more than 200 employers, community and
regional leaders, residents, and other stakeholders. The Team also prepared a detailed
analysis of demographic, economic, and market data for the City and regional context. The
research and methodology are described on Page 8 of the Plan. The goals and strategies
were also informed by the consulting team's knowledge of trends and best practices that
shape economic development outcomes and programs across the nation. The result is a set
of strategies and actions that will propel the City of Auburn forward towards its vision for
2025. The Findings of the investigative effort are described starting at Page 11 of the
document.
The timing of the preparation of the Plan was timely due to both the then, recent adoption of
the guiding document--the City’s Comprehensive Plan--and due Auburn’s key location in the
path of path of growth radiating from Seattle and the assets and attractiveness of Auburn as
expressed by some important early development projects. In addition, this Plan is more
Page 79 of 154
extensive in scope and greater in depth than preparation of past economic development
strategy document efforts by the City.
DISCUSSION
At the October 16th, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, staff would like to introduce and
discuss some text changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to recognize and incorporate
the City’s Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. A summary of the City’s Ten-
Year Economic Development Strategic Plan is provided at Pages 1 through 4 of the
document. For this discussion, in addition to a copy of the Ten-Year Economic Development
Strategic Plan, the following excerpts of the City’s Comprehensive Plan documents will be
provided showing strike through and underline changes to show deletions and additions,
respectively:
Volume 6 - The Economic Development Element, Pages ED-1 through ED-6.
Core Plan, Policy Elements Section, - Economic Development Policy Element, Pages
C4-16 through C4-17.
Appendices (While this document is not provided, it is intended to be updated to add to
the listing, the Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan.), Page A-1
Please note that due to incompatibility of the word processing software used for
publishing the Comprehensive Plan document and the editing software to show
strike through and underline changes to show deletions and additions to show the
Planning Commission, the formatting does not show properly. Because of the two-
column format used in the Comprehensive Plan document, many words that were
hyphenated due to line breaks continue to inaccurately show as hyphenated when
no longer at the end of a line. There are also a few other formatting issues. These
formatting corrections will be made in the final version.
Key Changes/Points:
As part of the 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the city seeks to change the
Comprehensive Plan to recognize and incorporate the Ten-Year Economic Development
Strategic Plan. The main changes to the Comprehensive Plan document include:
Change wording to ensure consistency and agreement with the Ten-Year Economic
Development Strategic Plan. It is appropriate to change the Comprehensive Plan to
ensure consistency.
Update information due to the passage of time.
Update wording to increase clarity and understanding.
Align the policy statements with the strategies/actions listed in the Ten-Year Economic
Development Strategic Plan. However, since the Comprehensive Plan document is a
policy document while the Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan is an
Page 80 of 154
implementation tool, not every strategy or action listed will have will have a
corresponding policy statement.
Also, please note that because the documents were prepared at different times and
have different source information that is important to the context of each document, the
statistics cited may not always agree between the two documents.
The Comprehensive Plan continues to reference an earlier city-prepared year 2005
Economic Development Strategies Brochure since some of the mapped “special
planning areas” continue to be referenced within the Comprehensive Plan and show on
the accompanying maps. It is appropriate to continue to reference to this earlier
document as a source of this historical information and ensure consistency.
The Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan contains a future action of
identifying and designating “target investment areas” as smaller geographic areas of the
city to be to be determined and targeted for directing growth. The purpose and criteria
for designating these future areas is described on Page 28.
Next Steps:
Staff would like to proceed with publishing a hearing notice and conducting a hearing on these
changes to the Comprehensive Plan for the November 7th Planning Commission meeting.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Volume 6 - The Economic Development Element of the Comp. Plan
Attachment B - Core Plan, Policy Elements Section - specifically the Economic Development
Policy Element of the Comp. Plan
Attachment C - Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan
Rev iewed by Council Committees:
Other: Planning
Councilmember:Staff:Dixon
Meeting Date:October 16, 2018 Item Number:
Page 81 of 154
Attachment A
Page 82 of 154
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Vision.................................................................ED -1
Conditions and Trends ....................................ED-1
Introduction.....................................................ED -3
Values ..............................................................ED -3
Planning Approach (Goal 17) ........................ED-4
Page 83 of 154
eD-1
Auburn is a community that has with a robust and diverse economy where businesses seek to locate,
that people desire to visit, and where residents enjoy a range of commercial offerings. Businesses
that locate in Auburn find it easy to enter the marketplace, encounter ideal conditions for their long-term
success, and become rooted and involved in the community. Visitors continue to return to Auburn
because of its high- quality natural resources, parks, public spaces, and commercial attractions.
Residents choose to live in Auburn because of the diverse, family wage employment opportunities, and
access to entertainment, restaurant, retail, and services.
Conditions and trends
Historical Trends: Historically, a variety of factors
have shaped Auburn’s economy. At the turn of the
20th century, the City offered services to support
agriculture and the railroads. Downtown offered
a full range of services and retail opportunities. In
later years, automotive sales became a signif-
icant factor.
As urbanization of the region expanded to in -
clude Auburn, the vitality of downtown Auburn
was impacted by new shopping malls that were
located outside the community, and by changes
in retail trends. At the same time, Auburn saw
increased importance as a home to large indus-
trial and warehousing operations. This same pe-
riod saw the growth of retail along commercial
“strips” such as Auburn Way and 15th Street NW.
Large retailers such as Fred Meyer, and many
major supermarket chains, chose to locate in the
community.
The development of the SuperMall of the Great
Northwest (now called The Outlet Collection) in
the 1990s led to Auburn becoming a major player
in the regional retail market. Auburn shoppers no
longer needed to leave the City to visit retail malls
for many of their purchases. During that same
decade, Emerald Downs and the Muckleshoot
Casino also contributed to commercial recreation
facilities in Auburn and their associated employ-
ment growth.
Today, Auburn provides approximately 41,000
jobs for residents throughout the region. Auburn
has a strong industrial sector that includes
Boeing, the General Service Administration, and
numerous warehouse and distribution facilities.
Multicare and a growing medical office commu-
nity also provide a significant number of jobs. The
retail and service sectors are expanding as small
businesses are created. Educational uses such
as the Auburn School District and Green River
College also add to the area’s employment base.
While development has continued throughout the
City, downtown Auburn remains the heart and
soul of the community. With its historical char-
acter and pedestrian-oriented development
pattern, downtown Auburn reflects many of the
qualities that other communities are seeking to
achieve. Given its urban center designation,
Auburn Station, and the incentives the City has in
place, downtown Auburn remains poised for con-
tinued revitalization.
Employment Growth: Between 1995 to 2013, the
number of jobs located in Auburn increased by
46%. While historically manufacturing jobs were
the largest category, the 2010 Census indicated
that service jobs were the most dominant, fol-
lowed by manufacturing. The remaining job cat-
egories all experienced job growth. The number
of retail jobs increased substantially, as did jobs in
warehousing, transportation, and communication
industries.
Vol. 6 Page 84 of 154
eD-2
City of Auburn Compreh ensive plAn
It is expected that Auburn’s employment base will
continue to grow in the future. The King and
Pierce County Countywide planning policies pro-
ject that Auburn’s job base will increase by just
over 20,000 jobs through 2031. It should be noted
that this number is not a maximum, but rather the
City’s most recent assigned share of future pro -
jected growth by in the County.
Retail Sales: Auburn’s business community is
keeping pace with both Auburn’s population
growth and its increasing number of affluent
households. Between 2005 and 2008, retail sales
in Auburn increased by roughly 7% or 8% per year.
Following implementation of streamlined sales
tax in 2008 and the global economic decline,
sales tax revenues dropped by 16.5% in 2009.
Since 2009, revenues have increased by 34%.
Streamlined Sales Tax: The state of Washington
adopted “streamlined sales tax” (SST) legislation
in 2008. Prior to streamlined sales tax, sales tax
col- lection in Washington State was based on
site of origin rather than site of delivery. Under the
SST tax structure, sales tax is collected at the
site of delivery rather than at the location from
which items are shipped. This change in tax
structure has put Auburn at a disadvantage and
negatively impacts its tax revenue.
Specifically, Auburn and similar cities have histor-
ically invested in infrastructure to support busi-
nesses engaged in warehouse and distribution
activities that ship goods to other destinations.
Another concern for Auburn and similar cities
that have invested in infrastructure include how
the debt that has already been extended for such
infrastructure will be paid and how the loss of
a significant source of revenue will affect bond
ratings.
Based on the potential passage of SST, the Auburn
City Council approved Resolution No. 3782 in
November 2004. Resolution No. 3782 outlines an
approach and actions the City will take related to
land use planning, zoning and other matters in
the event a streamlined sales tax proposal or
other similar proposals that change the tax struc-
ture are adopted.
Because of the state of Washington’s implementa-
tion of sales tax mitigation payments to cities such
as Auburn, the impact resulting from streamlined
sales tax has been somewhat lessened. However,
the continued availability of these payments is
not certain due in part to the State’s current and
anticipated fiscal challenges. In addition, the
amount of payments does not equal the total
loss in revenue to the City. The City’s economic
development strategies are dependent upon the
City being able to continue a strong public invest-
ment program in infrastructure and services. The
City’s ability to continue this public investment
is contingent upon maintaining solvent public
revenue streams, particularly sales tax. Sales
tax is the largest source of monies to the City’s
General Fund, approximately 30 percent in 2010.
The City anticipates that current and long-term
fiscal challenges facing the state of Washington
will likely results in the dissolution of the current
sales tax revenue mitigation program. The even-
tual loss of the aforementioned sales tax revenue
will directly and adversely affect the City’s ability
to adequately fund the capital infrastructure and
services necessary to support the realization of
the City’s economic development strategies. This
is especially applicable to industrial areas sup-
porting warehouse and distribution centers that
are origin based in nature.
In 2005 the City of Auburn brought together a
focus group of diverse business and community
interests that identified several economic devel-
opment areas within the City. The focus group’s
effort is reflected in an Economic Development
Strategies document (brochure) that includes
strategies and actions needed to affect
necessary change for specific strategy areas
within the city. Implementation of these strategies
is intended to enable the City to achieve the
City’s economic development potential.
Implementation of ac- tions and strategies in the
Economic Development Strategies is appropriate
and reflected in various elements of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan.
Since the development of the previous 2005
Economic Development Strategies
brochuredocument, additional “economic
development strategy areas” have been identified
to include the SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE
corridor within the recently annexed portion of
Lea Hill and M Street SE between Auburn Way Vol. 6 Page 85 of 154
eD-3
eConomiC deVelopment element
North and Auburn Way South.
These “economic development strategy areas” are identified
as a subcategory of the Special Planning Areas described in
Volume 1, Land Use Element.
Page 86 of 154
Page 87 of 154
eConomiC deVelopment element
eD-3
introduCtion
In October of 2015 the City of Auburn initiated the
process for developing a Ten-Year Economic
Development Sstrategic Pplan (TEDSP) to guide
the City’s economic development activities over
the next 10 years (to the year 2025). The Pplan
was completed in November of 2016 and will
outlines a key set of strategies and actions within
four focus areas that build upon the City’s current
asset base and assist the City in overcom- ing
challenges. The plan will sets forth strategies to
also facilitate the growth and expansion of
existing industry and business sectors as well as
promote investment in targeted redevelopment in
target investment areascorridors. Finally, the
TEDSPstrategic plan will addresses both the
needs and the impediments of existing business
while defin- ing strategy approaches for attracting
and cultivating new businesses.
The first phase of the TEDSP project
development involved a consulting team of
technical experts conducting will involve a com-
prehensive communitywide stakeholder input
process and included detailed community anal-
yses that will allow the team to understand
Auburn’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats. In the next phase of the project, the
team will identifiedy and refined the City’s most
promising economic development opportunities
by conducting a market capacity study, percep-
tion study, and target industry analysis. In the last
phase of the project, the team will identifiedy spe-
cific goals, strategies, and actions to capitalize on
the City’s its opportunities. The TEDSPfinal plan
will includes an implementation matrix that
identifies assigns responsibility and prioritizes
timing into short-, mid-, and long-term
timeframes. , outlines timing, and estimates
costs.
The TEDSP project aims to better position
recognizes the City of Auburn as a great places
to live, learn, work, and play. The Pplan will
balances the needs of existing businesses with
the need to expand and diversify the City’s
employment base. The recommended strategies
and actions will increase employment in the City
as well as its commercial tax base.
The TEDSPplan will be was completed and approved
by Resolution No. 5256 of the Auburn City Council on
November 21, 2016 by August 31, 2016. The Economic
Development Element of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan is will be amended to in- corporate the findings,
specific goals, strat- egies, and ac tions of the Ten
10 -Yyear Economic Development Strategic Plan
following City Council approvalas a supplementary
report incorporated in the Appendix.
Page 88 of 154
City of Auburn Compreh ensive plAn
eD-4
Auburn’s economic base drives and
shapes the community and region. Auburn
residents and the surrounding region
benefit from the jobs and ser- vices
Auburn’s economic base offers. Through
the payment of sales, property and other
taxes, the City of Auburn can fund and
provide services and public facilities that
Auburn residents demand and/or require.
It is clearly in the City’s best interest to
main- tain and expand our economic base
in uni- son with implementing all of the
goals of this Comprehensive Plan. This
section of the Comprehensive Pplan will
help to define the City’s goals and policies
in this vital area.
Va lu es
Character: Our cultural diversity has been
lever- aged to bind our community,
expand our market, and celebrate
cultural traditions.
Wellness: We are a safe community with
walkable commercial districts where there
the perception and reality are that crime
activity is low and pub- lic safety staffing
meets or exceeds the communi- ty’s
expectations.
Service: Our economic development
strategies focus on both, supporting the
existing business commu- nity; as well as
as a result, recruitment of new businesses
to expand and diversify the City’s quality
of place. is minimal because businesses
desire to locate here.
Economy: We are able to measure and
achieve defined targets for manufacturing,
service, and retail jobs and revenues.
Celebration: We actively promote our
local busi- nesses and have been
successful at making our residents more
aware of what is available local- ly as well
as attracting visitors from beyond our
City.
Environment: Our economy is growing and
diver- sifying because of our efforts to
protect our riv- ers, streams, wetlands,
and other environmental resources.
Sustainability: Residents are staying in Auburn to
work and shop, and we are widely considered a
regional dining, shopping, and entertainment
destination. Vol. 6 Page 89 of 154
eConomiC deVelopment element
eD-5
plan ning approaCh
To ensure the long-term economic health of the
City and the region through a diversified eco -
nomic base that supports a wide range of em-
ployment opportunities for Auburn’s residents and
those of the region, and through the promotion of
quality industrial and commercial development
that matches the aspirations of the community.
Objective 9.1. Promote a diversified econom- ic
base capable of withstanding changes in in-
terest rates, inflation, tax structure and market
conditions.
Policies
ED-1 City promotion of new industry shall be
directed at attracting business that di-
versifies the City’s tax base, offers secure,
quality employment opportunities, is sen-
sitive to community values, and promotes
the development of attractive facilities.
ED-2 Emerald Downs, the Muckleshoot Casino,
and the Outlet Collection offer oppor-
tunities for economic diversification that
should be optimized by the City.
ED-3 The importance of downtown Auburn as a
unique retail environment and subregional
center of commerce should be considered
in the City’s economic plan.
Objective 9.2. Produce commercial and industrial
siting policies that are based on the assessment
of local needs and the availability of transporta-
tion and other infrastructure required to serve it.
Policies
ED-4 Development of industrial areas should
be based on performance standards ap-
propriate for their sites, with appropriate
flexibility within those standards to ac-
commodate changing market conditions.
