HomeMy WebLinkAboutGateway Draft Statement AppendicesAPPENDIX A
Proposed Allowable Uses for the
Auburn Gateway Project Area
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Proposed Allowable Uses for the Auburn Gateway
Project Area
Arcades, if accessory to a permitted use
Art, music, and photography studios
Automobile parking facilities
Automobile service station, if accessory to a permitted use
Bakery and pastry shops, products made must be sold at retail on the premises
Banking and related financial institutions
Brew pubs
Civic, social, and fraternal associations
Daycare, including home-based, mini-daycare, daycare centers, preschool, or nursery
schools
Delicatessens and coffee houses
Discount club retailer
Dry cleaning and laundry services
Grocery stores
Health and physical fitness clubs
Hobby shops
Hospitals, to include small animal, but not allowing outside runs or kennels
Hotels, including reception and meeting rooms as an accessory use
Liquor store
Massage parlor
Multifamily residential (limited to specific number of units and percentage of the
planning area)
Newsstands
Personal service shops
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Draft ElS A- 1
List of Aflowable Uses for the Auburn Gateway Project Area
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
BB.
CC.
Pharmacies
Small-scale reproduction and printing services
Professional offices
Post offices, accessory or branch locations only
Radio and television broadcasting studios
Restaurants
Retail stores and shops, including department and variety stores that offer for sale the
following and similar related goods:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12.
13
14.
15
16.
17.
18.
Antiques
Art supplies
Automobile parts and accessories
Baked goods
Beverages
Bicycles
Books and magazines
Candy, nuts, and confectionery
Clothing
Computers
Dairy products
Dry goods
Flowers and house plants
Fruits and vegetables
Furniture and home furnishings
Hardware, including electrical, heating, plumbing, glass, paint, wallpaper,
and related goods
Home garden supplies
Household appliances
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
A-2 Draft ElS
List of Aflowable Uses for the Auburn Gateway Project Area
DD.
EE.
FF.
GG.
I-IH.
19.
20.
21
22.
23
24.
25
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31
32.
Household pets and supplies
mousewares
Jewelry and clocks
Meat, fish, and poultry (preprocessed)
Notions
Nursery and horticultural products
Office supplies and equipment
Photographic equipment, including finishing
Radio, television, stereos, and household electronics
Recorded music and movies
Shoes
Sporting goods
Stationery
Toys.
Schools, including art, business, barber, beauty, dancing, driving, martial arts, and music
Secretarial services
Taverns
Theaters, walk up
Other uses may be permitted by the planning director if the use is determined to be
consistent with the intent of the zone and is of the same general character as the uses
permitted in this zone.
wp4 /01-01924-000 opperMix ado:
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Draft ElS A-3
APPENDIX B
Proposed Construction Phasing
for the Auburn Gateway Project
APPENDIX C
Fiscal Impact Analysis
for the Auburn Gateway Project
Prepared for the City of Auburn by
Economic and Environmental Consulting Services
December 2003
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE AUBURN GATEWAY PROJECT
The following section presents a comparison of the estimated fiscal impacts of construction and operation of
the Aubum Gateway land use altematives as analyzed in the ElS.
A. Overview
The objective of the fiscal analysis is to identify the direct incremental revenues and costs that would accrue
to the City of Aubum from construction and operation of the proposed land use altematives. Jurisdictions
included in the analysis are the City of Aubum and Kent School District No. 415.
1. Data Sources and Methodology
The fiscal analysis relies largely on information provided by the applicant, City of Aubum and the Kent
School District. All revenue and cost estimates are presented in constant 2003 dollars.
The analysis generally uses the per capita multiplier method, case study analysis, and discussions with
service providers regarding facility and/or personnel costs to estimate direct fiscal impacts. The per capita
multiplier method uses average costs per person generated by a project to estimate future municipal costs.
The per capita multiplier method assumes that recent historical, local cost and revenue characteristics will be
maintained in the future. This method presents a "best" average estimate of the long-term fiscal effects of
growth associated with new development.
It should be noted that for population based standards (e.g., police service calls per 1,000 population), per
capita expenditures will not necessarily remain constant and may overestimate or underestimate actual
impacts. For example, the use of per capita multipliers implicitly assumes that the cost of serving each
person is the same and that no efficiencies exist in serving a larger population. In many instances, cost
efficiencies are achieved when larger populations are served. On the other hand, large investments in capital
facilities may be required to serve a given population which are not reflected in per capita costs. Future
decisions regarding the mix or level of services to be provided to City residents could increase or decrease
per capita costs.
Per capita cost estimates are based on the most current information available from affected jurisdictions and
the applicant. Cost estimates could change with future market conditions (e.g., inflation) and as costs related
to development of the various land use alternatives are refined. As more information regarding the proposed
development becomes available (i.e., preliminary plat, housing unit size, specific utility needs), these
estimates could be refined.
A number of assumptions were made regarding the timing of development, occupancy rates, and design
characteristics in order to estimate revenues and costs accruing to the City of Aubum as a result of the land
use altematives. All development assumptions used in this analysis are presented in the Appendix D of the
ElS. It should be noted that the actual timing and mix of development will depend on the local real estate
market, as well as overall economic conditions.
Overall, the fiscal analysis presents conservative revenue estimates generated by construction and operation
of the land use alternatives. That is, specific assumptions have been made to reflect relatively lower revenue
generating potential for proposed altematives. For example, the analysis assumes that the growth in project
assessed value each year is attributable only to the increase in value associated with new construction. As
market conditions change within the Aubum area, and within the region, it is likely that the value of land and
existing improvements would also increase. As a result, total assessed value would increase. Consequently,
property tax revenues based on existing levy rates are likely understated. In addition, property tax revenues
were lagged one-year to reflect the delay between assessment and collection.
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 1
The analysis assumes the project proponent retains ownership of the entire property and that all commercial,
office and residential development would proceed through ground leases. In general, under the terms of a
long-term ground lease, the property owner receives rental payments for the use of the land. Renters can
occupy the land themselves, lease it out for ground rent, sell their interest in the lease or improve the
property and collect building rent. For this analysis, the latter is assumed. As such, no real estate excise tax
(REET) would be collected. The City of Aubum is authorized to levy REET up to ½% (0.005) on all real
property sales within the City. Funds are targeted for financing capital facilities specified through the City's
Capital Facility Plan. Any change in real property ownership would generate additional tax revenues.