ED-5 Revitalize depreciated and/or obsolete
commercial and industrial sites through
innovative regulations that redesign such
sites in accordance with modern design
standards and industrial/commercial
uses.
ED-6 Land uUses that serve regional needs and
pur- poses (such as major industrial
plants) must be separated from
community-serv- ing uses in order to
minimize traffic and other conflicts.
Objective 9.3. Develop and implement effective
land use polices and economic development
strategies that pro- vide long-term and stable
employment, increase per capita income, and
reduce the tax burden of Auburn residents.
Policies
ED-7 Auburn should continue to provide an eco-
nomic base not only for the Auburn area
but also for the South King County and
North Pierce County regions.
ED-8 Implementation of economic development
programs shall be consistent with the pol-
icies of the Comprehensive Plan.this plan.
ED-9 The City has developed a Ten-Year
Economic Development Strategic Plan
(TEDSP) and should develop a formal
econom- ic development strategy
incorporated as a supplementary report in
Appendix n element of the
Comprehensive Plan. The TEDSP that
specifically identifies the types of
businesses that are most consistent with
community aspira- tions, and sets forth lay
out a program to attract those businesses.
a. The City should work cooperatively
with other governmental agencies in
its economic development efforts,
including the Muckleshoot Tribe, King
County, Pierce County, the Port of
Seattle, and the Sstate of Washington.
b. The City should implement its
economic development strategy
through partnerships with private
sector organizations.
c. Identified in the 2005 Economic
Development Strategies brochure
documents are six strategy areas and
two additional strategy areas. These
Vol. 6 Page 90 of 154
City of Auburn Compreh ensive plAn
eD-6
economic development strategy areas
target increase in population and
employment growth to that meet the
City’s 20-year (2031) growth target.
Subarea plans
Page 91 of 154
eConomiC deVelopment element
eD-7
should be developed for these strategy
areas. The economic development
strategy areas are as follows:
• Auburn Way North Corridor
• Auburn Way South corridor
• Urban Center
• Auburn Environmental Park and
Green Zone
• 15th Street SW/C Street SW/West
Valley Highway/SuperMall
• A Street SE corridor
• SE 312th Street/124th Avenue SE
corridor
• M Street SE between Auburn Way
North and Auburn South
ED-10 Ensure that the economic development
strat- egies and actions as set forth in the
Ten-Year Economic Development
Strategy Plan are periodically reviewed at
regular intervalsregularly in order to be
flexible and respond to changes in the
market.
ED-11 The City should support economic
development activity through workforce
development programs to provide training
and employment with work with the
private sector, school districts, and Green
River College to develop programs to
provide training. Consideration of the
special needs of economically
disadvantaged residents and
neighborhoods, and people with physical
impairments and develop- mental
disabilities, should be included in these
programs.
ED-12 Engage with agencies that support
multimodal transportation infrastructure
including Puget Sound Regional Council,
Sound Transit, King Co. Metro and Pierce
Transit. The City should continue to
advocate for funding to support
transportation improvements Support
continued development of the Sound
Transit Commuter Rail system as an
important means of expanding the City’s
and the region’s economic base.
ED-13 City infrastructure plans and programs should
consider economic development plans and
programs.
ED-14 Implement the recommendations of the
City’s 2005 Economic Development Strategies
brochure, including the addi- tion of the SE 312th
Street/124th Avenue SE corridor, and M Street SE
between Auburn Way North and Auburn Way
South. The City’s 20-year housing and
employment growth shall be concentrated in
these economic development strategy areas.
Page 92 of 154
City of Auburn Compreh ensive plAn
eD-8
ED-15 Warehouse and distribution land
uses are not preferred long-term
economic development and land
use priorities for industrially zoned
areas of the City, due to: the loss of
sales tax revenue associ- ated with
the State’s implementation of
streamlined sales tax legislation in
2008; no substantive contribution
to an increase in per capita income
for Auburn resi- dents; no reduction
in the tax burden of Auburn
residents; low employment densi-
ties, lower property values; and
land use inefficiencies.
ED-16 Increasing the utilization of land for
man-ufacturing and industrial land
uses should be the City’s preferred
economic develop- ment and land
use priority for industrially zoned
areas of the City that are currently
dominated by warehouse and
distribution land uses. The City
should promote and create
incentives for new manufacturing
and light industrial uses, and for
the grad- ual conversion of existing
warehouse and distribution land
uses to manufacturing and sales
tax generating industrial land
uses.
ED-17 To support continued sales tax
revenue growth opportunities in the
City, those areas currently
dominated by existing warehouse
land uses that abut existing
commercial retail areas, and that
could take advantage of this
proximity to real- ize substantive
value by changing to com- mercial
retail uses, should be considered
for changes in the Comprehensive
Plan and zoning designations that
would facil- itate the conversion of
these properties to commercial
retail use.
ED-18 Regulatory and financial incentives
will be identified and implemented
where appro- priate to provide
increased opportunities and
encourage the establishment of
new or expanded manufacturing
and industri- al uses and jobs in the City.
ED-19 Support workforce development pro-
grams to help all Auburn residents find
stable, well-paying employment in a wide
range of industries. Vol. 6 Page 93 of 154
eConomiC deVelopment element
eD-9
Objective 9.4. Maintain an adequate supply of
land to support future economic development
and to assure the availability of economic oppor-
tunities for future generations.
Policies
ED-20 Economic development programs should
be viewed as a way to shape the char-
acter of the City’s future economy, rather
than merely a way to respond to market
trends as they occur.
ED-21 Land suitable for large-scale develop-
ment in the areas region-serving area of
the City that contain regional-serving
uses should be identified and designated
for economic development.
a. The integrity of large contiguously
owned properties suitable for in-
dustrial use should be conserved by
the use of appropriate industrial
subdivision standards.
b. The City should identify and assist in
resolutionve of any environmental
constraints affecting such land by
means of appropriate environmental
review procedures as early as
technically feasible.
c. The need to support such land with
the necessary infrastructure should be
considered in the development of the
City’s public facility plans.
d. Innovative and flexible development
regulations should be utilized to enable
the development of environmentally
constrained sites while protecting
those characteristics.
Objective 9.5. Utilize the City’s unique environ-
mental opportunities and planned infrastructure
to build on and support economic development
efforts.
Policies
ED-22 Integrate the Auburn Environmental Park
into the City’s economic development
strategies ef- forts by encouraging
compatible sustainable high- tech
businesses to locate in its vicinity.
ED-23 Utilize the future extension of I Street NE
as an economic development opportu-
nity. Development of I Street NE should
establish it as a stand-alone corridor and
not a “back side” to Auburn Way North.
Conditional use permit applications for
commercial uses and nursing homes along
this corridor, whose impacts can be ade-
quately mitigated, should be supported.
ED-24 Use the M Street SE underpass and the de-
velopment of the M Street SE and R Street
SE bypass connection as opportunities to
create and encourage the clustering of
complementary businesses and services
in that area.
Page 94 of 154
City of Auburn Compreh ensive plAn
eD-6
Page 95 of 154
IMAGINE AUBURN
CITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CORE PLAN
ADOPTED DECEMBER 2015
Attachment B - Please note, only pages C4-18 & C4-19 of the
Comprehensive Plan were updated and included for review.
Page 96 of 154
City of Auburn Com prehensive plAn
C4-18
Character: Our cultural diversity has been lever-
aged to bind our community, expand our market,
and celebrate cultural traditions.
Wellness: We are a safe community with walkable
commercial districts, where both the perception
and the reality are that crime activity is low and
public safety staffing meets or exceeds commu-
nity expectations.
Service: Our economic development strategies
focus on supporting the existing business commu-
nity; and on recruitment of new businesses that
diversify tax base and revitalize target areas.
Recruitment is facilitated by as a result,
recruitment is minimal because businesses
desire to locate here.
Economy: We are able to measure and achieve
defined targets for manufacturing, service, and
retail jobs and revenues.
Celebration: We actively promote our local busi-
nesses and have been successful at making our
residents more aware of what is available locally
as well as attracting visitors from beyond our City.
Environment: Our economy is growing and diver-
sifying because of our efforts to protect our riv -
ers, streams, wetlands, and other environmental
resources.
Sustainability: Residents are staying in Auburn
to work and shop, and we are widely considered
to be a regional dining, shopping, and entertain-
ment destination.
Auburn’s economic base drives and shapes the
community and region. Auburn’s residents and
the surrounding region benefit from the jobs and
services Auburn’s economic base offers. Through
the payment of sales, property, and other taxes,
the City of Auburn can fund and provide services
and public facilities that Auburn residents require.
It is in the City’s best interest to maintain and ex-
pand our economic base in unison with imple-
menting all of the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan. This section of the plan will help to define
the City’s goals and policies in this vital area.
1.Attract high-wage employment
opportunities and sales tax generating
businesses to diversify the City’s economic
base and generate positive secondary
benefits for the community.
2.Assist business organizations in developing
and implementing new or improved
product development opportunities to
increase sales tax revenue collections.
3.Dedicate resources to pursue an expanded
economic development program for the
City.
4.Develop a stronger and unified
clear and elaborate City branding
strategy along with a. more
positive perception and sense of
community.
5.Create an economic development toolbox
comprising programs and incentives
to reduce financial, regulatory, and
operational constraints for existing or new
business growth and expansion.
6.Prioritize the installation of key
infrastructure at a few “target
investment areas” identified
employment areas to facilitate
development of these economic
centers.CORE PLAN Page 97 of 154
PolIcy ElEmEntS
C4-19
Adopt and implement a City 10-year Economic
Development Strategic Plan Mayor’s Office City Council, CDPW*,
Finance
In 2021, update Economic Development Policy
Element. Mayor’s Office
City Council, Planning
Commission, City Attorney,
CDPW
In 2028, update Economic Development Element. Mayor’s Office
City Council, Planning
Commission, City Attorney,
CDPW
* CDPW = Community Development and Public Works.
Character: A mix of small urban parks, natural
areas, sports complexes, and community build-
ings offers a full range of recreational services.
Wellness: Parks are well advertised, maintained,
and are safe locations during all hours.
Service: Parks and park programming are acces-
sible to all segments of the population.
Economy: Our parks and natural spaces are a
major reason cited by businesses and residents
for choosing to locate here and choosing to stay.
Celebration: A mix of large and small parks is
being used for local, neighborhood, citywide, and
regional events.
Environment: Parks, open spaces, and natural
areas are designated, designed, and maintained
in a manner that respects the environment and
natural setting.
Sustainability: Park development and mainte-
nance has an identified long-term funding source
that ensures that the system grows and improves.
Parks, arts, open space, and recreation facilities
are an essential amenity to maintain a high qual-
ity of life in the community. As the population of
Auburn grows, the demand for parks, recreation-
al programs, arts and culture, and open space
will continue to increase. To maintain Auburn’s
quality of life, the supply of parks and programs
must keep pace with the demand associated with
a growing population.
City Council, Planning
Commission, City Attorney,
CDPW
o
Policy Element
City Council, Planning
Commission, City Attorney,
CDPW CORE PLAN Page 98 of 154
THEORY INTO PRACTICE PAGE | 1
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON
TEN-YEAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIC PLAN
NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Exhibit C
Page 99 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PAGE | I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE:
Mayor Nancy Backus
Dana Hinman
Kevin Snyder
Doug Lein
Bob Lee
Shelley Coleman
Ingrid Gaub
Jeff Tate
John Holman
Paul Haugan
Daryl Faber
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM:
Dana Hinman, Director of Administration
Douglas Lein, Economic Development Manager
Tiffany Dickman, Project Coordinator
TIP STRATEGIES, INC. is a privately held economic
development consulting firm with offices in Austin and Seattle.
TIP is committed to providing quality solutions for public and
private-sector clients. Established in 1995, the firm's primary
focus is economic development strategic planning.
CONSULTING TEAM:
Jeff Marcell, Senior Partner
Caroline Alexander, Project Manager
CONTACT:
2905 San Gabriel Street, Suite 550
Austin, Texas 78705
PH: 512.343.9113
www.tipstrategies.com
HEARTLAND is a Seattle-based real estate advisory and
investment firm with over 30 years of experience designing,
analyzing, and implementing strategies to manage risk and
optimize value in all aspects of both the built and natural
environment. Our five business lines include public-sector
advisory, private-sector advisory, capital markets, brokerage
services and investment.
CONSULTING TEAM:
Matt Hoffman, Senior Project Manager, Integrated Analytics
Lanzi Li, Associate Project Manager
CONTACT:
1301 1st Ave #200
Seattle, WA 98101
PH: 206.682.2500
www.heartlandllc.com
RETAIL COACH is a premier national retail recruitment and
development consulting firm, founded by C. Kelly Cofer, President
and Chief Executive Officer. Since 2000, The Retail Coach has
provided the research, relationships and strategies to achieve
retail recruitment and development results that have helped more
than 350 communities throughout the US become better, stronger
places to live and work through an expanded sales tax base.
CONSULTING TEAM:
C. Kelly Cofer, CCIM, President/CEO
Aaron Farmer, Senior Vice President
CONTACT:
86 Clark Boulevard
Tupelo, MS 38804
PH: 662.844.2155
www.theretailcoach.net
The Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan was adopted by the Auburn City Council in Resolution No. 5256 on
November 21, 2016.
Auburn City Council: Largo Wales, Claude DaCorsi, Bill Peloza, Yolanda Trout-Manuel, John Holman, Rich Wagner, Bob Baggett
Page 100 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
PAGE | III
RESOLUTION NO. 5 2 5 6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE CITY OF AUBURN
TEN-YEAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
WHEREAS, in the fall of 2015, the City of Auburn embarked on a process to develop an
Economic Development Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, it was intended that this plan could provide a guideline for the City's
economic development activities over the next decade; and
WHEREAS, to assist in this endeavor, the City hired a team that included TIP
Strategies, Heartland, and the Retail Coach. Building on the recent Imagine Auburn
Comprehensive Plan, the consulting team developed this strategic plan with the input of more
than 200 stakeholders and based on findings from a detailed analysis of demographic,
economic, and market data; and
WHEREAS, the goals and strategies were also informed by the consulting team's
knowledge of trends and best practices that shape economic development outcomes and
programs across the nation. The result is a set of goals, strategies, and actions that will propel
the City of Auburn forward towards its vision for 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City's development and adoption of this strategic plan is timely. Auburn
is in the path of growth and has already attracted high-profile investments in multi-family
housing (Trek Apartments and Merrill Gardens), manufacturing (Orion Industries), and
community services (Junior Achievement); and
Page 101 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
PAGE | IV
WHEREAS, these successful investments highlight Auburn's competitive advantages,
its central location, historic downtown, regional transportation linkages, and access to labor;
and
WHEREAS, the spillover growth from Seattle is just beginning in Auburn. With large
tracts of land coming into to play, such as the 129-acre General Services Administration (GSA)
Complex and the 70-acre Valley Drive-In, and the momentum that has already built up around
Auburn, the City is wise to contemplate how it wants to grow so it can be better positioned to
guide its future; and
WHEREAS, Auburn can and should harness Seattle's success to shape its own
economic development future as a vibrant, connected City with a strong and diverse
employment base; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn should also build opportunity from within by encouraging
companies to start, stay, and grow in the City. All of this work must be accomplished without
losing sight of its purpose: to benefit the citizens of Auburn and provide employment
opportunities for the children that grow up there; and
WHEREAS, this work will take discipline and direction, leadership and collaboration,
and patience and perseverance across the City and multiple partners. The City of Auburn's
Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan provides the foundation and lays out the
framework to coordinate the City's transformation into a unique and thriving hub in the Seattle-
Tacoma region.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Page 102 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
PAGE | V
Section 1. That the Economic Development Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto,
marked as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, is adopted as the City of
Auburn Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan.
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 _________________, 2016.
CITY OF AUBURN
________________________________
NANCY BACKUS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Page 103 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
PAGE | VI
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Strategic Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Vision & Guiding Principles ..................................................................................................................... 13
Delivery ............................................................................................................................ 15 Focus Area 1.
Product ............................................................................................................................. 21 Focus Area 2.
Place ............................................................................................................................... 27 Focus Area 3.
Messaging ........................................................................................................................ 32 Focus Area 4.
Implementation and Organization ............................................................................................................ 36
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 52
Page 104 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2015, the City of Auburn embarked on a process to develop an economic development strategic plan.
This plan will provide a guide for the City’s economic development activities and investment over the next decade. To
assist in this endeavor, the City hired a team that included TIP Strategies, Heartland, and the Retail Coach. Building on
the recent Imagine Auburn Comprehensive Plan, the consulting team developed this strategic plan with the input of
more than 200 stakeholders and based on findings from a detailed analysis of demographic, economic, and market
data. The goals and strategies were also informed by the consulting team’s knowledge of trends and best practices
that shape economic development outcomes and programs across the nation. The result is a set of goals, strategies,
and actions that will propel the City of Auburn forward towards its vision for 2025.
The City’s development and adoption of this strategic plan is timely. Auburn is in the path of growth and has
already attracted high-profile investments in multi-family housing (Trek Apartments and Merrill Gardens),
manufacturing (Orion Industries), and community services (Junior Achievement). These successful investments
highlight Auburn’s competitive advantages—its central location, historic downtown, regional transportation
linkages, and access to labor. But the spillover growth from Seattle is just beginning in Auburn. With large tracts of
land likely to be redeveloped, such as the 129-acre General Services Administration (GSA) Complex and the 70-
acre Valley Drive-In, and the momentum that has already built up around Auburn, the City is wise to
contemplate how it wants to grow so it can be better positioned to guide its future.
Auburn can and should harness Seattle’s success to shape its own economic development future as a vibrant, connected
City with a strong and diverse employment base. It should also build opportunity from within by encouraging companies
to start, stay, and grow in the City. All of this work must be accomplished without losing sight of its purpose: to benefit the
citizens of Auburn and provide employment opportunities for the children that grow up there.
This work will take discipline and direction, leadership and collaboration, and patience and perseverance across the City
and multiple partners. The City of Auburn’s Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan provides the foundation and
lays out the framework to coordinate the City’s growth as a unique and thriving hub in the Seattle-Tacoma region.
AUBURN’S TARGET INDUSTRIES
As part of the analysis, the consulting team examined industry data, Auburn’s competitive positioning, as well as available
buildings and sites in order to identify a set of industries to target with marketing and outreach efforts related to business
attraction. A look at the top ten traded industry clusters reveals the growth potential for four key sectors in Auburn’s economy:
MANUFACTURING
DISTRIBUTION,
LOGISTICS &
TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE-USING
BUSINESSES
RETAIL
Within each of these broad sectors, niches were identified that are good fits for Auburn and likely to expand in Auburn.
Detailed information on each of the sectors can be found in Appendices C and F.
Page 105 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 2
STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY: FOCUS AREAS & STRATEGIES
The strategic plan is structured around four focus areas that have the potential to set the stage for Auburn’s success
through a more robust, proactive, and focused economic development program. The four areas were derived from
key findings from an analysis of the City’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. The SWOT analysis
summarizes the input of more than 200 stakeholders and augmented by the results of the various analyses carried
out by the consulting team that were components of the planning process. The strategies that support each of the
four areas will help address Auburn’s primary weaknesses and position it to capitalize on its principal opportunities.
These focus areas and their supporting strategies are summarized below. Detailed actions for each of the strategies
are provided on pages 4 through 36 of the Strategic Plan.
1. DELIVERY
A comprehensive service delivery
system that actively identifies and
advances economic development
opportunities in Auburn
2. PRODUCT
An inventory of sites, a business
climate, and a physical environment
that foster business growth and
ensure a resilient employment base
1.1 Value-Added Services. Clearly define the
services that the City of Auburn provides to
businesses both directly and through
partnerships
1.2 Local Business Visitation. Formalize a
business visitation program in partnership with
the Chamber of Commerce to track trends
among Auburn employers and identify any
businesses in need of assistance
1.3 Business Recruitment. Recruit new
businesses, including retail, to Auburn to
provide better economic opportunities and
enhance Auburn’s quality of place
1.4 Catalyst Projects. Identify and advance
catalyst projects that will facilitate Auburn’s
evolution
1.5 Strategic Relationships. Foster relationships
with key entities that support economic activity
in the City
2.1 Labor Market Information. Design and
maintain information resources that demonstrate
Auburn’s strength in terms of its access to skilled
labor
2.2 Deal-Ready Sites. Ensure a supply of deal-
ready sites to accommodate new business
investment in Auburn
2.3 Economic Development Toolbox. Create a
robust toolbox to influence economic
development outcomes
2.4 Continuous Process Improvement.
Evaluate and continue to improve the City’s land
use and building permit process and
performance
2.5 Zoning Modification. Reevaluate zoning
districts and modify certain aspects of the code
2.6 Cost Comparison. Annually compare
Auburn’s development/impact fees, tax rates,
and rebate programs to peers
Page 106 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 3
3. PLACE
Attractive gateways, impression
corridors, and destinations that
define the character of Auburn
4. MESSAGING
A coordinated marketing and
branding campaign that elevates
Auburn’s reputation among internal
and external audiences
3.1 Strategic Investment. Create a target
investment program to guide infrastructure
investments that enhance Auburn’s economic
development opportunities
3.2 Regional Transportation. Maintain and
enhance regional transportation connections to
ensure ease of travel to, from, and within
Auburn
3.3 Downtown Revitalization. Continue to
invest in downtown revitalization
3.4 Auburn Way South Revitalization.
Designate Auburn Way South as an additional
Targeted Investment Area
3.5 Destination Connections. Create stronger
connections between Auburn’s primary tourism
assets and develop new assets to attract more
visitors to Auburn
3.6 Regional Tourism. Strengthen regional
tourism connections
4.1 Brand Enhancement. Develop a stronger
brand for Auburn and reinforce this with unified
messaging across organizations
4.2 Internal Image. Build a more positive
perception and a greater sense of community
among Auburn residents through a strong
partnership with the Auburn Reporter and other
local media outlets
4.3 Social Media. Continue to strengthen the City’s
social media strategy to improve Auburn’s
internal and external perceptions
4.4 Public Relations. Launch a formal public
relations campaign to change the region’s
perception of Auburn
4.5 Real Estate Market Reports. Develop a
system for effective communication to the
marketplace that educates businesses,
developers, and brokers on opportunities
available in the City
4.6 Strategic Outreach. Reach out to decision
makers in the target industries to encourage them
to consider expanding or relocating in Auburn
The City of Auburn’s Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan is an ambitious plan that will require specialized
staff and additional resources to implement. The transition to a more robust and proactive economic development
program necessitates additional capacity in deal making; economic and market research; prospecting and prospect
management; real estate finance; as well as marketing and outreach. Most municipally run economic development
departments or offices that undertake this type of comprehensive economic development program are staffed by three
to four specialists. Over the next three years, the City of Auburn must build up its economic development capacity,
both in terms of staff and operating budget, in order to execute on these recommended strategies. The ideal staffing
pattern would be an experienced economic developer supported by three economic development specialists (business
development, marketing, and redevelopment) in addition to the tourism coordinator and real estate analyst.
Page 107 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 4
Successful implementation will require not only additional resources but also an evaluation system that will
demonstrate progress and provide feedback to the City about which strategies are working and which must be
strengthened. Below is dashboard of outcome measures that should be tracked over the course of implementation. A
more comprehensive list of metrics and measurement tools can be found on page 51.
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Non-exempt Taxable Value
(per Capita)
Property Tax Base
37%39%38%34%34%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
% Commercial
(Industrial, Retail, Office)
-
100
200
300
400
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Sales Tax Receipts
(per Capita)
The tax base has grown steadily
since 2013.
Commercial Tax Base
The share of the commercial tax
base fell from its 2013 peak.
Retail Sales
Retail sales tax receipts per capita
have climbed steadily.
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
-200,000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
20122013201420152016Net Absorption Vacancy
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Unemployment Rate
(%)
Auburn Washington US
Industrial Market
The vacancy rate rose slightly with
recent negative net absorption.
Office Market
The vacancy rate dropped with positive
net absorption.
New Space Delivery
Over the last two years, little new square
footage has been delivered.
Employment
The number of jobs in the City has
continued to grow.
Wages
The region's wages are climbing
gradually.
Unemployment
The region's unemployment rate is
much lower than in 2012.
25.00 25.88
0
10
20
30
40
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Median Hourly Wages
($)
Source: King County Tax Assessor
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
-50,000
-25,000
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
2012201320142015Net Absorption Vacancy
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
20122013201420152016Office Industrial
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Employment
Source: King County Tax Assessor Source:City of Auburn
Source: CoStar Source: CoStar Source:CoStar
Source: EMSI Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Source:EMSI
Page 108 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 7
INTRODUCTION
The City of Auburn (the City) benefits from a number of advantages including a rich cultural and economic history
and a hard-working, civic-minded community. Auburn takes pride in its unique history while looking to the future.
The annual Veterans Day Parade is an example of the value placed on family, community, and country by the City.
From its origins as a farming community that capitalized on its access to rail, the City has transformed into a center
for industry. The City’s manufacturing sector expanded and includes one of Boeing Commercial Airplanes’ most
essential fabrication sites and the largest airplane parts plant in the world. The community’s commitment to quality
of place is demonstrated by the Auburn Environmental Park (a 200-acre passive open space and educational
facility located one mile west of downtown) and the attention to detail given to civic spaces in recent downtown
redevelopment projects. Nothing could be more emblematic of the community’s focus on its future than Junior
Achievement’s World Learning Center in Auburn, which holds the successful BizTown and Finance Park programs
that serve children around western Washington. The Innovation Partnership Zone further illustrates Auburn’s
forward-thinking approach and demonstrates its focus on economic success through partnerships.
Even with all of its successes, the City understands that the only path to a sustainable, healthy economy is through
good jobs and a diversified economic base. Leaders have seen firsthand what happens when a single concentration
of businesses in one industry is too large. The region boasts one of the country’s largest clusters of distribution
centers, of which the City has historically held a major concentration. These facilities were attracted to the area due
to exceptional highway access and close proximity to two deep-water ports and an international airport. Despite
low employment per building area, relatively low wage jobs, and the strain they place on city transportation
infrastructure, these centers benefited the City because of the large amount of sales tax revenue they generated.
However, in 2008, changes made by the Washington State legislature impacted these revenues. These changes
redefined how the point-of-sale location was determined, moving it away from the distribution point. As a result, the
City found itself facing all of the challenges of the industry without the associated tax revenue.
The City is at a pivotal time in its history. Over the last several years, remarkable development has taken place.
New buildings have emerged and more are planned in and around the authentic downtown, like the recently
completed 126-unit Trek Apartments, the 129-unit Merrill Gardens at Auburn that is currently under construction,
and the 592-unit multifamily and senior housing development called the Reserve. New businesses are building and
expanding in the community, such as Orion Industries’ 100,000 square foot manufacturing facility that employs
265 people. Momentum has been built through hard work from elected leaders, City staff, and visionary business
leaders and investors. With growth from Seattle spilling southward, the City will no doubt continue to see its own
growth accelerate over the next ten years.
With the opportunity to shape its own future in mind, the City of Auburn embarked on a process to develop a ten-year
economic development strategic plan to formalize its economic development program and transform it into a
proactive, entrepreneurial effort. This plan will provide a guide for the City’s economic development activities and
investment over the next decade.
Page 109 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 8
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
To assist in the development of the strategic plan, the City hired a team that included TIP Strategies, Heartland, and the
Retail Coach. The scope of work was comprehensive and ambitious and took place over the course of eleven months.
The pieces of the scope are described below:
Deep dives into the economic context and Auburn’s real estate market fundamentals: This
task required an in-depth analysis of Auburn’s position in the region versus its peer communities from the
standpoint of demographics, schools, housing, job growth, tax rates and fees, and industrial and office markets
(rents, stock, age, and development). The findings from this task painted a clear picture of Auburn’s strengths
and weaknesses within the region.
A regulatory review: A review of the regulatory environment (both policy and process) provided insights
into any constraints to development in Auburn.
A market capacity study: Heartland estimated the square footage of office and industrial space needed to
meet the demand from project job growth and compared this figure to the amount of square footage the
remaining developable land could support. This comparison provides a tool to evaluate whether or not Auburn
can support future job growth.
An analysis of retail opportunities: The Retail Coach defined Auburn’s retail trade areas and analyzed
the demographics and psychographics of these areas to identify potential retailers that would be a good fit for
Auburn. They assisted the City in creating and distributing customized marketing materials to these target
retailers and worked with the City to identify potential sites for interested retailers. Their deliverables provide
tools for the Economic Development Division and community partners to use when recruiting retail. These tools
include demographic profiles for the retail trade areas, an interactive mapping application, and general
instructions on how to use the information to target retailers.
A perception survey: A survey to regional commercial real estate brokers documented the perceptions they
hold about Auburn.
An assessment of Auburn’s competitive positioning: This task assessed Auburn’s relative positioning
based on the top ten factors that are important to corporate site selection and location.
Target industry analysis and profiles: TIP analyzed industry clusters and segments to identify industry
niches to target for business recruitment. Once the categories of industries and specific niches were identified,
detailed profiles were created as a tool for the Economic Development Division as they develop industry
knowledge and position Auburn for success in targeted business recruitment.
A review of key marketing materials: The City’s online presence is the most important tool for the
Economic Development Division to support its outreach activities. TIP evaluated the existing economic
development webpage and made recommendations to improve its effectiveness.
Organizational recommendations: TIP evaluated the City’s capacity to implement the strategic plan and
made recommendations for resources needed from an operational standpoint.
The resulting deliverables are included as supporting documentation and analysis. In addition, the team conducted
extensive public input, reaching more than 200 employers, community and regional leaders, residents, and other
stakeholders. The key findings from both of these exercises are summarized in the next section.
Page 110 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 9
KEY FINDINGS
The key findings below provide the City, the Economic Development Division, and its economic development
partners information about Auburn’s competitive positioning—from both a business attraction and a development
standpoint. It also identifies major constraints or barriers to economic development as well as key opportunities.
Demographics. The City of Auburn has been growing rapidly, adding almost 18,000 new residents over the last
ten years. According to Esri, a leading data provider, the population of Auburn is expected to reach almost 85,000
residents by 2020. With a median age of 33.5 years old, Auburn’s population is relatively young and the senior
(age 65+) is smaller than many of its peers in the region. However, Auburn’s population has lower educational
attainment levels than many of its regional peers and has lower median household incomes.
Workforce. More than 37,000 residents are part of Auburn’s labor force. However, Auburn-based employers draw
labor from a large area that extends across densely populated areas of the Seattle-Tacoma region. In fact, more than
35,000 workers commute into Auburn each day for work while more than 25,000 workers leave Auburn for jobs outside
of the city limits. Auburn’s position within the region and its access to labor is one of its greatest strengths from a business
attraction standpoint. Within a 45-minute drive time, there are an estimated 1.5 million workers.
Economy. Auburn has a diverse economic base with notably strong manufacturing and retail sectors. Auburn’s
employment base grew by more than 6,500 jobs (14 percent) between 2010 and 2015 and is projected to add
another 6,400 over the next ten years. Though Auburn’s manufacturing sector remains strong, the sector’s outlook is
largely dependent upon Boeing specifically and the aerospace industry more generally.