Therefore, the amount of total tax revenues is likely understated.
2. Analysis Years
Results of the fiscal analysis are presented for Year 1, Year 5, Year 10 and Year 11 (the first full year of
project buildout), and cumulatively for the entire project development period (Years 1 through 10). Full-
development of the altematives is expected by Year 11. At that time, the net fiscal balance would represent
the costs and revenues that would be generated by the land use altematives on an annual basis. The
exception is the Retail/Office Altemative. Given trends in office market development, it is anticipated that
build out of the office component of this altemative would be phased over a 15-year period. Results for the
fiscal analysis are presented for year 17 when full development would be expected.
3. Revenues and Costs
Public revenues and costs considered in the fiscal analysis include the following:
Public Revenues
City of Auburn
Development Permit Fees
Transportation Impact Fees
Sales Taxes
Property Taxes
Utility Revenues
Shared Revenues
Public Costs
Development Review and Inspection
Police & Fire/EMS Services
Public Works Department Services
Parks and Recreation Department Services
General Govemment Services
Kent School District
Property Taxes
Impact Fees
Schools & Educational Services
In general, certain categories of revenues and costs are expected to be generated once, while others would
occur during each year of operation. Costs associated with construction of infrastructure improvements (e.g.,
water and sewer facilities) represent one-time costs. However, operation and maintenance of such facilities
would be expected to generate a stream of costs over the life of the development. Expected one-time and
recurring revenues and costs are presented below.
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 2
One-Time Revenues
Development Permit Fees
Sales Taxes on Construction
Utility Connection Charges
School and Transportation Impact Fees
Recurring Revenues
Sales Taxes on Retail Goods
Property Taxes
Utility Fees & Taxes
Shared Revenues
One-Time Costs
Infrastructure Improvements
Development Review & Inspection
Recurring Costs
Operation & Maintenance
Police, Fire/EMS & Public Works Services
General Govemment Services
Other jurisdictions and/or special service districts would incur costs and receive revenues from development
of the land use alternatives. These include, for example, King County, the Port and Library District. Many
revenues accruing to these entities (such as special purpose taxes, investment eamings and federal sources)
are not easily identified or quantified. Many of the costs associated with new population are equally difficult
to identify and quantify because they are indirect and dispersed across a much larger population. Impacts to
these special purpose districts were not included in the analysis.
Secondary economic impacts would be expected to occur as a result of development of the land use
altematives. These would include additional spending and employment opportunities which could produce
additional fiscal impacts. The measurement of secondary impacts - or the ripple effects associated with a
development - relies on the use of income and employment multipliers and can be quite complicated and
theoretical. Multipliers are usually developed for large sectors of the economy or events, such as federal
spending or investment, and are generally not applicable to any specific situation, project or small economic
area. Secondary impacts and their fiscal implications associated with development of the alternatives have
not been quantified for this analysis.
4. Development Assumptions
A number of assumptions were made for this analysis regarding the timing of development, building
characteristics, sales potential, tax and levy rates, the price level, housing and general market and economic
conditions. Development assumptions for each of the action altematives (Retail, Retail/Office,
Retail/Residential) and the No-Action/Existing Zoning altemative are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
Comparison of Development Assumptions
NE Auburn Special Area Plan Alternatives
SF MF
Development Assumptions Retail Office Residential Residential Emp. Pop.
(SF) (SF) (DU's) (DU's)
Retail Alternative 720,000 1,296
Retail/Office Alternative 200,000 1,600,000 3,960
Retail/Residential Alternative 360,000 500 648 1,116
No-Action/Existing Zoning 73,200 130 132 132 601
Alternative
Specific phasing assumptions for the proposed altematives were provided by the project proponent and are
presented in the Appendix B of the ElS.
a. Site Preparation and Construction
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 3
For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, site preparation and construction of off-site improvements for all the
altematives were assumed to occur in Year 1 with construction of commercial retail, office and residential
uses and on-site improvements phased over the next 10 to 15 years. It was assumed that 75% of on-site
infrastructure improvements would be completed in Year 1 and 25% in Year 4 (Robertson Properties Group
personal conversation with Michael Dee, April 2003). Construction was assumed to be completed in the
year it began and occupancy was assumed for the following year.
The actual phasing of on-site infrastructure improvements may differ from the assumptions used in the fiscal
analysis. The primary impact of such changes - in a fiscal sense - would be to change the amount of sales tax
revenue on that portion of construction of on-site infrastructure occurring in a particular year. Given that the
relative contribution of sales tax revenue on construction of on-site infrastructure improvements is small
compared with other components of construction period sales tax revenue (on building construction for
example), changes in phasing of infrastructure improvements is not expected to significantly affect the fiscal
outcomes identified.
For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, single-family units were assumed to average 2,300 square feet and
multi-family units were assumed to average 1,200 squarte feet (Architects BCRA, personal conversation with
Stuart Young, April 2003).
A range of construction costs by type of development were provided by the Robertson Properties Group.
Retail construction, ranging in cost from $75-$100 per square foot, was assumed to average $88 per square
foot for the fiscal analysis. Office construction, ranging in cost from $110-$140 per square foot, was
assumed to average $125 per square foot. Multi-family residential construction, ranging in cost from $70-
$80 per square foot, was assumed to average $75 per square foot. Single-family residential construction,
ranging in cost from $65-$80 per square foot, was assumed to average $72 per square foot (Bennett Homes,
personal conversation with Mike Herman, May 2003).
b. Population and Employment
For commercial retail and office uses, gross leasable area was assumed to be 90% of gross building area.
Occupancy rates for single- and multi-family housing were assumed to be 97.9% and 92.6%, respectively
(Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report, Vol. 54, No. 1, Spring 2003; 2000 Census). Retail
employment was estimated using an average of 500 sf/employee (Intemational Council of Shopping Centers,
personal conversation with Susan Pistilli, March 2003) and office employment was estimated using an
average of of 400 sf/employee (Urban Land Institute, Characteristics of Tenant Employment Densities,
Employment and Parking in Suburban Business Parks: A Pilot Study). Population was estimated based on
an average household size of 2.41 people for the Aubum area (Puget Sound Regional Council, Population
and Employment Forecast Report, May 2001 and the 2000 Census). It should be noted that in June, 2003,
after the fiscal analysis was completed, the Washington State Office of Financial Management released its
estimate of household size for the King County portion of Aubum. The official estimate of 2.4906 people
per household is 3.3% greater than the figure of 2.41 people per household used in the fiscal analysis. The
slightly larger household size estimate is not expected to significantly change the results of the fiscal
analysis.
c. Operation
For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, retail development was assumed to generate an average of $254.34 per
square foot of gross leasable area (Urban Land Institute, 2002 Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers). The
value of new construction for the purpose of property tax assessment was assumed to be based on the cost-
of-construction approach.
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 4
B. Fiscal Analysis
1. City of Auburn
The city of Aubum would incur additional costs in order to provide public services to residents and
businesses within the project area. These costs would include development review and inspection, police
service, fire and emergency medical services, public works operation and maintenance (water, sewer and
storm water), parks operation and maintenance, and general govemment services.
a. Costs of Development and Operation
Development Review and Inspection
The City of Aubum would provide development review and inspection services for each of the development
altematives over the buildout period. It was assumed that grading and major site preparation would occur
during Year 1. The City would collect grading plan review and grading permit fees. These fees are based
on the total quanity of material (cubic yards). As discussed in the description of altematives in the ElS, the
total quanity of cut and fill on the site would be 750,000 cubic yards. This was assumed to be the same for
each of the altematives because the primary need for grading is related to flood prevention and stormwater
control, which would be handled similarly under any altemative.
Table 2.
City of Auburn Grading Plan Review and Permit Fees
Quanitity
200,001 cubic yards or more
100,001 cubic yards or moe
Grading Plan Review Fee
$402.25 for the first 200,000 cubic yards plus
$7.25 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or
fraction thereof.
Grading Permit Fee
$919.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus
$36.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or
fraction thereof.
Source: City of Auburn, 1997 Uniform Administrative Code, Tables 3-G and 3-H
The City of Aubum building permit fees are based on building valuation as set forth in Building Standards'
(April 2002). The valuation data represent average costs for most buildings. Table 3 presents the building
valuation data used in the fiscal analysis.
Table 3.
Building Valuation Data
I Occupancy and Type
Dwellings: Type V-Wood Frame (Good)
Apartment Houses: Type V-Wood Frame (Good)
Stores: Type II - 1 Hour
Offices: Type II - 1-Hour
Average Cost per Square Foot
$67.30
$82.00
$50.40
$71.50
Source: Building Standards', April 2002.
Building permit fees are based on the building valuation data set forth in Table 3 and the square feet of
development by type of use (e.g. retail, residential) and phase of development for each of the alternatives.
For all of the altematives, the estimated building value by type of use and phase of development exceeded
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 5
one million dollars. The appropriate building permit fee calculation was based on the fee schedule set forth
in Table 4.
Table 4.
City of Auburn Building Permit Fees
Total Valuation
$1,000,001 and up
Building Permit Fee
$6,394 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
Source: City of Auburn, Ordinance 5715, November 2002.
Police Service
The City of Aubum Police Department provides police services, including patrol, crime prevention,
community programs and other services. The Department currently has 82 commissioned officers and 33
support staff. In 2002, there were a total of 65,500 computer aided dispatch calls for service. The total calls
for service increased 4.8% between 2000 and 2002, or approximately 1.6% per year. Based on this average
annual rate of increase, total calls for 2003 will be approximately 66,532. Given the Department budget of
$13,287,789 in 2003, the estimated average cost per call is $199.72.
Future population growth and development under any of the altematives would result in increased demands
for police services as well as other community programs supported by the Police Department (e.g.
community watch). To meet increased demands, the Police Department would be required to hire additional
personnel and purchase new equipment. As a consequence, service costs would increase.
The ratio of calls for service (or police officers) to population is frequently used as a measure of the level of
police service. Based on the City's current population of 45,010 and estimated calls for service, the current
level of service is approximately 1,478 calls per 1,000 population or 1.82 commissioned officers per 1,000
population. These estimates of level of service, however, do not directly reflect the impacts of employees on
the City's Police Department. In order to try and better address the issue of service impacts, specific level of
service estimates were developed for different types of development contained in the proposed action
altematives. These level of service estimates are based on actual developments and calls for service within
the City of Aubum. The only development type without a comparable counterpart in Aubum is office park
development. [It should be noted that in June, 2003, after the fiscal analysis was completed, the Washington
State Office of Financial Management released its estimate of Auburn's population. The official estimate of
45,355 is less than 1% greater than the population of 45,010 used in the fiscal analysis. The slightly larger
population is not expected to significantly change the results of the fiscal analysis.]
Table 5 presents estimates of calls for service based on type of development. The estimates were developed
with the Auburn and Bothell Police Departments based on residential and retail developments within Aubum
and office developments within Bothell thought to be comparable to the proposed altematives. Within the
City of Aubum, the Mallard Pointe Apartments and Lakeland Hills North were used as estimates of likely
service impacts for multi-family and single-family residential developments proposed in the
Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning Altematives. The SuperMall of the Great Northwest was
chosen as an estimate for calls for service from retail development and Canyon Park Office Center in Bothell
was chosen as an estimate for calls for service from office development.
Table 5.
Estimated Calls for Police Service by Type of Development
I Type of Development
I Calls for Service I
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 6
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Retail
Office
1.09 calls per dwelling unit
0.33 call per resident per year
1.39 calls per 1,000 SF per year
0.024 calls per 1,000 SF per year
Source: City of Auburn Police Department, 2003; City of Bo&ell Police Department, 2003.