Tax Base. Sales tax and property tax revenues account for more than two-thirds of the City’s sources of funds. This
structure highlights the importance of a robust retail sector and a healthy commercial tax base. Motor vehicle sales
are a vital part of the City’s retail tax revenue. Industrial uses, aerospace-related being one of the largest, are the
most prominent segments of the commercial tax base. The City’s dependence on motor vehicle sales and aerospace
could leave the City’s revenue at-risk in light of current trends in these two industries.
Quality of Place. Auburn is fortunate to have a strong and improving school district and Green River College to
provide educational opportunities and workforce training. Relatively low and declining crime rates and a wide
array of recreational and entertainment amenities support a high quality of life. Downtown Auburn is one of the
City’s most unique and distinguishing features. Although conditions in the downtown have improved greatly over the
last few years, much opportunity remains. The state of Auburn Way South, as one of the main perception corridors
in the City, is an area with great potential and in need of significant enhancement. The issue of homelessness
remains a problem both in Auburn and in the greater region.
Real Estate Market & Product. Auburn is a regional industrial center with a large stock of space 20 to 30
years old. Auburn’s industrial rents are the third highest in the South Sound subregion and its vacancy rate is one of
the lowest. Its office market is relatively small and most of the square footage was built before 1990, but its vacancy
rate is one of the lowest and its rents are about average for its peer group. Auburn’s low vacancy rates and lack of
available buildings are its major constraints to job growth and economic diversification.
Regulatory Environment. Auburn’s regulatory environment was found to be comparable to its peer
communities. Permitted uses are generally flexible. Height is prescriptive and massing is flexible for most zoning
Page 111 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 10
categories. Parking requirements are comparable to peers. The development process is relatively predictable and
responsive. Auburn’s fee structure makes it “average” in terms of the cost of doing business.
Market Capacity. Auburn’s developable lands that are zoned for industrial and office uses are adequate to
support Auburn’s projected job growth over the next ten years. Opportunities for growth include the redevelopment
of Valley 6 and the GSA Property as well as further development in Downtown Auburn and around the airport. The
conversion of warehouse space to manufacturing represents another opportunity for strengthening and diversifying
the tax base.
Retail Market. Auburn’s primary retail trade area, which is the draw area for the “everyday shopper,” has a
population of 169,377 with median household incomes of more than $70,000. Auburn’s retail trade area, which is the
draw area for its destination retailers such as those at the Outlet Collection, has a population of 525,778 with median
household incomes of about $68,000. The most significant areas of retail leakage were food and beverage stores,
foodservice and drinking places, building material and garden equipment stores, and general merchandise stores.
Site Selection Competitiveness. Auburn is fortunate to be in a region that is known for being a magnet for
world-class talent and companies. This regional strength can put Auburn on the list in the competition for business
recruitment. Within the Seattle-Tacoma region, Auburn stands out for its central location, access to labor, and
quality of life. The City’s willingness and creativity in offering business assistance is another strength. The lack of
available buildings and sites is Auburn’s primary constraint.
Broker & Developer Perception. Among the more than 50 brokers who participated in an online survey, their
perception of Auburn is more negative than their perception of regional peers. Respondents’ perception of Auburn’s
business climate is more negative than other South Sound peers. In addition, respondents ranked the likelihood of
clients considering Auburn for projects as lower than its peers. Among developers interviewed, there was more
awareness of opportunities to invest in Auburn and the developers held a more favorable perception of Auburn’s
business climate. Promoting a more positive perception of Auburn and making sure brokers and developers in the
region are aware of Auburn’s value proposition is a significant opportunity.
Target Industry Analysis. Auburn’s greatest opportunities for business expansion and attraction are still related
to manufacturing and warehousing. Within these sectors, there are opportunities to expand and diversify into new
or growing areas. In manufacturing, Auburn has a robust supply chain that supports the aerospace sector. These
specializations and capabilities can support a wide range of innovative manufacturers. Auburn has the elements to
become a regional hub for innovative “makers”, but must work to build its reputation in this regard. Auburn is the
heart of the regional distribution network. While warehousing uses are the dominant use currently, there is an
opportunity for Auburn to deliberately grow its base of employers that support transportation and warehousing such
as third-party logistics providers, wholesale trade agents and brokers, and transportation arrangement. The City’s
desire to increase its base of office-using businesses will require a degree of “market-making” as Auburn has a very
small existing office market. The Sounder Station and the associated Transit-Oriented Development as well as the
future redevelopment of the Valley 6 Drive-In are Auburn’s key office opportunities. Finally, targeting retailers and
restaurants will continue to be an opportunity for Auburn and an important component of diversifying and growing
Auburn’s tax base. Retail recruitment will also play a vital role in the revitalization of Downtown and Auburn Way
South and in enhancing Auburn’s quality of place, in general.
Page 112 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 11
Marketing Tools. Websites are the single most important marketing and outreach tool in economic development.
The City of Auburn’s primary online presence for economic development is through www.auburnwa.gov. The
Economic Development Division is under the “Doing Business” section and reflects the consistent look and feel of the
City’s website. While most all of the useful elements of an economic development website are there
in www.auburnwa.gov/doing_business/economic_development.htm, it is difficult to find certain key information or
requires many clicks to find it. Reorganizing and optimizing the City’s economic development online presence will
improve the effectiveness of Auburn’s economic development marketing and outreach efforts.
Organizational Capacity. The City of Auburn’s Economic Development Division is a division of the
Administration Department and is staffed by an economic development manager with a part-time contractor.
Recently, a real estate analyst was transferred from Facilities to the Economic Development Division and a part-time
tourism coordinator has been hired to support tourism promotion. This lean division is supported by many
contributions of other departments, most directly by the Community Development and Public Works Department and
the Finance Department. Under this current organizational structure, the City does not have excess capacity to
implement a strategic plan or staff a proactive, entrepreneurial economic development initiative. Many peer cities
both inside and outside of the region staff their departments with three to four economic development professionals
or specialists and additional administrative support as needed.
THE RESPONSE
The City’s decision to develop and adopt a ten-year economic development strategic plan speaks to its
acknowledgement that shaping Auburn’s future requires a formalized economic development program. Such
programs have systematic processes for generating leads, managing prospects and projects, and providing a clear
set of value-added services. Leads are generated through marketing and outreach efforts, and relationship
management is an essential building block of a high-quality lead generation network. Leads are converted to
prospects and projects through effective sales, and the depth of knowledge from the findings of this body of work
informs and enhances the economic development team’s ability to articulate Auburn’s value proposition. In addition,
forward-looking economic development programs build in mechanisms for identifying transformative projects that, if
realized, would attract additional private investment to the City. Finally, the most successful programs recognize that
strong partnerships greatly increase the impact and reach of their programs. All of these aspects of economic
development programs are grouped into the strategic plan’s first focus area: Delivery.
Sales and marketing of any kind requires a clearly defined “product.” In economic development, the “product” is the
real estate as well as the assets, amenities, business climate, and other factors that influence the attractiveness of the
real estate. Auburn’s greatest strength is its access to a large labor pool. The City can make sure that its workforce
strengths are documented and packaged well as a means of product enhancement. One of Auburn’s primary
constraints is the lack of available buildings and sites that are “deal-ready.” This constraint is notable because
businesses cannot expand or locate where there are no appropriate sites. Generating leads is futile if there is not
suitable real estate. Auburn’s business and regulatory climate is not a constraint, but there are a few changes and
enhancements that could make it even better. Auburn can directly influence its supply of available sites and buildings
and can ensure that its business climate is competitive and supportive of responsible business growth. Strategies
related to product enhancement and development are grouped into the plan’s second focus area: Product.
Page 113 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 12
Quality of place is important to both business and talent retention and attraction. A community’s assets and amenities
are central to its quality of place and define the community’s character. A programmatic process for defining target
areas and making strategic investments can have a transformative impact on a community’s quality of place.
Downtown Auburn and Auburn Way South are the two areas that stakeholders prioritized for investment. Better
connecting these and other assets can be a way of building critical mass that can propel Auburn to the tipping point.
Strategies pertaining to enhancing Auburn’s quality of place are grouped into the third focus area: Place.
A clear barrier to Auburn’s success that came across through stakeholder input is the perception that internal and
external audiences hold of the City. This perception can be influenced through branding, consistent messaging, as
well as social media and public relations campaigns. More targeted outreach is needed to change perceptions and
build awareness of Auburn among the regional real estate community and companies in the target sectors.
Strategies to change this perception and reach target audiences are grouped in the fourth focus area: Messaging.
These four focus areas define the structure of the plan. Each area was chosen for its potential contribution to moving
Auburn forward towards its vision for the future. Each area also directly addresses an existing barrier to economic
development and positions Auburn for future success.
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK: FOCUS AREAS
1. Delivery: A comprehensive service delivery system that actively identifies and advances
economic development opportunities in Auburn
2. Product: An inventory of sites, a business climate, and a physical environment that foster
business growth and ensure a resilient employment base
3. Place: Attractive gateways, impression corridors, and destinations that define the character
of Auburn
4. Messaging: A coordinated marketing and branding campaign that elevates Auburn’s
reputation among internal and external audiences
THE REPORT
On the following pages, we define discuss Auburn’s economic development vision. Then, we present each focus
area with the strategies, actions, projects, and partnerships that support it. After discussing the recommended
strategies, we propose responsible parties and a timeline for implementation as well as an organizational structure
and resource plan for the City to expand its capacity dedicated to economic development.
The detailed findings and deliverables associated with each task in the scope of work are contained in a separate
report of supporting documentation and analysis. Within this section of appendices are additional implementation
tools to support the economic development team, such as strategic considerations in the target industry profiles and
retail market analysis. There is also additional information that can and should inform how the economic
development team positions Auburn in its marketing and outreach activities. The wealth of information contained in
these pages should be a valuable resource to the implementation team.
Page 114 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 13
VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES
A clear vision and guiding principles provide an overarching direction for strategic plans. In 2015, Auburn set out a
vision for itself in the Comprehensive Plan. This vision was established through the Imagine Auburn visioning exercise
and developed in the context of the Washington State Growth Management Act, King and Pierce County Planning
Policies, and the Puget Sound Regional Council’s VISION 2040.
The vision that emerged was:
“In 2035, Auburn is a city of connected and cherished places, from a vibrant downtown to quiet
open spaces and everything in between, where a community of healthy, diverse, and engaged
people live, work, visit, and thrive.”
Along with this statement, the Comprehensive Plan set out a series of values that encapsulated the vision and formed
an evaluation and decision-making framework for future city policies, regulations, initiatives, and investments. Each
of these values is defined in detail in the Comprehensive Plan, which provides a very useful reference point for this
economic development strategic plan. The value and vision from the Comprehensive Plan provides a clear guide for
economic development activities over the next ten years and beyond.
Auburn’s seven value statements are:
1. Character. Developing and preserving attractive and interesting places where people want to be.
2. Wellness. Promoting community-wide health and safety wellness.
3. Service. Providing transparent government service.
4. Economy. Encouraging a diverse and thriving marketplace for consumers and businesses.
5. Celebration. Celebrating our diverse cultures, heritage, and community.
6. Environment. Stewarding our environment.
7. Sustainability. Creating a sustainable future for our community.
In addition to these value statements, the “Economy” value statement and description is further fleshed out with the
articulation of a vision statement in the economic development element of the Comprehensive Plan. This vision
statement is:
“Auburn is a community that has a robust and diverse economy where businesses seek to locate, people desire to
visit, and residents enjoy a range of commercial offerings. Businesses that locate in Auburn find it easy to enter the
marketplace, encounter ideal conditions for their long-term success, and become rooted and involved in the
community. Visitors continue to return to Auburn because of its high-quality natural resources, parks, public spaces,
and commercial attractions. Residents choose to live in Auburn because of the diverse, family wage employment
opportunities and access to entertainment, restaurant, retail and services.”
The vision above paints a picture of a vibrant commercial, employment, entertainment, and recreation center that
has a regional draw. It is a magnet for businesses, talent, and visitors due to its high quality of place, diverse
employment opportunities, and various entertainment and recreation options.
Page 115 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 14
It is with this vision and values in mind that the strategic planning process of Auburn’s ten-year economic
development plan was defined. The process was driven by the understanding that achieving Auburn’s vision will
take a deliberate, sustained, and strategic approach to economic development.
This planning effort builds off the Imagine Auburn initiative by adopting a simplified economic development vision
and guiding principles that are consistent with the overarching vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan, but
narrower in scope and specific to this planning effort. This statement and principles will guide the economic
development strategy and will help the City articulate its competitive advantages and its intentions. The framework
that encompasses the City’s economic development approach is presented below.
VISION
Auburn is the City that Works
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1. A vibrant, connected, healthy community for residents to live, visitors to enjoy, and businesses to thrive
2. A robust, diverse employment base that provides good economic opportunities for residents and supports
high-quality city services
3. A strong educational system that prepares residents with skills that Auburn-based employers seek
This simplified economic development vision is an acknowledgement of Auburn’s heritage as an agricultural and
manufacturing center and to the strong work ethic of its residents. It also speaks to the City’s willingness to partner
with the private sector to achieve its vision. The guiding principles define the City’s goals for its community,
employment base, and educational system. The goal for the community is to be vibrant, connected, and healthy, in
terms of both its residents and its physical environment. The employment base is to be diverse, resilient, and
sustainable, supporting both current and future residents of Auburn. The educational system is aligned with
employers’ needs, with a strong workforce development component and a K-12 system that prepares students with
21st Century skills. This vision and these guiding principles form the foundation of Auburn’s Ten-Year Economic
Development Strategic Plan.
Page 116 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 15
A comprehensive service delivery system that actively identifies and advances
economic development opportunities in Auburn
Auburn is fortunate to be in the path of growth, and,
in the past years, the City has successfully set the
stage for increased investment. As a result, the interest
in and momentum around Auburn have been
increasing and continue to build.
In 2014, Auburn’s population was almost 76,000. By
2020, Esri, a leading demographic data provider,
estimates that Auburn’s population will be nearly
85,000. With the cost of housing continuing to climb
throughout the Seattle region, Auburn and its South
Sound peers will likely see population growth
accelerate even more than these conservative
projections predict.
Currently, the City is a net importer of labor with more
workers commuting to Auburn for jobs each day than
leaving. As new residents move into the community,
Auburn’s economic development activities will
influence whether there are job opportunities for these
new residents in Auburn or whether they will commute
outside the city limits for work.
According to EMSI, a leading economic and labor
market data provider, the City is projected to add
over 6,400 jobs over the next 10 years. This number
is also likely conservative. The actual number and composition of jobs could change dramatically with a targeted,
entrepreneurial economic development program.
The City’s current economic development resources and structure allow the City to be responsive to opportunities
that come its way. It has a proven track record of dedication and creativity that has yielded impressive results to
date. However, the current program does not provide the capacity needed for the City to be proactive in seeking
out the opportunities that it wants. To transform Auburn’s economic development delivery system to be both
responsive and proactive, the City will need to augment its program with additional resources and stronger
partnerships. This will position the City to better support the attraction, formation, retention, and expansion of
businesses that form the economic backbone of the community and provide more and better economic opportunities
for Auburn residents.
DELIVERY FOCUS AREA 1.
PRIORITY PROJECTS
New & Improved Website (1.1)
Structure for Identifying and Realizing Catalyst
Projects (1.4)
FIGURE 1. CITY OF AUBURN, WA
ANNUAL ESTIMATES JULY 1 OF EACH YEAR
Source: The Washington State Office of Financial Management,
Forecasting and Research Division. Projections via Esri.