Fire/EMS Service
Fire protection and emergency medical services in the City of Aubum are provided by the City's Fire
Department. The Fire Department currently has 68 firefighters/emergency medical technicians and 12
support staff. Average response time within the city is approximately 7.5 minutes. However, the distance of
the project site to existing fire stations would result in a response time of approximately 8-10minutes. In
2002, the City purchased a 1.59 acre site at 30th and I Street NE for a future fire station. It is anticipated that
the closer proximity to the project site would improve average response time. In 2002, the Department
received 7,238 calls for service. The total calls for service increased 8.0% between 2000 and 2002, or
approximately 2.6% per year. Based on this average annual rate of increase, total calls for 2003 will be
approximately 7,426. Given the Department budget of $8,247,703 in 2003, the estimated average cost per
call is $1,111.
Future population growth and development under any of the altematives would result in increased demands
for fire and emergency medical services. To meet increased demands, the Fire Department would be
required to hire additional personnel and purchase new equipment. As a consequence, service costs would
increase.
Table 6 presents estimates of calls for service based on type of development. The estimates were developed
with the Auburn and Bothell Fire Departments and based on the residential, retail and office developments
identified above.
Table 6.
Estimated Calls for Fire/EMS Service by Type of Development
Type of Development
Single-Family Residential
Calls for Service Per Year
.072 calls per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential 0.088 call per dwelling unit
Retail 0.116 calls per 1,000 SF
Office 0.117 calls per 1,000 SF
Source: City of Auburn Fire Department, 2003; City of Bothell Fire Department, 2003.
Public Works
The City of Aubum Public Works Department provides water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer services to
residents and businesses within the city. A discussion of existing system characteristics and capacity is
presented in the Public Services and Utilities Section of the ElS.
Water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer services are paid for through utility connection fees on new
development and monthly use charges. Utility connection fees are charged for new construction and/or when
upgrading an existing service. Connection fees consist of a permit fee to cover administrative costs and
inspection fees and materials and a system development charge to reflect previous investment of the City and
its customers in the utility system. Fees are paid at the time a building permit is issued. Specific fees,
summarized in Table 7, are outlined in the City's "Handout on Utility Connection Fees" dated May 2002
which is incorporated by reference.
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 7
Table 7.
City of Auburn Utility Connection Charges
Permit Fee System Development Charge
Utility Service SF Residential Commercial SF Residential Commercial
Storm Sewer $10 $100 $901 per parcel $901 per ESU*
Sanitary Sewer Varies Varies $850 per parcel $850 per RCE**
Water Service Varies Varies Varies Varies
*An Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) is equal to 2, 600 square feet of impervious surface.
**An Residential Customer Equivalent (RCE) is calculated based on number offixture units and wastewater flow.
Sanitary Sewer permit fee rates vary and are calculated on an individual basis and are based on actual labor and
materials. Water service permit fees vary and are based on the type of water service and meter box presence at a
development site. The water service system development charge varies based on a number of characteristics, including
meter size, size of development, fireline connections and othes.
Storm Sewer
Storm sewer connection charges include a permit fee and a system development charge. The permit is $10
per parcel for a single-family residence or duplex (per parcel) and $100 for other uses. The system
development charge is $901 for a single-family residence or duplex and $901 per Equivalent Service Unit
(ESU) for commercial uses. An ESU is equal to 2,600 square feet of impervious surface. Estimates of the
total amount of impervious surface (buildings and surface parking) by altemative are presented in the
accompanying tables. It should be noted that the amount of impervious surface assumed for the fiscal
analysis represents a worst case assumption. The actual amount of impervious surface will likely be less and
will be determined when actual project design proceeds.
The monthly rate for storm sewer accounts varies based on customer class and includes a monthly base rate
and ESU rate. The ESU rate is calculated as described above. Single-family residences are charged a base
rate of $9.07 per month (there is no ESU rate for single-family residences). Non-single-family customers are
charged based on the type of retention, detention and water quality treatment provided on site. For the fiscal
analysis, the project was assumed to include detention and water quality treatment. The corresponding
charges are a base rate of $5.76 per month plus $3.16 per ESU.
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer connection charges include a deposit of $50 at the time of application submittal and
permit fee based on actual labor and materials. The system development charge is $850 per single-family
residence or duplex (per parcel) and $850 per Residential Customer Equivalent (RCE) for other parcels. The
RCE is calculated using Metro's Non-Residential Sewer Use Certificate. The RCE is based on the number
of fixture units (e.g. bathtub, shower, dishwasher, sink, lavatory, etc.), where 20 fixture units equal one RCE.
Multi-family residential units were assumed to contain 1 RCE of fixture units. Commercial retail and office
uses were assumed to include 20 fixture units per 2,500 square feet of development (Architects BCRA
personal conversation with Stuart Young, May 2003).
The monthly rate for sanitary sewer accounts varies based on customer class and includes a monthly rate
based on the amount of water used (in cubic feet). Single-family residences are charged a rate of $9.25 per
month (there is no additional charge for water used). Non-single-family customers are charged $9.25 for the
first 750 cubic feet of water used and $0.93 for each additional 100 cubic feet of water used per month. For
the purpose of the fiscal analysis, water use for commercial customers was estimated based on the
Department of Ecology's Criteria for Sewage Works Design (December 1998), commonly referred to as the
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 8
Orange Book. Use estimates for planning projections are 100 gallons per person per day for dwellings and
200 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of floor space for commercial uses. One gallon per day is
equivalent to 0.1337 cubic feet.
Water Service
Water service connection charges (permit fee and system development charge) vary based on meter size,
whether a meter box is required, and if streets are paved or unpaved. For the purpose of this analysis, single-
family residences were assumed to have a ~" meter water service and meter box required with paved streets.
The estimated permit fee and system development charge were $1,735 and $1,628 per single-family unit,
respectively. Commercial uses were assumed to require 1 ½" meter service and meter box with paved
streets. The estimated permit fee and system development charge were $2,645 and $5,421 per commercial
building, respectively. The estimated number of buildings by land use per altemative is shown in the
accompanying tables.
The monthly rate for water service accounts varies based on customer class and includes a monthly base rate
and a quantity charge for each 100 cubic feet of water used. Single-family residences are charged a base rate
of $6.95 per month and $1.60 per 100 cubic feet of water used (for 7.01 to 15 cubic feet). Multi-family
residences are charged a base rate of $20.44 per month and $1.44 per 100 cubic feet of water used.
Commercial customers are charged $20.95 per month and $1.65 per 100 cubic feet of water used.
Transportation
Consistent with the Growth Management Act, Auburn levies transportation impact fees on new development
within the city with the intent that new development pay its proportionate share of the cost of new
transportation facilities to serve it. Impact fee revenues are earmarked for transportation improvements that
will reasonably benefit the new development and are paid at the time of building permit application. Impact
fees cannot be used for operation and maintenance. A summary of transportation impact fees is presented in
Table 8.
Table 8.
Transportation Impact Fees
Land Use
Single-Family Residential
Unit of Measure
Dwelling Unit
Impact Fee Rate
$677.71
I Multi-Family Residential I Dwelling Unit I $440.91
Retail Shopping Center
Office
Square Feet/Gross Leasable Area
Square Feet/Gross Floor Area
$0.98 - $1.69
$1.12 - $1.92
Impact fee rates for office and retail shopping centers vary based on the incremental increase in square feet of GLA or
GFA, respectively (e.g. the first 9,999 square feet; 10,000 to 49,999 square feet, etc.).
Source: Auburn City Code, Chapter 19. 04.
Parks and Recreation
The City of Aubum Parks and Recreation Department operates and maintains a total of 533.2 acres of parks,
special use areas and open space. Of the total, 43.9 acres are neighborhood parks, 204.2 acres are
community parks, 31.8 acres are linear parks, 54.3 acres are special use areas, and 199 acres are open space.
In 2003, the Department had a total staff of 50 and budget of $4,304,600.
For the purpose of assessing park land needed for new development, the City focuses on neighborhood,
community and linear parks, the "core parks" in the city's system. The recommended standard for all types
of parks is 6.03 acres per 1,000 population and is outlined in Table 9. According to a recent study by the
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 9
City, the total cost to maintain an acre of developed parkland is approximately $7,500 (City of Aubum Parks
and Recreation Department personal conversation with Daryl Faber, May 2003).
Table 9.
City of Auburn Recommended Park Standards
Park Type
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Linear Park
LOS (Acres/1000 Population)
0.76
4.50
0.77
Total LOS 6.03
Source: City of Auburn, Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Ordinance 5051, December 1997.
The standards presented in Table 9 apply to single family residential developments required to mitigate
impacts by paying impact fees or providing developed park land. The City has not adopted a system of park
impact fees. In the past, the City has negotiated park land dedication for large developments (50 single
family residential units or more) on a case-by-case basis. On occasion, this has included voluntary
contributions for park improvements in lieu of dedicated land and the contribution has been calculated as
50% of the park development cost for developed park land needed as a result of the proposed development.
The City does not currently have a recommended park standard or impact fee formula for commercial
developments and has not levied impact fees on commercial developments in the past. To address this and
issues of consistency, the City is currently working toward a more standardized impact fee for new
development.
For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, impacts to the Parks and Recreation Department were calculated for
the altematives with a residential component (Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning) and based
on the annual maintenance cost for developed park land needed as a result of the altematives. This is a
conservative estimate relative to the negotiated impact fees that have occurred in the past, but may
underestimate the total impacts because it does not reflect impacts associated with employees.
As part of the residential altemative, the proponent proposes to include active recreational facilities and trails
throughout the site to serve the proposed development. As noted in the Data Sources and Methodology
section, the fiscal analysis assumes that the project proponent retains ownership of the entire property.
Consequently, all recreational facilities would be owner maintained rather than publicly maintained. No
additional operation or maintenance costs for the City of Aubum Parks and Recreation Department were
assumed.
General Government
The City of Aubum provides a number of general govemment services for residents, businesses and other
City departments. These include the executive (mayor and city council), legal, finance, personnel and
general administration. In 2003, general govemment services employed 52 staff and had a budget of
$6,558,687 or 15% of the City's General Fund.
Future growth and development under any of the altematives would affect services provided by these general
government departments. The level of general government services needed to support growth and
development of the altematives was assumed to be directly related to the amount of economic activity
generated by the altematives- a level of economic activity that can be approximated by the revenue
generated by the altematives. For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, the current relationship between general
government costs and total city revenues was used to estimate future costs of the alternatives. The cost of
providing general govemment services was assumed to be 15% of budgeted revenues.
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 10
b. Revenues
The City of Aubum levies a number of charges and fees to cover the costs of providing services and facilities
to new growth. Some of these were identified above and include fees associated with site preparation and
building plan review, utility connections and system development charges, and transportation facilities. In
addition to these sources of revenue, the City would collect its share of sales and property tax revenues,
utility tax revenues, and shared revenues. These are described briefly below.
Sales Tax
Sales tax revenues would accrue to the City of Aubum from two sources - the sale of building materials and
contractor services during construction and the sale of goods and services from new businesses. Sales taxes
on construction materials and services were estimated based on the value of construction (see the discussion
under Site Preparation and Construction above) and the City's share of the total sales tax rate.
In addition to the local share of sales taxes (0.85% or .0085), Aubum would collect the Special Hotel/Motel
tax, currently 1% (or .01). This tax is in addition to the local sales tax. Funds collected from the hotel/motel
tax are deposited in a special revenue fund for tourism, promotion and economic development within the
City. Only the City's local share of the sales tax is reported in the fiscal analysis. Revenues from this source
are deposited in the General Fund. Total sales tax revenues from all sources are included in the
accompanying tables.
Table 10.
Sales Tax Rate
Jurisdiction Tax Rate
Total Sales Tax 8.8%
State of Washington 6.5%
Local Rate 0.85%
Regional Transit Authority 0.4%
King County 0.15%
Other 0.9%
Special Hotel/Motel 1.0%
Tax revenues generated during operation were estimated using average sales per square foot estimates from
the 2002 Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers prepared by the Urban Land Institute. For the fiscal analysis,
sales per square foot of gross leasable area were assumed to average $254.34 per year (ULI, 2002).