47.5
75.5
84.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152020THOUSANDSPage 117 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 16
1.1. Value-Added Services. Clearly define the services that the City of Auburn provides to businesses both
directly and through partnerships. The list below lays out the value-added services that the City and its
partners can or do provide existing businesses and businesses looking to relocate to Auburn. The City’s
economic development webpage should be organized around these areas. (See Appendix G for more
recommendations on the website)
Value-Added Service Area Supporting Actions
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE:
Activities include: site selection,
development services, incentives
1.1.1. Utilize the IPZ Taskforce as TEAM AUBURN to help
sell Auburn to prospects. Organize regular meetings
of these team members to keep them informed of the
prospect pipeline, meetings with prospects, and
potential recruitment trips. Educate the team members
on Auburn’s value proposition and the associated
messaging to present a unified voice to prospects.
1.1.2. Continue to assist prospects in finding suitable sites,
navigating the development process in Auburn, and
securing available incentives from local and state
sources
SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE:
Activities include: incubator
management, 3No Networking,
workshops and technical assistance,
access to capital
1.1.3. Launch and manage a business incubator
1.1.4. Continue to organize weekly 3No Networking at
Auburn-based businesses
1.1.5. Continue to partner with the Small Business
Assistance Center at Green River College on
technical assistance and workshops for small
businesses
1.1.6. Establish partnerships with area SBA lenders,
community development financial institutions, and
other nonprofit microlenders to provide better access to
capital for businesses that do not qualify for bank
financing
1.1.7. Assemble a list of revolving loan funds and other
financing resources that are available to Auburn-
based businesses (a good start can be found here:
http://www.oria.wa.gov/?pageid=737)
Page 118 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 17
Value-Added Service Area Supporting Actions
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT:
Activities include: custom training, talent
pipeline partnerships
1.1.8. Continue to partner with Green River College and
WorkSource to provide customized training
1.1.9. Strengthen the partnership between Auburn Public
Schools, Green River College, and Auburn’s
business community by organizing industry sector
partnerships that explore workforce demand, critical
occupations, and available curricula
INFORMATION RESOURCES AND
PUBLICATIONS:
Activities include: demographic and
economic data, real estate market
information, retail trade area data,
supplier database, investment
opportunities
1.1.10. Maintain a catalog of information and resources
relevant to economic development on the City’s
webpage
1.1.11. Employ data such as CoStar, the King County
Assessor database, and City-managed development
tracking datasets to establish systems that regularly
collect and visualize market trends, including new
development, asking rents, vacancy rates,
absorption, sales activity, and sales and leasing
activity.Update and review this data at least
quarterly and distribute the findings to stakeholders
as part of the effort to espouse “Why Auburn” to the
regional real estate community
1.1.12. Update retail trade area data on an annual basis
and make this accessible to stakeholders and
partners electronically
1.1.13. Provide profiles on the City’s target investment areas
(See Strategy 3.1). These should include a map,
basic information, public investment projects, as well
as resources and tools available for private projects
1.2. Local Business Visitation. Formalize a business visitation program in partnership with the Chamber of
Commerce to track trends among Auburn employers and identify any businesses in need of assistance
1.2.1. Establish a visitation protocol, a list of information to be collected during each visit, and set a goal
how many businesses each year. Visiting four to eight businesses each month is a reasonable goal
that would allow the City to reach a critical mass of employers.
1.2.2. Create a database of Auburn-based employers with the City’s business license database, paying
particular attention to the inclusion of employers in key economic drivers (business & professional
services, manufacturing, healthcare, distribution)
Page 119 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 18
1.2.3. Using CoStar or other sources, identify
employers who have leases that will be
expiring in the next two or three years to
be prioritized for visitations
1.2.4. Maintain detailed notes on visits in the
economic development project database
to document the relationship over time
1.2.5. Compile information collected from visits
to track trends among employers and
distribute these findings to stakeholders,
such as local and regional economic
development partners, the mayor, the city
council, and city department heads, in an
annual report and presentation
1.3. Business Recruitment. Recruit new businesses,
including retail, to Auburn to provide better
economic opportunities and enhance Auburn’s
quality of place
1.3.1. Strengthen relationships with brokers,
developers, and industry associations in
the metro area and create an education
outreach program targeted to these
groups to ensure that Auburn stays top of
mind for business relocation. NAIOP
(Commercial Real Estate Development
Association), International Council of
Shopping Centers (ICSC), and Urban
Land Institute (ULI) are important
organizations in which to be actively
involved. In addition, industry
associations, such as the Pacific
Northwest Aerospace Alliance, the
Aerospace Futures Alliance and the
Center for Advanced Manufacturing
Puget Sound, are also good vehicles for
cultivating strong relationships.
1.3.2. Cultivate strong partnerships with the
Economic Development Council of Seattle
& King County, the Economic
RETAIL RECRUITMENT
Retail recruitment will be an important part of Auburn’s business
attraction activities. An expanded and more robust retail sector
not only generates sales tax for the City but also augments the
City’s quality of place by providing additional amenities. Thus,
retail recruitment reinforces the City’s efforts to diversify the tax
base, attract new employers and residents, as well as revitalize
target areas such as downtown and Auburn Way South.
As part of this strategic planning process, the Retail Coach
(TRC) defined Auburn’s primary retail trade area and retail
trade area. For each area, TRC summarized key
demographic characteristics, examined the retail
opportunities, and established the major psychographic
profiles. These analyses are provided both online and in
Appendix C.
TRC then identified target retailers, created custom retailer
feasibility packages for each retailer, and sent these
packages to the real estate departments of each of the
retailers. Any leads that came about from this outreach were
referred to the City’s Economic Development Office.
In addition, TRC created retail market profiles that the City
and its partners can use to reach out to additional retailers.
Finally, TRC made recommendations on how the City can
best approach retail recruitment:
1. Continue to focus on the recruitment of developers, as
they tend to drive much of the retail development in
Washington.
2. Attend ICSC RECON every year as well as ICSC regional
events taking place in Washington, Oregon, and
California throughout the year.
3. Sell Auburn to retailers and developers as a Primary Trade
Area population of 169,377 and not as a community
population. For those larger and destination retailers, use the
Retail Trade Area population of 525,778.
4. Continue to use the Cell Phone Shopper Analysis as a tool to
combat retailers’ perceptions of store spacing issues.
5. Build awareness of Auburn among national retailers by
advertising in publications such as the Dallas Business
Journal, New York Business Journal, Shopping Centers
Today, etc.
6. Maintain awareness of retail incentives being offered by
other communities in the region and consider using
similar incentives sparingly in cases that would
significantly expand the retail trade area or generate a
great deal of new tax revenue.
Page 120 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 19
Development Board for Tacoma-Pierce County, the Washington State Department of Commerce, the
Port of Seattle, the Northwest Seaport Alliance, the Greater Seattle Trade Development Alliance,
and Challenge Seattle to identify co-marketing opportunities and joint trade missions in order to
strengthen Auburn’s lead generation network
1.3.3. Join the coalition of local governments and organizations that represent the communities of the
greater South Sound region (from Des Moines south to Olympia). This effort is in the process of
being formed and will be centered on growing the South Sound economy and addressing unique
economic challenges and opportunities
1.3.4. During business visitations (see Strategy 1.2), ensure that Auburn-based businesses are aware of
the value-added services that the City provides and have information on the different economic
development initiatives. This group of business leaders can serve as an indirect salesforce (e.g. they
can generate leads among their peers) if they are saying positive things about Auburn’s business
climate and economic development opportunities
1.3.5. Cultivate relationships among promising young companies across the metro who are currently
involved in incubator or accelerator programs. Market Auburn as an inviting “landing pad” where
they can grow in a supportive environment that is well-located, accessible, and affordable
1.3.6. Actively prospect among companies in target industries (See Appendix F)
1.4. Catalyst Projects. Identify and advance catalyst projects that will facilitate Auburn’s evolution
1.4.1. Work with city council and department heads to identify and prioritize potential catalyst projects,
ensuring that the projects also align with all department activities. The Livable City Year provides
an opportunity to vet projects in 2016-17 and can be a starting point for this project list
1.4.2. Hold quarterly work sessions with this group to learn from guest speakers about what other
communities are doing and to brainstorm what Auburn could do. Guests could include staff from
other cities, urban planners, or economic developers that could share their experiences with the
group
1.4.3. From the project list generated in the quarterly sessions, prioritize projects based on feasibility,
expense, time frame, impact, and alignment with Auburn’s focus areas
1.4.4. For the two or three top ranked projects, attain formal approval from department heads and the city
council to move them forward
1.4.5. Create project teams for each approved project of three to five individuals responsible for
implementation
1.4.6. Maintain a tool that tracks progress on project implementation, and report progress and outcomes
at the quarterly meetings
1.4.7. Build awareness of these projects and report the successful implementatation of any projects
through the public relations campaign (See Strategy 4.4)
Page 121 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 20
1.5. Strategic Relationships. Foster relationships with key entities that support economic activity in the City.
These include:
1.5.1. Puget Sound Energy: Energy availability and cost to deliver are common questions from
businesses looking to locate in an area. The City should be able to connect prospective businesses
with the appropriate PSE staffer to have questions quickly addressed. The City should be aware of
planned improvements to the system
1.5.2. Muckleshoot Tribe: The Tribe is a major property owner in the City and has shared its
economic development goals. The City should work together with the Tribe to ensure that planning
activities with overlapping interests are cooperatively discussed and considered
1.5.3. Port of Seattle: As part of the Port’s Century Agenda, it is seeking to help add 100,000 jobs in
the next 100 years. To do this, it has stated an interest in assisting cities with unlocking industrial
property and positioning it for redevelopment. Land around the airport and in northwest Auburn
that is challenged with wetlands may be opportunity areas
1.5.4. King County: Work with the County on improving the stormwater function in the area west of SR
167
1.5.5. Army Corps of Engineers: Establishing a working relationship with the ACE regarding wetland
delineation and mitigation strategies is important for proactively assisting developers seeking to
improve land with wetlands. The early involvement of the ACE should improve permitting efficiency
1.5.6. Transportation: Engage with agencies that support multimodal transportation infrastructure
including PSRC, Sound Transit, King County Metro, and Pierce Transit. The City should continue to
advocate for funding to support transportation improvements
Page 122 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 21
An inventory of sites, a business climate, and a physical environment that foster
business growth and ensure a resilient employment base
Economic development takes place in a competitive
environment. This competition often starts on a global scale
and continues down to specific sites as companies filter out
possibilities based on their operational needs. Area
Development’s 2015 Survey of Corporate Executives ranked
respondents’ top site selection criteria. The top ten criteria
are presented in Figure 2.
Auburn’s primary strength, and the strength of the South
Sound region, is its access to skilled labor. In the 145 zip
codes that are within about a 45-minute drive of Auburn,
there are 1.5 million workers. Over 800,000 of these
workers fall into the “middle skills” segment of workers. In
fact, Auburn has very good access to hard-to-find skillsets such
as customer service representatives, truck drivers, registered
nurses, maintenance and repair workers, and various types of
technicians that support manufacturing operations.
Auburn’s primary constraint is the availability of sites and
buildings with vacancy. This constraint is important because
a community’s inventory of sites and buildings determines
whether or not it can enter into the competition for business
investment.
The majority of the other site selection factors distinguish
regions across the country from one another. In that regard,
Auburn is fortunate to be located in a region that is a
magnet for talent and investment, which provides it with an
advantage over communities of similar size in less
competitive regions.
Within the Seattle–Tacoma Metro area, the competition to
attract businesses is stiff, and communities must differentiate
themselves to standout from their peers. At this level, local
incentives, business climate, available amenities, reputation,
and relationships often play a large role in determining where
a project lands. With a concentrated effort to make
enhancements in each of these areas, Auburn can significantly
improve its competitive positioning among its regional peers.
PRODUCT FOCUS AREA 2.
PRIORITY PROJECTS
Labor Profile (2.1)
Deal-Ready Site Inventory (2.2)
FIGURE 2. TOP SITE SELECTION FACTORS
FIRST QUARTER 2016
FACTOR
AUBURN
RATING
1. Availability of skilled labor ●
2. Highway accessibility ◐
3. Quality of life ◐
4. Occupancy or construction
costs (Seattle MSA) ◕
5. Available buildings ◔
6. Labor costs (Seattle MSA) ◔
7. Corporate tax rate ◐
8. Proximity to major markets ●
9. State and local incentives ◐
10. Energy availability and costs ◐
Scale: ● = Excellent; ◌ = Poor
Source: Area Development’s Survey of Corporate Executives,
TIP Strategies Research.
Page 123 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 22
2.1. Labor Market Information. Design and maintain information resources that demonstrate Auburn’s
strength in terms of its access to skilled labor
2.1.1. Maintain up-to-date labor market information on Auburn and its laborshed and make this
information available on the economic development website as well as in a report format. This
information can be obtained through paid data sources such as EMSI or from free sources such as
the Employment Security Department, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Census Bureau’s On
the Map application
2.1.2. For target industries, create profiles that highlight the availability of relevant occupations as well as
training programs and other workforce
development resources
2.2. Deal-Ready Sites. Ensure a supply of deal-
ready sites to accommodate new business
investment in Auburn
2.2.1. Maintain an inventory of Auburn’s most
important parcels and sites – those with
high-impact development or
redevelopment potential or that are
located in strategic areas.
2.2.2. Among the eight sub-areas identified in
the Comprehensive Plan, focus on the
airport area, Emerald Downs, the GSA
Property, and Northwest Auburn as key
planning areas with high commercial
development potential. Appendix F
details industries that would be a good
fit for Auburn and how Auburn and
these planning areas should be
positioned to attract these industries
2.2.3. Work with relevant land owners or
brokers to package these sites with
highly informative information packets
(electronic) (see Site Packaging to the
right) and actively promote these sites to
prospective businesses and regional
brokers
2.2.4. Encourage the land owner and broker to
list the site on the City’s inventory of
buildings and sites
SITE PACKAGING
In the past five years, there has been a proliferation of
site certification programs across the US. To be
certified, landowners collect vital information and
conduct some of the preliminary studies necessary for
site development. While the mechanics of these
programs vary widely from place to place, the primary
value of the certification programs is the depth of
information available on these key sites. An inventory
of sites with this kind of information available can
provide a community an edge over competition.
Below is a list of the information that should be
collected on key sites, to the extent that it is available:
Ownership status
Description of parcel(s), including current uses,
zoning, special zones, and current assessment
information
Boundary survey
Phase I environment audit/assessment
Geo-technical studies
Topographical analysis and maps
Aerial photography
Engineered site development plans
Detailed analysis of site development cost
Complete information on pricing
Utility services, including types of services and
name of providers
Industrial power quality
Transportation access
Page 124 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 23
2.2.5. Meet with institutional investors and owners of underperforming properties to make the case for
additional investment to increase their yields
2.2.6. Facilitate the conversion of industrial buildings that are currently used for warehousing and
distribution to manufacturing or other sales tax generating uses by identifying and tracking
conversion opportunities based on:
Physical building characteristics;
Current ownership (proactive outreach to understand motivations and offer support);
Current tenancy;
Anticipated utility undergrounding requirements; and
Whether land area can support a manufacturing parking ratio
FIGURE 3. INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Page 125 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 24
2.2.7. Work with land owners to facilitate conversion opportunities, redevelopment of high-potential parcels, or
the assembly of multiple parcels by addressing barriers where possible and connect them with local
developers and real estate investors who seek these kinds of opportunities
2.2.8. Maintain a database, as part of the economic development project database, of all known
businesses seeking additional space in the region to make connections with property owners in
Auburn as space becomes available
2.2.9. Work with the ACE and King County to identify and implement strategies that may unlock
wetland/storm water impaired areas of the City where appropriate.