Property Tax
Property taxes are assessed against three forms of real property - land, improvements and business personal
property. The amount of tax revenues collected depends on the tax rate and the total assessed value of the
property. The current total levy rate for the City of Aubum is $13.53243 per $1,000 of assessed value and
includes the City's portion of the levy as well as other taxing districts like King County, the Library District
and Kent School District. The City's portion of the property tax levy is $2.92857 per $1,000 of assessed
value (Table 11).
Table 11.
2003 Property Tax Rate
Tax Rate per $1,000 I
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 11
Jurisdiction Assessed Value
Total Levy $13.53243
Consolidated Levy $4.50523
City of Auburn $2.92857
Kent School District $5.35720
Library $0.50
EMS $0.24143
The fiscal analysis takes a conservative approach to quantifying property tax revenues associated with
development of the alternatives. The analysis assumes that the annual growth in assessed value is
attributable only to the increase in value associated with new commercial and residential construction. In
reality, it is likely that assessed value would also increase as a result of increased market value associated
with growth and new development occurring throughout the City and the region.
It is assumed that the total property tax rate remains constant over the development period. In reality, it will
likely fluctuate within statutory limits as the City and other taxing districts determine the amount of money
needed to maintain their current level of service (the County Assessor then calculates the tax rate necessary
to raise that amount of money). When estimating property tax revenues, the analysis also only includes the
additional increase in assessed value associated with new construction and not the total value including the
project site. The current assessed value of the project site is $6,868,500 of which $6,144,300 is the assessed
value of the land. In 2003, property taxes on site totaled $89,642.47, of which $20,115 accrued to the City of
Auburn.
The value of business personal property (e.g. machinery, equipment, supplies and furniture) was assumed to
be $10 per square foot.
Total property tax revenues accruing to the City were lagged one-year to reflect the delay between
assessment and collection.
Utility Taxes
The City of Aubum collects a 6 percent tax on gross sales of city-owned storm water, sanitary sewer, and
water utilities, where gross sales are the total revenues collected from user fees and service charges. The tax
is not levied in addition to user fees but is distributed to the general fund once revenues have been collected.
The City of Aubum also collects a 6 percent tax on gross sales of private utilities. Utility tax revenues go
back to the general fund. Use of natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable and solid waste would vary by
specific land use and project design. The City would collect revenues based on actual use. These additional
revenues have not been quantifited for the fiscal analysis. As noted earlier, the fiscal analysis incorporates
conservative revenue estimates. To the extent that private utilities serve the proposed altematives, tax
revenues to the City of Auburn are underestated.
Shared Revenues
Shared or intergovemmental revenues, such as the liquor excise tax and motor vehicle taxes, are collected by
the state and distributed to each city, town and county based on population. In 2002, the per capita
distribution of all state-collected revenues to the City of Aubum totaled $413.77. Many of these revenues
are earmarked for specific uses, such as Department of Transportation funding and Criminal Justice
Assistance. For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, only the liquor/liquor control board receipts (liquor excise
tax and liquor profits), lodging excise (hotel/motel), motor vehicle (local vehicle license fees and motor
vehicle fuel taxes) and miscellaneous taxes were included in the estimation of shared revenues associated
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 12
with future residential population. In 2002, these sources totaled $43.25 per person. This rate was assumed
to remain in effect through the development period.
Table 12.
Intergovernmental Distributions
Revenue Source Per Capita Distribution
Liquor/LCB Receipts $8.97
Lodging Excise Tax $1.11
Motor Vehicle Tax $30.52
Miscellaneous $2.65
Source: State of Washington Treasury Management System, Distribution of State Collected Revenues For Calendar
Year 2002 (October, 2003).
2. Kent School District
The NE Aubum Special Area lies within the Kent School District, the fourth largest school district in the
state. The following information is summarized from the District's six year capital facilities plan.
During the 2002-2003 school year, the District had 26,378 students or 25,354 full-time equivalent students
(Kindergarten students are 0.5 FTE).
The District currently has permanent capacity to house 24,559 students (see Table 13). Portable classrooms
are used as interim or transitional facilities. Currently, the District utilizes 158 portable classrooms: 74 to
house students in excess of permanent capacity; 78 for program purposes; and 6 for other purposes. Each
portable classroom can accommodate 23-31 students. Districtwide, there is current capacity to accommodate
an additional 242 students. Most of the excess capacity, 88%, is at the senior high level.
Table 13.
2002-2003 Facility Capacity
Number FTE Surplus
Grade Level of Program Portable Total Enrollment (Deficit)
Schools Capacity Capacity Capacity Projection Capacity
Elementary School 29 12,994 414 13,358 13,339 19
Junior High School 7 5,984 812 6,796 6,785 11
Senior High School 4 5,631 0 5,631 5,419 212
Total 40 24,559 1,226 25,785 25,543 242
Source: Kent School District #415 Capital Facilities Plan, April 2002.
Student enrollment is projected to increase to 27,114 by the 2007-2008 school year, an increase of 6% over
current enrollment or approximately 1.2% per year (see Table 14). Planned classroom construction during
the 2004-2005 school year and grade level reconfiguration (9th grade to move to high schools) will add
additional capacity of 1,923 at the senior high level. A proposed elementary school (as yet unfunded) would
add additional capacity of 540 during the 2007-2008 school year. Total capacity by 2007-2008 would be
28,509. Districtwide, there would be capacity to accommodate an additional 1,395 students. Most of the
excess capacity, 97%, would be at the junior high level.
Table 14.
2007-2008 Planned Capacity
I I I I FTE I Surplus I
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 13
Grade Level Permanent Portable Total Enrollment (Deficit)
Capacity Capacity Capacity Projection Capacity
Elementary School 13,484 92 13,576 13,569 7
I JuniorHigh School I 5,984 0 5,984 4,626 1,358 I
Senior High School 7,554 1,395 8,949 8,919 30
Total 24,559 1,487 28,509 27,114 1,395
Source: Kent School District #415 Capital Facilities Plan, April 2002.
The District's Capital Facilities Plan establishes a standard of service for current and future capacity. The
Plan includes student generation factors for calculating the number of students in each grade level generated
by single- and multi-family homes and impact fees for calculating the proportionate share of capital facility
costs from single- and multi-family homes. Student generation factors and impact fees are presented in
Tables 15 and 16.
Table 15.
Student Generation Rates
Grade Level Single-Family DU's Multi-Family DU's
Elementary School (K-6) 0.504 0.273
Junior High School (7 - 9) 0.211 0.114
Senior High School (10-12) 0.183 0.076
Total Students 0.898 0.463
Source: Kent School District No. 415 Capital Facilities Plan, April 2002.
The Kent School District has established impact fees for new single- and multi-family residential
development. The impact fees are calculated based on a variety of factors, including student generation
rates, projected student capacity, new facility acreage and construction requirements, and portable use. The
fee calculation includes credits for state matching funds and property taxes. The fees are levied and collected
by the City of Auburn and remitted (less an administration fee) to the District. Fees are paid prior to a
building permit being issued. The City of Auburn has adopted a maximum payment or cap on the amount of
impact fees that can be collected from new residential development (see Table 16).
Table 16.
School Impact Fees (per DU)
Kent School City of Auburn City of Auburn
Type of Residence District Cap Administration Fee
Single-Family Residence $4,147 $2,500 $50
Multi-Family Residence $2,554 $1,000 $25
Source: Kent School District No. 415 Capital Facilities Plan, April 2002; Auburn City Code, Chapter 19. 02.
During 2002-2003, the Operations Levy per student was approximately $1,267 per student (personal
conversation with Fred High, Finance Director, Kent School District, May 2003).
C. Summary of Impacts
A summary of net revenues expected to accrue to the City of Aubum and the Kent School District as the
result of construction and operation of the altematives are presented in the following section. Detailed tables
are included in the accompanying tables.
1. City of Auburn
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 14
The results of the fiscal analysis for the altematives indicate that the City of Aubum would experience a
fiscal surplus (total revenues exceed total costs) over the life of each of the altematives. Comparisons of net
revenues for each ofaltematives are summarized in Tables 17 - 20.
Over the 10-year development period, total revenues accruing to the City of Aubum would range from
approximately $4.8 million under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Altemative to $12.4 million under the
Retail Altemative. Over the same period, total costs accruing to the City would would range from
approximately $3.3 million under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Altemative to $7.0 million under the
Retail/Residential Altemative. Total net revenues accruing to the City of Aubum would range from
approximately $1.6 million under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to $6.3 million under the Retail
Altemative. By buildout, net revenues per year accruing to the City of Aubum would range from
approximately $156,000 under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Altemative to $1.1 million under the Retail
Alternative.
fl. Revenues
Major sources of revenues accruing to the City as a result of construction and operation of the altematives
would include development permit fees, retail sales taxes, property taxes, utility fees and taxes, and shared
revenues. In general, revenues, such as property taxes, would be generated and collected each year of
construction and operation. However, some revenues would only be collected once (e.g., development
permit fees). For the purpose of identifying the frequency of revenue collections, the term "one-time
revenue" is used to represent fee or tax revenues that would be collected only once and the term "recurring
revenue" is used to represent revenues that would be collected in each successive year of development and/or
operation and would be expected to continue indefinitely.
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 15
Construction Period Revenues
During construction, the City of Aubum would collect various fees and permit revenues for site
preparation, building review and inspection, infrastructure connections and transportation impact fees.
The City would also receive its portion of the local sales tax on construction materials and services.
Table 21 summarizes the contribution of each revenue source to total construction period revenues for the
10-year development period. The largest source of construction period revenues are those collected for
utility connections. For the altematives, total utility connection fees range from 36.7% of total
construction period revenues under the Retail/Office Altemative to 56.6% under the No-Action/Existing
Zoning Alternative. Sales tax on construction is an important source of revenue under all the land use
alternatives, ranging from 21.9% of total construction period revenues under the No-Action/Existing
Zoning Alternative to 24.7% under the Retail/Residential Alternative. Transportation impact fee revenues
are relatively more important for alternatives with a larger component of commercial development.
Table 21.
Composition of Construction Period Revenues
Land Use Alternative
Revenue Source: Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action
Grading Fees 0.1% 0.08% 0.1% 0.2%
Building Permit Fees 5.9% 6.7% 9.2% 10.1%
Transportation Impact Fees 30.4% 32.1% 20.1% 11.3%
Utility Connection Fees 41.0% 36.7% 46.0% 56.6%
Storm Sewer Connection Fees 25.3% 23.3% 17.3% 12.0%
Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees 8.3% 7.7% 17.3% 12.1%
Water System Connection Fees 7.4% 5.7% 11.4% 32.5%
Sales Tax on Construction 22.6% 24.4% 24.7% 21.9%
Operating Period Revenues
Long-term operation under any of the land use altematives would generate ongoing revenues for the City
of Auburn. These include the City's share of sales taxes, property taxes, utility fees and taxes, and shared
revenues (state collected revenues distributed back to local jurisdictions based on a population forumula).
By buildout, total revenues per year accruing to the City of Aubum would range from approximately
$471,000 per year under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Altemative to $1.84 million per year under the
Retail Alternative.
Table 22 summarizes the contribution of each revenue source to total operating period revenues for the
1 O-year development period. The two largest sources of operating period revenues - ranging from 67.3 %
under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Altemative to 89.4% under the Retail Altemative- are the City's
local share of sales taxes on retail activity and property taxes. For the land use alternatives, total sales tax
revenues range from 40.1% of total operting period revenues under the No-Action/Existing Zoning
Altemative to 76.1% under the Retail Altemative. Property tax revenues range from 13.3% of total
operating period revenues under the Retail Altemative to 33.3% under the Retail/Office Altemative.
Table 22.
Composition of Operating Period Revenues
Land Use Alternative
Revenue Source: Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action
Sales Taxes (Local Portion) 76.1% 43.4% 56.7% 40.1%
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 20
Property Taxes (Local Portion) 13.3% 33.3% 18.1% 27.2%
Utility Fees 10.0% 21.9% 21.4% 27.3 %
Utility Taxes 0.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.7%
Shared Revenues 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 3.6%
It should be noted that sales tax revenues are likely underestimated for the Retail/Office Altemative. For
the analysis, it was assumed that only the retail component of proposed development would generate
retail sales activity. It is likely that the office component would include a number of small retail uses that
provide employee goods and services (e.g. copy shop, small cafd, coffee shop, dry cleaners, etc.). To the
extent that the office component included these types of uses, retail sales taxes are underestimated.
b. Costs
The City of Aubum would incur additional costs in order to provide public services to the land use
altematives. These costs would include development review and inspection, police, fire and emergency
medical services, public works operation and maintenance (water, sewer, streets), parks and recreation,
and general govemment services.