2.2.10. Evaluate the feasibility of annexing some or all of the areas adjacent to the City that are in
unincorporated King County as a means of improving Auburn’s commercial land base. Two of the
three areas highlighted in Figure 3 are located within the urban growth area (UGA), and one is
located outside the UGA.
2.3. Economic Development Toolbox. Create a robust toolbox to influence economic development outcomes
2.3.1. Catalog all tools available. The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) has a good
database: http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Economic-Development/Financing-Economic-
Development/Funding-Sources-for-Economic-Development-Financial.aspx. For each tool, summarize how
it works and how can be used
2.3.2. Consider and evaluate the feasibility of the following programs:
As part of the pending 2017/2018 DUC code updates, the permitting of taller buildings that
could provide structured parking in the building podium and improve the likelihood of project
feasibility
A property tax abatement program similar to the Multifamily Tax Exemption for properties
looking to convert existing warehouses to manufacturing uses. This would need to be piloted
with approval from the State Legislature
A Landscape Conservation and Local Infrastructure Program (LCLIP), which allows the City to
access County property tax revenues to support needed infrastructure improvements
Public Development Authorities (PDA) for areas such as the airport that may leverage revenue
bonds.
New Market Tax Credits (NMTC) for commercial projects (nmtccoalition.org)
Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) grants for transportation projects
2.3.3. Collect examples of communities who use these tools in an innovative way to support projects that
advance their economic development goals and share these with relevant City stakeholders
2.3.4. Ensure that city council and City staff are well-informed of the type and use of financing tools
available to municipalities
Page 126 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 25
2.3.5. Establish a policy that sets out the City’s
goals for the use of these various tools as
well as a process and framework for
evaluating projects
2.3.6. Adopt the guideline for effective and
responsible incentives use (See guidelines
listed in call-out)
2.3.7. Adopt a comprehensive fiscal and
economic impact tool to measure the
return on investment for projects being
evaluated. Impact Datasource or
InformAnalytics are two examples
2.3.8. Create content for the City’s website and
for brochures that allows owners and
developers to understand the tools and
programs that may be available for their
project and how it relates to their pro forma
2.3.9. Develop a clear flowchart that establishes
the process that owners and developers
will need to follow to obtain assistance in
order to set realistic expectations
2.4. Continuous Process Improvement. Evaluate
and continue to improve the City’s land use and
building permit process and performance. Projects
that require key decisions from multiple departments
have reportedly been slowed by an inefficient
decision making process. To address this:
2.4.1. Continue to employ the permitting
performance tracking system to understand
performance. This should track the progress of a permit and allow the applicant to know in real
time which department(s) are reviewing the permit and when a decision is to be made.
2.4.2. Develop a regular report based on information from the tracking system that allows the
development community and city staff to understand how efficiently permits are being processed.
2.4.3. Create a map-based report with supporting tables that tracks all major commercial developments in
the City including new construction and major renovations. This should be updated quarterly and
be made available to the public.
GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE AND
RESPONSIBLE INCENTIVE USE
Incentives should be aligned with the city’s economic
development goals.
Upfront data and analysis can reduce risk and
improve outcomes.
Due diligence that includes background research
on applicants and business case analysis for
projects seeking major discretionary incentives
help communities make good decisions.
Evaluating project attributes relative to economic
development goals and quantifying fiscal and
economic impacts of proposed investments
enable economic development organizations to
determine whether projects can generate net
benefits for the community.
Good analysis can help explain and build
support for decisions.
Define performance requirements and monitor
compliance with performance agreements to assess
whether project milestones were reached.
Be prepared to report on who is receiving
incentives, how much is being spent, and the results
of that spending.
Establish policies to protect the community in the
case of non-performance.
Regularly (every three to five years) evaluate the city’s
portfolio of incentives to understand which programs
are most helpful in achieving economic development
goals.
Source: www.smartincentives.org.
Page 127 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 26
2.4.4. Consider reviewing the fee structure associated with permit reviews. Currently the fee covers three
review iterations. A stepped fee structure that increases with each review would create an incentive
for the applicants to thoroughly incorporate code requirements prior to plan submittal.
2.4.5. Establish precedents log that may be used for future staff to reference how certain situations that
share similar conditions were addressed previously. This would create a mechanism to retain
institutional knowledge and serve as reference for staff to provide developers and their design team
with a clearer idea as to how react to its proposal.. This should track the progress of a permit and
allow the applicant to know in real time which department(s) are reviewing the permit and when a
decision is to be made.
2.5. Zoning Modification. Reevaluate zoning districts and modify certain aspects of the code
2.5.1. Expand the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zoning district to include the logical adjacent areas. To
enact this change, cooperation with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) will be necessary.
2.5.2. Consider zoning modifications related to height and parking discussed in Appendix B to improve
project feasibility
2.5.3. Add flexibility to the industrial land use code to allow for more yard storage and permitted uses
such as building contractors in districts that are currently more restrictive. Such added flexibility
could better support desirable business activity without undermining the intent of the original
restriction. See Appendix B for more information
2.5.4. Consider an overlay on the Landing Field (LF) zone and adjacent commercial properties to permit
airside supportive land uses around the airport
2.6. Cost Comparison. Annually compare Auburn’s development/impact fees, tax rates, and rebate programs
to peers
2.6.1. Conduct research on regional peers to identify any rate changes or fee changes and record in a
business climate database, which can be created with information from this strategic plan
2.6.2. Document any significant changes and distribute a summary report to relevant department heads
2.6.3. Work collectively to resolve any issues revealed by this research exercise
2.6.4. Publicize the areas where Auburn stands out among its peer group to the regional real estate
community
Page 128 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 27
Attractive gateways, impression corridors, and destinations that define the character
of Auburn
Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan designated special
planning areas—districts, sub-areas, impression corridors,
and gateways—because they warrant additional
emphasis in planning, investments, and policy
development. Prioritizing the underperforming special
planning areas for additional investment and coordinating these investments with other economic development
activities can hasten the transformation of these areas into community assets. Together, these areas define rich
character areas in Auburn and play a large role in shaping people’s perceptions of the City.
Auburn is also fortunate to have an array of destinations that draw visitors to Auburn from across the region,
including an authentic downtown and a number of different recreational amenities. The map in Figure 4 lists the
various assets and amenities. These regional amenities enhance the quality of life of Auburn residents and attract
visitors to Auburn.
However, many of these special planning areas and amenities lack connectivity, both socially and physically.
Working to connect these different areas and amenities and adding to the inventory of destinations could greatly
enhance Auburn’s reputation in the regional tourism and real estate markets.
FIGURE 4. AUBURN ASSET/CONTEXT MAP
Source: Heartland Research.
PLACE FOCUS AREA 3.
PRIORITY PROJECTS
Downtown Revitalization (3.3)
Target Investment Program (3.1)
Page 129 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 28
3.1. Strategic Investment. Create a target
investment program to guide strategic
infrastructure investments that enhance Auburn’s
economic development opportunities.
3.1.1. Create a cross-departmental forum for
identifying and prioritizing areas for
targeted infrastructure investment
3.1.2. Evaluate market-challenged areas for
their potential to attract private
investment through targeted public
investment projects and designate two
or three areas as “Target Investment
Areas” based on the criteria below:
Does this (or could this) area function
as a vital gateway, impression
corridor, or destination for Auburn?
Are there sites in the area with high
redevelopment potential?
Are there barriers to redevelopment
that can be addressed by
infrastructure investments?
Would investment in the area yield
net benefits to Auburn (cost-benefit
analysis)?
3.1.3. Align the City’s resources, both
planning and programmatic, around the
Target Investment Areas to ensure they
reinforce capital investments
3.1.4. Tailor a suite of services and/or
incentives that is available to support
private sector projects in the Target
Investment Areas in order to overcome
real or perceived market gaps
3.1.5. Package the information and actively
market the areas to potential investors
and other stakeholders (See Strategy
2.2.1)
SPOKANE’S TARGET INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Adopted in 2011 and further refined in 2013, the Spokane
Targeted Investment Program seeks to align public
investments in economic development, neighborhood
planning, community development, and capital
improvements with private investments. The goal of this
program is to increase the impact of the City’s investments,
resulting in more opportunities for business growth and
better residential living environments.
The strategy is designed around four pillars:
Revitalization Planning: Implementing the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, identifying neighborhood opportunity
areas, and aligning different implementation tools;
Targeted Area Development: Creating tailored investment
strategies, integrating plans and projects from different City
departments, utilizing local nonprofit support, and creating
market-driven economic opportunities;
Financial Incentive Planning: Compiling a comprehensive list
of available incentives, aligning growth strategies, stressing
the “Window of Opportunity” to investors, and creating
sustainable and dedicated funding sources for target areas;
and,
Economic Development Assistance: Packaging incentives
and project portfolios for interested applicants, marketing
and outreach activities, and responding to project and
stakeholder needs.
The program was initially piloted on two target areas. In
2015, it was expanded to six target areas. To staff the
program, there is one incentives expert and a designated
expert for each of the target areas. Each area has a
separate webpage with news and announcements, project
descriptions and maps, and a detailed prospectus.
In addition to its own resources, the City has successfully
secured a number of grants to help address some of the
challenges in the targeted areas, including brownfield
planning and redevelopment, transportation, and other
technical assistance.
Through various outreach activities, Spokane’s city staff has
promoted awareness of the program and the special
incentives available. As a result, there has been an uptick in
pre-development applications in certain target areas and
increased transactions and building rehabilitation in others.
In one of the areas, the business association has requested
the creation of a Business Improvement District to support the
city’s efforts in their area.
Page 130 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 29
3.2. Regional Transportation. Maintain and enhance regional transportation connections to ensure ease of
travel to, from, and within Auburn
3.2.1. Prioritize improvements on and around Auburn Way North and Auburn Way South and a better
connection from SR-167 connection to downtown
3.2.2. Continue to partner with Sound Transit to secure adequate parking around the Sounder station as well
as convenient service and better multi-modal connectivity to downtown and other Auburn destinations
3.2.3. Continue to improve the Auburn Municipal Airport by conducting a needs assessment of businesses
located in Auburn and in the immediate region to understand whether they could use an enhanced
airport for business purposes and what improvements would be needed
3.3. Downtown Revitalization. Continue to
invest in downtown revitalization
3.3.1. Optimize regional multimodal
downtown connectivity both to and from
the City to ease travel times and
improve the downtown experience
3.3.2. Re-evaluate the Business Improvement
Area to look at how ratepayers are
assessed, who is being assessed, and
how the funds can best be used. This is
a valuable tool for downtown
revitalization but it is currently being
underutilized
3.3.3. Develop an investment brochure
(electronic and print) for downtown that
features a map of the Downtown Urban
Center; key data and statistics; overview
of public investment; available
incentives; photographs that highlight
new investment and potential
investments; and a map with available
parcels
3.3.4. Publicize a comprehensive list of incentives available to support projects in the Downtown Urban
Center both in the brochure and on the City’s website. These include the following benefits:
Downtown-Specific
Multi-Family Tax Exemptions
Storefront Improvement Program
DOWNTOWN AUBURN REVITALIZATION
Downtown Auburn is one of the City’s greatest assets as
few suburban cities have an authentic, historic downtown.
Over the past six years, the City has invested millions of
dollars in projects to set the stage for increased growth
downtown. As a result, a number of large scale projects
have been completed or are underway, including the Trek
Apartments, Merrill Gardens, and the expansion of
Multicare. The core of Main Street, however, remains an
underperforming diamond in the rough.
To address this challenge, revitalization efforts should
focus on the section of Main Street from Division Street to
E Street SE. This corridor should have a carefully curated
tenant mix that is anchored by deliberately spaced
businesses. These anchor tenants should generate foot
traffic for the other storefronts in between them. Together,
the tenant mix of Main Street Auburn should create a
unique retail and entertainment destination that supports
surrounding employers and housing developments and
draws people downtown.
While events can help raise awareness of downtown’s
businesses, it will have more impact at this stage of
downtown revitalization to work directly with building
owners and brokers to target specific businesses in order
to enhance the area’s tenant mix.
Page 131 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 30
Downtown Zoning and Design Standards
A Comprehensive Environmental Impact Review
Excess Stormwater Capacity
City-Wide
Deferred Impact Fee and System Development Charges
Construction Sales Tax Exemption
Small Business Assistance Program
New Market Tax Credits (for qualifying Census tracts)
No Business and Operations Tax
3.3.5. Continue to partner with the Auburn Downtown Association to support existing small businesses
downtown and to recruit targeted retailers and tenants downtown
3.3.6. Continue to actively seek investors and developers for downtown projects
3.3.7. Approach successful restauranteurs and
local retailers both in Auburn and the
Greater Seattle region to ask if they
would be interested in expanding
downtown
3.4. Auburn Way South Revitalization.
Designate Auburn Way South as an additional
Targeted Investment Area
3.4.1. Complete the Auburn Way South
Corridor Plan
3.4.2. Develop an investment brochure
(electronic and print) for Auburn Way
South to highlight the opportunities that
are identified in the corridor plan. Include
a map; renderings of potential projects;
key data and statistics; and an overview
of public investment and available
programs
3.4.3. Strengthen the City’s partnership with the
Muckleshoot tribe around the
revitalization of this corridor
3.5. Destination Connections. Create stronger
connections between Auburn’s primary tourism
THE PEARL’S FOOD ENTREPRENEUR KIOSK
In San Antonio, Texas, the historic Pearl Brewery has
been revitalized to create a vibrant entertainment district.
Anchored by the Culinary Institute of America, the Pearl
features a number of innovative dining concepts. One of
these is the kiosk pictured above. During the weekly
farmers’ market at the Pearl, a featured chef takes over
the kiosk and tests a menu on the farmers’ market patrons.
Customers order at the counter and enjoy their meal at the
adjacent outdoor seating area. The kiosk provides food
entrepreneurs with space to innovate as well as a built-in
customer base. This opportunity to test and sharpen
restaurant concepts in the kiosk has bolstered the
burgeoning “foodie” culture that is one of the defining
features of the Pearl.
Page 132 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 31
assets and develop new assets to attract more visitors to Auburn
3.5.1. Develop and market packages that include visits to three or four tourism destinations to offer to both
residents of and visitors to the metro area (e.g. Golf & Gamble, Shop & Slots, Music & More)
3.5.2. Coordinate a brewery and distillery tour. Green River Cyclery has regular tours to breweries and
would have good insights into how this would work
3.5.3. Consider creating a food entrepreneur kiosk downtown where a guest chef can serve a featured
menu. This could be a way of fostering the growth of unique restaurants in Auburn and could
address the need for a sit-down restaurant for business lunches
3.5.4. Explore the feasibility of a hop-on/hop-off tour or shuttle that runs between the Outlet Collection,
the golf course, downtown, the casino, White River Amphitheater, and Emerald Downs to facilitate
visitors’ movement from one place to another
3.6. Regional Tourism. Strengthen regional tourism connections
3.6.1. Evaluate the potential benefits of establishing a Tourism Promotion Area that includes neighboring
communities
3.6.2. Establish a regional partnership of communities to jointly promote the South Sound as a tourism
destination
Page 133 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 32
A coordinated marketing and branding campaign that elevates Auburn’s reputation
among internal and external audiences
Auburn has a strong heritage and history that define a
unique character and foster community pride. While
Auburn faces challenges, its citizens see great
opportunity. The word cloud below is how Auburn’s
residents perceive Auburn today.
Auburn is in the midst of an exciting transformation. There are numerous positive changes going on right now in the
City, and residents recognize this momentum and the potential for improvement. The word cloud below is how
Auburn residents describe Auburn in ten years.
MESSAGING FOCUS AREA 4.
PRIORITY PROJECTS
Brand Enhancement (4.1)
Target Industry Outreach (4.6)
Page 134 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 33
Though positive words dominate these word clouds, a number of negative perceptions are held both by Auburn
residents, by the larger region, and by the regional real estate community. These perceptions are largely influenced
by media reports on crime in Auburn and by under-performing impression corridors and gateways that lead to
Auburn’s tourism destinations. These negative perceptions undermine Auburn’s potential. There is also a large
number of residents in the greater Seattle area that have no knowledge of Auburn and hold a neutral perception.
Auburn must work to change these neutral and negative perceptions to positive ones. In doing so, the City should
also build awareness of Auburn as a destination – for recreation, living, and business investment.
Currently, the organizations that define the City of Auburn’s brand identity, both internally and in the Seattle region,
are not unified. The City of Auburn’s tagline is “more than you imagined.” This tagline is also shared by the Auburn
Tourism Board. The Auburn Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce, however, each have unique logos
and brands that are distinct from the City’s. On social media, the Auburn Police Department, the City of Auburn, the
Chamber of Commerce, and the Innovation Partnership Zone have active presences that are also distinct. A more
unified, collective voice and identity that spans all of these entities could be more effective in changing the internal
and external perceptions of Auburn.
4.1. Brand Enhancement. Develop a stronger brand for Auburn and reinforce this with unified messaging
across organizations
4.1.1. Adopt a new tagline. “More than you imagined” implies that people already hold a negative
perception of Auburn
4.1.2. Coordinate a consistent marketing theme and campaign that applies across the City, economic
development, the Chamber of Commerce, the Auburn Downtown Association, and the Auburn
Tourism Board
4.1.3. Regularly (quarterly or annually) create talking points for community leaders and partner
organizations that highlight positive developments in Auburn, success stories, and why it is a
desirable place to visit, live, work, and invest
4.1.4. Invest in a wayfinding and placemaking strategy to reinforce this brand across Auburn
4.2. Internal Image. Build a more positive perception and a greater sense of community among Auburn
residents through a strong partnership with the Auburn Reporter and other local media outlets including
public radio, community websites, and social media outlets
4.2.1. Profile positive developments in Auburn that feature City investments, new businesses, and other
economic development successes in order to build awareness of the City’s positive momentum
4.2.2. Publish interviews of Auburn residents that highlight the things they like to do in Auburn and good
memories of Auburn in order to strengthen the community’s pride and cohesion
4.3. Social Media. Continue to strengthen the City’s social media strategy to improve Auburn’s internal and
external perceptions
4.3.1. Develop a more consistent and strategic economic development voice across social media
platforms, in particular LinkedIn and Twitter in order to develop a greater awareness of economic
development activities in Auburn
Page 135 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 34
4.3.2. Leverage 3No Networking to distribute
more positive stories about Auburn and
Auburn’s business culture
4.3.3. Connect with Auburn’s key influencers
through social media and push out
positive content through this network.
Content can be about economic
development successes, business climate,
and other aspects of the City’s
transformation
4.3.4. Launch a hashtag campaign (#ThisIsAuburn or #AuburnWorks or #AuthenticAuburn) related to
Auburn’s brand that helps promote positive perceptions
4.4. Public Relations. Launch a formal public relations campaign to change the region’s perception of Auburn
4.4.1. Focus on earned media as a strategy to
educate the region about Auburn’s
positive attributes. Earned media refers to
publicity gained through promotional
efforts other than advertising, as opposed
to paid media, which refers to publicity
gained through advertising.
4.4.2. Build awareness of Auburn as a
destination for visitors, for residents, and
for business investment by making these
audiences aware of community assets,
the housing market, transportation
linkages, and investment opportunities
4.4.3. Create a buzz about Auburn, particularly
in the Seattle-Tacoma metro area by
publicizing stories in local and regional
news outlets that demonstrate what a
great location Auburn is. These stories
could feature the City’s success stories
and relocations (be sure to highlight
specifics about Auburn’s assets that
enable its companies to succeed). They
should also highlight growth in Auburn,
including the investment downtown and
companies who have invested in Auburn
AUBURN’S TOP 10 ASSETS
The City has a distinct value proposition and competitive
positioning that it must articulate when “selling” itself to
brokers, site selectors, and prospects.
1. ACCESS TO SKILLED LABOR to support industrial
activities
2. CENTRAL LOCATION between ports,
transportation assets, and anchor cities (Seattle and
Tacoma)
3. An AUTHENTIC AND HISTORIC DOWNTOWN
with a Sounder Station
4. BROAD AND DEEP SUPPLY CHAIN to support
manufacturing
5. RECREATION AND ENTERNTAINMENT
AMENTITIES – parks, casino, race track, golf
course, shopping
6. GREEN RIVER COLLEGE is a partner is workforce
training
7. UP AND BNSF rail lines and BNSF is expanding
8. A strong and stable INDUSTRIAL MARKET
9. A DIVERSE COMMUNITY with a strong sense of
pride
10. A city government that is A WILLING PARTNER
KEY INFLUENCERS DEFINED
The term “key influencers” is often part of social media
strategy. These individuals are active online and are
followed by a target audience. Connecting with these
individuals allows a campaign to reach these audiences
and push content to them. Social media analytics tools,
such as FollowerWonk and Klout, can be used to identify
key influencers.
Page 136 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 35
4.4.4. Generate press releases and blog posts that promote opportunities to visit, live, invest, and work in
Auburn
4.5. Real Estate Market Reports. Develop a system for effective communication to the marketplace that
educates businesses, developers, and brokers on opportunities available in the City
4.5.1. Transition the internal market tracking system used to evaluate market benchmarks to publish a
regular report that can be distributed to the business, brokerage, and development community
4.5.2. Conduct regular forums with commercial brokers to discuss Auburn perceptions, opportunities, and
regional activity
4.6. Strategic Outreach. Reach out to decision makers in the target industries to encourage them to consider
expanding or relocating in Auburn
4.6.1. Leverage Auburn’s community of business leaders and executives to reach peers in their networks
by cultivating stronger relationships and keeping them well-informed of Auburn’s strengths and
resources available for economic development
4.6.2. As part of TEAM AUBURN, have a core team of executives who are willing to meet with prospects
and help sell Auburn
4.6.3. Attend key trade shows in target industries and use these events as opportunities to gather industry
intelligence and make person-to-person connections. Leave behind compelling marketing collateral
with industry players
4.6.4. Join regional economic development trade missions in collaboration with regional and state
economic development organizations whenever possible
4.6.5. Take advantage of Seattle’s position as a global destination for conferences. Follow the regional
conference schedule and look for opportunities to meet with prospects while they attend
conferences in the region
4.6.6. When traveling, schedule appointments with any local executives in target industry sectors that are
in the area
Page 137 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 36
IMPLEMENTATION AND ORGANIZATION
The Auburn Ten-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan is ambitious. It will require a transition of the current
economic development infrastructure to a cohesive department with additional capacity and expertise. This will allow
the City of Auburn to have one of the most robust and entrepreneurial economic development programs in the region.
The City’s investment in economic development will yield a return that will strengthen the City’s tax base, create
economic opportunities, and transform the City to a vibrant and connected hub in the Seattle-Tacoma metro area.
STAFFING
The recommendations below are based on the consulting team’s knowledge of organizational best practices and a
review of peer city budgets and staffing.
Recommended Staffing Structure. The structure above would provide the capacity to implement the strategic
plan. The Manager, who leads the team, is an experienced economic developer that has led teams successfully in
complex transactions, innovative program management, and effective communications with stakeholders. The
Business Development position has expertise in prospect management, deal making, business visitation, and
economic development analysis and research. A Marketing position carries out all outreach and marketing
activities. The Redevelopment position has expertise in real estate development and real estate finance. An
administrative assistant supports the team. In addition, the tourism coordinator position that is funded by the LTAC,
and the real estate analyst, transferred from facilities, are now part of the team. This provides the opportunity of
greater integration of these functions with economic development.
This staffing structure would provide the City with the capacity to conduct ongoing research to support business
recruitment and retention/expansion activities and to consistently produce and deliver content to support a
marketing and outreach strategy. Both of these functions enable economic development programs to identify
prospective companies and establish/maintain relationships with these potential prospects. This structure also
provides the department with the capacity to build a much stronger referral network that consists of local business
IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS
Economic Development
Manager
Business Development Marketing Redevelopment Tourism Real Estate Analysis
ED Admin Support
Page 138 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 37
leaders and regional real estate brokers and developers. The outcome of this increased capacity should be more
and higher-quality prospects and projects, which should accelerate investment and job creation in Auburn. The
Redevelopment expertise provides economic development programs with an enhanced ability to identify
redevelopment opportunities, structure deals, and complete projects. An in-depth knowledge of financing tools
available in the State of Washington and at the Federal Government should enable Auburn to access capital to
support redevelopment opportunities.
The additional staffing will cost about $436,000 annually once the Economic Development Division is fully staffed
in 2019.
Operating Budget. Funding the additional functions of the ED Division’s programs will require an additional
$78,000. This includes a $60,000 marketing and outreach budget that can be used for public relations, marketing
materials (including web design), social media, trade show travel and attendance, and limited advertising. An
additional $18,000 for data services, memberships, and market and economic research would cover a subscription
to Hoovers.com, on-going consulting services, and memberships to NAIOP and ICSC.
Budget Summary. The additional staffing requirements and operating budget will likely require up to a total of
$514,000 annually by 2019.
Page 139 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 38
IMPLEMENTATION
Because of its ten-year scope, this strategic plan has a long list of strategies and actions. Implementing these will take time and can only be done as resources
and capacity are added. To implement this plan, the City should first focus on reorganizing itself to be consistent with the strategic direction of the plan.
Adding a staff person dedicated to business development will enable the deployment of the program foundations, which should directly correlate with
increasing investment into the City. The marketing position will enable the City to implement Focus Area 4 more fully. Redevelopment expertise will allow the
City to advance further in the implementation of Focus Areas 2 and 3.
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
OPPORTUNITY 1: DELIVERY
Strategy 1.1. Clearly define the services that the City of Auburn can provide to businesses both directly and through partnerships.
1.1.1. Organize regular meetings of the IPZ taskforce as TEAM AUBURN to keep
them informed of the prospect pipeline, meetings with prospects, and potential
recruitment trips
Manager & Business
Development
1.1.2. Continue to assist prospects in finding suitable sites, navigating the
development process in Auburn, and securing available incentives from local
and state sources
Manager & Business
Development
1.1.3. Launch and manage a business incubator Manager & Business
Development /
SBDC
1.1.4. Continue to organize weekly 3No Networking at Auburn-based
businesses
Manager & Marketing /
SBDC
1.1.5. Continue to partner with the Small Business Assistance Center at Green
River College on technical assistance and workshops for small businesses
Manager & Marketing /
Chamber
ADA
1.1.6. Establish partnerships with area SBA lenders, community development
financial institutions, and other nonprofit microlenders to provide better access
to capital for businesses that do not qualify for bank financing
Business Development /
SBDC
Page 140 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 39
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
1.1.7. Assemble a list of revolving loan funds and other financing resources
that are available to Auburn-based businesses
Business Development /
SBDC
1.1.8. Continue to partner with Green River College and WorkSource to
provide customized training
Manager
1.1.9. Strengthen the partnership between Auburn Public Schools, Green River
College, and Auburn’s business community by organizing industry sector
partnerships that explore workforce demand, critical occupations, and
available curricula
Manager /
WorkSource
Workforce Development
Council
1.1.10. Maintain a catalog of information and resources relevant to economic
development on the City’s webpage
Business Development
1.1.11. Track and report market trends at least quarterly and distribute the
findings to stakeholders as part of the effort to espouse “Why Auburn” to the
regional real estate community
Business Development
1.1.12. Update and distribute retail trade area data annually Business Development
1.1.13. Provide profiles on the City’s target investment areas Business Development
Strategy 1.2. Formalize a business visitation program to track trends among Auburn employers and identify any businesses in need of assistance
1.2.1. Establish a visitation protocol, a list of information to be collected during
each visit, and set a goal how many businesses each year.
Business Development /
Chamber
1.2.2. Create a database of Auburn-based employers with the City’s business
license database
Business Development
1.2.3. Using CoStar or other sources, identify employers who have leases that
will be expiring in the next two or three years to be prioritized for visitations
Business Development
1.2.4. Maintain detailed notes on visits in the economic development project
database to document the relationship over time
Business Development /
Chamber
1.2.5. Compile information collected from visits to track trends among
employers and distribute these findings to stakeholders in an annual report and
presentation
Business Development /
Chamber
Page 141 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 40
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
Strategy 1.3. Recruit new businesses, including retail, to Auburn to provide better economic opportunities and enhance Auburn’s quality of place
1.3.1. Strengthen relationships with brokers, developers, and industry
associations in the metro area and create an education outreach program
targeted to these groups
Manager
1.3.2. Cultivate strong partnerships with regional organizations to identify co-
marketing opportunities and joint trade missions
Manager
1.3.3. Join the coalition of local governments and organizations that represent
the communities of the greater South Sound region
Manager
1.3.4. During business visitations, ensure that Auburn-based businesses are
aware of the great services that the City provides and have information on the
different initiatives
Business Development
1.3.5. Cultivate relationships among promising young companies across the
metro
Business Development
1.3.6. Actively prospect among companies in target industries Business Development
Strategy 1.4. Identify and advance catalyst projects that will facilitate Auburn’s evolution
1.4.1. Work with city council and department heads to identify and prioritize
potential catalyst projects
Manager
1.4.2. Hold quarterly meetings with this group to learn from guest speakers about
what other communities are doing and to brainstorm what Auburn could do
Manager
1.4.3. From the project list generated in the quarterly sessions, prioritize
projects based on feasibility, expense, time frame, impact, and alignment with
Auburn’s opportunity areas
Manager /
Department Heads
1.4.4. For the two or three top ranked projects, create a project team of three
to five individuals responsible for implementation
Manager /
Department Heads
1.4.5. Maintain a tool that tracks progress on project implementation, and
report progress and outcomes at the quarterly meetings
Admin
Page 142 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 41
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
Strategy 1.5. Foster relationships with key entities that support economic activity in the City
1.5.1. Initiate and cultivate relationships. Manager
OPPORTUNITY 2: PRODUCT
Strategy 2.1. Design and maintain information resources that demonstrate Auburn’s strength in terms of its access to skilled labor
2.1.1. Maintain up-to-date labor market information on Auburn and its
laborshed and make this information available on the economic development
website as well as in a report format
Business Development /
WorkSource
2.1.2. For target industries, create profiles that highlight the availability of
relevant occupations as well as training programs and other workforce
development resources
Business Development /
WorkSource
Strategy 2.2. Ensure a supply of deal-ready sites to accommodate new business investment in Auburn
2.2.1. Maintain an inventory of Auburn’s most important parcels and sites –
those with high-impact development or redevelopment potential or that are
located in strategic areas.
Real Estate &
Redevelopment
2.2.2. Among the eight sub-areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan, focus
on the airport area, Emerald Downs, the GSA Property, and Northwest Auburn
as key planning areas with high commercial development potential
Real Estate &
Redevelopment /
Community Development &
Public Works
2.2.3. Work with relevant land owners or brokers to package these sites with
highly informative information packets (electronic) and actively promote these
sites to prospective businesses and regional brokers
Real Estate &
Redevelopment
2.2.4. Encourage the land owner and broker to list the site on the City’s
inventory of buildings and sites
Real Estate &
Redevelopment
2.2.5. Meet with institutional investors and owners of underperforming
properties to make the case for additional investment to increase their yields
Manager & Redevelopment
Page 143 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 42
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
2.2.6. Facilitate the conversion of industrial buildings that are currently used for
warehousing and distribution to manufacturing or other sales tax generating
uses
Redevelopment
2.2.7. Work with land owners to facilitate conversion opportunities,
redevelopment of high-potential parcels, or the assembly of multiple parcels by
addressing barriers where possible and connect them with local developers
and real estate investors who seek these kinds of opportunities
Redevelopment
2.2.8. Maintain a database as part of the CRM of all known businesses
seeking additional space in the region to make connections with property
owners in Auburn as space becomes available
Business Development
2.2.9. Evaluate the feasibility of annexing the areas adjacent to the City that
are in unincorporated King County as a means of improving Auburn’s
commercial land base
Manager
Strategy 2.3. Create a robust toolbox to influence economic development outcomes
2.3.1. Catalog all tools available in the state Business Development /
Finance
2.3.2. Consider and evaluate the feasibility of the additional programs Manager /
Finance
2.3.3. Collect examples of communities who use these tools in an innovative
way to support projects that advance their economic development goals and
share these with relevant City stakeholders
Business Development /
Finance
2.3.4. Ensure that city council and City staff are well-informed of the type and
use of financing tools available to municipalities
Manager /
Finance
2.3.5. Establish a policy that sets out the City’s goals for the use of these
various tools as well as a process and framework for evaluating projects
Manager /
City Council, Finance
2.3.6. Adopt the guideline for effective and responsible incentives use Manager /
City Council, Finance
Page 144 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 43
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
2.3.7. Adopt a comprehensive fiscal and economic impact tool to measure the
return on investment for projects being evaluated
Manager /
Finance
2.3.8. Create content for the City’s website and for brochures that allows
owners and developers to understand the tools and programs that may be
available for their project and how it relates to their pro forma
Business Development /
Finance
2.3.9. Develop a clear flowchart that establishes the process that owners and
developers will need to follow to obtain assistance in order to set realistic
expectations
Business Development /
Finance
Strategy 2.4. Evaluate and continue to improve the City’s land use and building permit process and performance.
2.4.1. Continue to employ the permitting performance tracking system to
understand performance
Business Development /
Community Development &
Public Works
2.4.2. Develop a regular report based on information from the tracking system
that allows the development community and city staff to understand how
efficiently permits are being processed
Business Development /
Community Development &
Public Works
2.4.3. Create a map-based report with supporting tables that tracks all major
commercial developments in the City including new construction and major
renovations
Business Development /
Community Development &
Public Works
2.4.4. Consider reviewing the fee structure associated with permit reviews Manager /
Community Development &
Public Works
2.4.5. Establish precedents log that may be used for future staff to reference
how certain situations that share similar conditions were addressed previously
Business Development /
Community Development &
Public Works
Page 145 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 44
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
Strategy 2.5. Re-evaluate zoning districts and modify certain aspects of the code
2.5.1. Expand the Downtown Urban Center (DUC) zoning district to include the
logical adjacent areas
Manager /
Community Development &
Public Works
2.5.2. Consider zoning modifications related to height and parking to improve
project feasibility
Manager /
Community Development &
Public Works
2.5.3. Add flexibility to the industrial land use code to allow for more yard
storage and permitting uses such as building contractors in districts that are
currently more restrictive
Manager /
Community Development &
Public Works
2.5.4. Consider an overlay on the Landing Field (LF) zone and adjacent
commercial properties to permit airside supportive land uses around the airport
Manager /
Community Development &
Public Works
Strategy 2.6. Annually compare Auburn’s development/impact fees, tax rates, and rebate programs to peers
2.6.1. Conduct research on regional peers to identify any rate changes or fee
changes and record in a business climate database, which can be created with
information from this strategic plan
Business Development /
Finance, Community
Development & Public
Works
2.6.2. Document any significant changes and distribute a summary report to
relevant department heads
Business Development /
Finance, Community
Development & Public
Works
2.6.3. Work collectively to resolve any issues revealed by this research
exercise
Business Development /
Finance, Community
Development & Public
Works
Page 146 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 45
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
2.6.4. Publicize the areas where Auburn stands out among its peer group to
the regional real estate community
Business Development &
Marketing
OPPORTUNITY 3: PLACE
Strategy 3.1. Create a target investment program to guide strategic infrastructure investments that enhance Auburn’s economic development
opportunities
3.1.1. Create a cross-departmental forum for identifying and prioritizing areas
for targeted infrastructure investment
Manager /
Mayor’s Office
3.1.2. Evaluate market-challenged areas for their potential to attract private
investment through targeted public investment projects and designate two or
three areas as “Target Investment Areas”
Redevelopment
3.1.3. Align the City’s resources, both planning and programmatic, around the
Target Investment Areas to ensure they reinforce capital investments
Manager /
Department Heads
3.1.4. Tailor a suite of services and/or incentives that is available to support
private sector projects in the Target Investment Areas in order to overcome real
or perceived market gaps
Manager & Redevelopment
3.1.5. Package the information and actively market the areas to potential
investors and other stakeholders
Redevelopment & Marketing
Strategy 3.2. Maintain and enhance regional transportation connections to ensure ease of travel to and from Auburn
3.2.1. Prioritize improvements on and around Auburn Way North and Auburn
Way South and a better connection from SR-167 connection to downtown
Manager /
Community Development &
Public Works
3.2.2. Continue to partner with Sound Transit to secure adequate parking
around the Sounder station as well as convenient service and better multi-modal
connectivity to downtown and other Auburn destinations
Manager /
Community Development &
Public Works
Page 147 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 46
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
3.2.3. Continue to improve the Auburn Municipal Airport by conducting a
needs assessment of businesses located in Auburn and in the immediate region
to understand whether they could use an enhanced airport for business
purposes and what improvements would be needed
Business Development /
Auburn Municipal Airport
Strategy 3.3. Continue to invest in downtown revitalization
3.3.1. Optimize regional multimodal downtown connectivity both to and from
the City to ease travel times and improve the downtown experience
Manager /
Community Development &
Public Works
3.3.2. Re-evaluate the Business Improvement Area to look at how ratepayers
are assessed, who is being assessed, and how the funds can best be used
Business Development /
Finance
ADA
3.3.3. Develop an investment brochure (electronic and print) for downtown that
features a map of the Downtown Urban Center; key data and statistics;
overview of public investment; available incentives; photographs that highlight
new investment and potential investments; and a map with available parcels
Marketing /
ADA
3.3.4. Publicize a comprehensive list of incentives available to support projects
in the Downtown Urban Center both in the brochure and on the City’s website
Marketing /
ADA
3.3.5. Continue to support existing small businesses downtown and to recruit
targeted retailers and tenants downtown
Business Development /
SBDC
ADA
3.3.6. Continue to actively seek investors and developers for downtown
projects
Manager, Redevelopment /
ADA
3.3.7. Approach successful restauranteurs and local retailers both in Auburn
and the Greater Seattle region to ask if they would be interested in expanding
downtown
Redevelopment /
ADA
Page 148 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 47
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
Strategy 3.4. Designate Auburn Way South as an additional Targeted Investment Area
3.4.1. Complete the Auburn Way South Corridor Plan Redevelopment /
Community Development &
Public Works
3.4.2. Develop an investment brochure (electronic and print) for Auburn Way
South to highlight the opportunities that are identified in the corridor plan
Marketing /
Community Development &
Public Works
3.4.3. Strengthen the City’s partnership with the Muckleshoot tribe around the
revitalization of this corridor
Manager /
Mayor’s Office
Strategy 3.5. Create stronger connections between Auburn’s primary tourism assets and develop new assets to attract more visitors to Auburn
3.5.1. Develop and market packages that include visits to three or four tourism
destinations to offer to both residents of and visitors to the metro area (e.g. Golf
& Gamble, Shop & Slots, Music & More)
Tourism
3.5.2. Coordinate a brewery and distillery tour. Green River Cyclery has
regular tours to breweries and would have good insights into how this would
work
Tourism
3.5.3. Consider creating a food entrepreneur kiosk downtown where a guest
chef can serve a featured menu
Tourism
3.5.4. Explore the feasibility of a hop-on/hop-off tour or shuttle that runs
between the Outlet Collection, the golf course, downtown, the casino, White
River Amphitheater, and Emerald Downs to facilitate visitors’ movement from
one place to another
Tourism
Page 149 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 48
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
Strategy 3.6. Strengthen regional tourism connections
3.6.1. Evaluate the potential benefits of establishing a Tourism Promotion Area
that includes neighboring communities
Manager, Tourism
3.6.2. Establish a regional partnership of communities to jointly promote the
South Sound as a tourism destination
Manager, Tourism
OPPORTUNITY 4: MESSAGING
Strategy 4.1. Develop a stronger brand for Auburn and reinforce this with unified messaging across organizations
4.1.1. Adopt a new tagline. Manager /
Mayor, City Council,
Department Heads
4.1.2. Coordinate a consistent marketing theme and campaign that applies
across the City, economic development, the Chamber of Commerce, the
Auburn Downtown Association, and the Auburn Tourism Board
Marketing
4.1.3. Regularly (quarterly or annually) create talking points for community
leaders and partner organizations that highlight positive developments in
Auburn and why it is a desirable place to visit, live, and invest
Marketing
4.1.4. Invest in a wayfinding and placemaking strategy to reinforce this brand
across Auburn
Manager, Marketing /
Community Development &
Public Works
Strategy 4.2. Build a more positive perception and a greater sense of community among Auburn residents through a strong partnership with the
Auburn Reporter and other local media outlets
4.2.1. Profile positive developments in Auburn that feature City investments,
new businesses, and other economic development successes in order to build
awareness of the City’s positive momentum
Marketing
4.2.2. Publish interviews of Auburn residents that highlight the things they like
to do in Auburn and good memories of Auburn
Marketing
Page 150 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 49
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
Strategy 4.3. Continue to strengthen the City’s social media strategy to improve Auburn’s internal and external perceptions
4.3.1. Develop a more consistent and strategic economic development voice
across social media platforms, in particular LinkedIn and Twitter in order to
develop a greater awareness of economic development activities in Auburn
Marketing
4.3.2. Leverage 3No Networking to distribute more positive stories about
Auburn and Auburn’s business culture
Marketing
4.3.3. Connect with Auburn’s key influencers through social media and push
out positive content through this network
Marketing
4.3.4. Launch a hashtag campaign related to Auburn’s brand that helps
promote positive perceptions
Marketing
Strategy 4.4. Launch a formal public relations campaign to change the region’s perception of Auburn
4.4.1. Focus on earned media as a strategy to educate the region about
Auburn’s positive attributes
Marketing
4.4.2. Build awareness of Auburn as a destination for visitors, for residents,
and for business investment by making audiences aware of community assets,
the housing market, transportation linkages, and investment opportunities
Marketing
4.4.3. Create a buzz about Auburn, particularly in the Seattle-Tacoma metro
area by publicizing stories in local and regional news outlets that demonstrate
what a great location Auburn is.
Marketing
4.4.4. Generate press releases and blog posts that promote opportunities to
visit, live, invest, and work in Auburn
Marketing
Strategy 4.5. Develop a system for effective communication to the marketplace that educates businesses, developers, and brokers on
opportunities available in the City
4.5.1. Transition the internal market tracking system used to evaluate market
benchmarks to publish a regular report that can be distributed to the business,
brokerage, and development community
Business Development, Real
Estate, Marketing
4.5.2. Conduct regular forums with commercial brokers to discuss Auburn
perceptions, opportunities, and regional activity
Business Development, Real
Estate, Marketing
Page 151 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 50
RESPONSIBLE STAFF/
POTENTIAL PARTNERS
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing
Short-tem
(Years 1-2)
Mid-Term
(Years 3-5)
Long-Term
(Years 5-10)
Strategy 4.6. Reach out to decision makers in the target industries to encourage them to consider expanding or relocating in Auburn
4.6.1. Leverage Auburn’s community of business leaders and executives to
reach peers in their networks by cultivating stronger relationships and keeping
them well-informed of Auburn’s strengths and resources available for economic
development
Manager
4.6.2. As part of TEAM AUBURN, have a core team of executives who are
willing to meet with prospects and help sell Auburn
Business Development
4.6.3. Attend key trade shows in target industries and use these events as
opportunities to gather industry intelligence and make person-to-person
connections
Manager, Business
Development
4.6.4. Join regional economic development trade missions in collaboration with
regional and state economic development organizations whenever possible
Manager, Business
Development /
Mayor’s Office
4.6.5. Take advantage of Seattle’s position as a global destination for
conferences
Business Development
4.6.6. When traveling, schedule appointments with any local executives in
target industry sectors that are in the area
Business Development
Page 152 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 51
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND MEASUREMENT
To understand the impact of the City’s economic development efforts and to track success, it is important to monitor
a set of key performance indicators. Below is a set of indicators that are tied to three topics directly related to the
strategies contained in this plan: 1) tax base; 2) real estate market; and 3) economic opportunity.
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Non-exempt Taxable Value
(per Capita)
Property Tax Base
37%39%38%34%34%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
% Commercial
(Industrial, Retail, Office)
-
100
200
300
400
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Sales Tax Receipts
(per Capita)
The tax base has grown steadily
since 2013.
Commercial Tax Base
The share of the commercial tax
base fell from its 2013 peak.
Retail Sales
Retail sales tax receipts per capita
have climbed steadily.
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
-200,000
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
20122013201420152016Net Absorption Vacancy
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Unemployment Rate
(%)
Auburn Washington US
Industrial Market
The vacancy rate rose slightly with
recent negative net absorption.
Office Market
The vacancy rate dropped with positive
net absorption.
New Space Delivery
Over the last two years, little new square
footage has been delivered.
Employment
The number of jobs in the City has
continued to grow.
Wages
The region's wages are climbing
gradually.
Unemployment
The region's unemployment rate is
much lower than in 2012.
25.00 25.88
0
10
20
30
40
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Median Hourly Wages
($)
Source: King County Tax Assessor
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
-50,000
-25,000
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
2012201320142015Net Absorption Vacancy
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
20122013201420152016Office Industrial
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Employment
Source: King County Tax Assessor Source:City of Auburn
Source: CoStar Source: CoStar Source:CoStar
Source: EMSI Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Source:EMSI
Page 153 of 154
CITY OF AUBURN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN PAGE | 52
In addition to these key performance indicators, the City should monitor output measures related to these topic areas
and other strategies. Suggested measures include:
Jobs created and average wages- only projects that the ED Division managed
Private investment overall and by target area
Square feet of distribution conversions
Return on investment (ROI) on any incentives (fiscal & economic impact)
Industrial and office lease rates
Broker activity
Restaurants and retailers – new and closed
Employment by sector
Wages by sector
Earned media
Web traffic
It will also be useful to track some of these metrics for peer cities and the metro area to provide context for Auburn’s
performance.
Being able to drill down further to get behind the key performance indicators will allow the City to evaluate strategy
implementation and make tweaks to the strategic plan as necessary. This feedback loop is how the strategic plan
transforms into a living document that will maintain relevancy over the ten-year period.
The Economic Development Office should be responsible for maintaining updating these metrics on an on-going
basis with the assistance from the consulting team, as needed.
CONCLUSION
The City of Auburn should be commended for their recognition of the importance of economic development strategic
planning at this juncture in Auburn’s history and in the context of a booming regional economy. With the plan in
place, the City will be positioned to transition its economic development program to a more robust and
comprehensive program that will allow it to influence its own economic development future. The implementation and
monitoring of the plan will be the next phase. This work will take discipline and direction, leadership and
collaboration, and patience and perseverance across the City and with multiple partners. The City of Auburn’s Ten-
Year Economic Development Strategic Plan provides the foundation and lays out the framework to coordinate the
City’s continued evolution into a unique and thriving hub in the Seattle-Tacoma region.
Page 154 of 154