Construction Period Costs
During construction, the City would incur additional costs primarily associated with development review,
inspection, permitting, and infrastructure development. Infrastructure development - utility connections
and transportatin improvements - would be the largest source of costs during the development period.
For the analysis, it was assumed that the costs incurred each year for development review and inspection
and infrastructure development would equal the fee revenues generated each year.
Table 23.
Composition of Construction Period Costs
Land Use Alternative
Cost Source: Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action
Development Review and Inspection 7.4% 8.6% 11.7% 12.5%
Infrastructure Improvements
General Govemment
88.4%
4.2%
86.8%
4.6%
83.6%
4.7%
83.4%
4.0%
Operating Period Costs
Long-term operation under any of the land use alternatives would generate ongoing costs for the City of
Aubum. These include the police and tire/EMS services, public utilities operation and maintenance,
parks and recreation, and general government services. By buildout, total costs per year accruing to the
City of Aubum would range from approximately $315,100 per year under the No-Action/Existing
Zoning Altemative to $919,000 per year under the Retail/Office Altemative.
Table 24 summarizes the contribution of each cost source to total operating period costs for the 1 O-year
development period. The two largest sources of operating period costs are public safety and utility
operation and maintenance. Total public safety costs (police and tire/EMS services), range from 32.1%
of total operting period costs under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Altemative to 40.5% under the Retail
Altemative. Utility costs (assumed to equal utility revenues) range from 25.3% of total operating period
costs under the Retail Altemative to 48.6% under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Altemative.
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 21
It should be noted that only altematives with a residential component were assumed to generate costs for
parks and recreation operation and maintenance. To the extent that businesses and business employees
utilize local parks and recreation facilities, these costs are understated.
Table 24.
Composition of Operating Period Costs
Land Use Alternative
Cost Source: Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action
Public Safety 40.5% 34.2% 34.1% 32.1%
Police Service 27.7% 12.4% 22.3% 21.6%
Fire and EMS Service 12.8% 21.8% 11.8% 10.5%
Utilties 25.3% 42.9% 39.2% 48.6%
Parks and Recreation 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 7.3%
General Government 34.2% 22.9% 21.7% 19.4%
To meet the increased demands for City services and facilities associated with growth and development
under the land use altematives, the City of Aubum would be required to hire additional staff. The
estimated number of staff by department for each of the altematives by buildout is presented in Table 25.
Table 25.
Estimated Department Staffing Needs of the Alternatives
Land Use Alternative
Department Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action
Police Service 1.24 0.35 1.07 0.42
Fire and EMS Service 0.9 2.27 0.93 0.32
Parks and Recreation 0.59 0.32
General Government 1.97 1.36 1.24 0.40
2. Kent School District No. 415
Residential development is proposed under the Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning
Altematives. The Retail/Residential Alternative would include 500 units of multi-family housing and the
No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would include 130 units of single-family housing and 132 units of
multi-family housing. Estimated student enrollment by buildout of the alternatives is presented in Table
26. The enrollment estimates are based on the student generation factores presented in Table 15 and
occupancy rates of 97.9% and 92.6% for single- and multi-family units, respectively.
Table 26.
Estimated Student Enrollment by Alternative
Elementary Junior High High School Total Estimated
Land Use Alternative School (K- 6) School (7-9) (10-12) Enrollment
Retail/Residential 126 53 35 214
No Action 97 41 32 170
The estimated fiscal impacts to the Kent School District for the Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing
Zoning Altematives are presented in Table 27. Under both alternatives, the School District would receive
positive net revenues over the 10-year development period. Under the Retail/Residential Altemative, net
revenues over the 10-year development period would total approximately $970,000. Under the No-
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 22
Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, net revenues over the 10-year development period would total
approximately $257,000.
Table 27.
Comparison of Net Revenues - Kent School District (000's)
Retail/Residential Alternative Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 11 Year 1-10
Impact Fees $0 $125 $0 $0 $500
Property Tax $0 $235 $502 $502 $2,745
Total Revenues $0 $360 $502 $502 $3,245
Operations $0 $68 $174 $159 $998
Capital Facilities $0 $319 0 $0 $1,277
Total Costs $0 $387 $174 $159 $2,275
Net Revenues $0 -$28 $328 $343 $970
No Action Alternative Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 11 Year 1-10
Impact Fees $0 $53 $41 $0 $457
Property Tax $0 $152 $272 $291 $1,333
Total Revenues $0 $205 $313 $291 $1,790
Operations $0 $74 $156 $160 $723
Capital Facilities $0 $115 $67 $67 $809
Total Costs $0 $189 $224 $227 $1,532
Net Revenues $0 -$16 $89 $64 $257
a. Revenues
The Kent School District would receive revenues in the form of school impact mitigation fees and from
its portion of the property tax levied on residents and businesses within the NE Aubum Special Area.
Estimated school impact fees for the altematives are shown in Table 28. Under the Retail/Residential
Altemative, the District would collect a total of $500,000 in impact fees. Under the No-Action/Existing
Zoning Altemative, the District would collect $457,000.
Table 28.
Estimated School Impact Fees
Land Use Alternative Single-Family Fee Multi-Family Fee
Retail/Residential 500 $500,000
No Action 130 $325,000 132 $132,000
The District would also collect its share of the property tax levy. Under the Retail/Residential
Altemative, revenues from the District's portion of the property tax levy (only that portion attributable to
new development) would grow from just over $7,000 in Year 2 to nearly $502,000 by Year 11. The
District could expect to receive $502,000 each year after buildout of the alternative. Under the No-
Action/Existing Zoning Altemative, the District's portion of the property tax levy would grow from just
over $7,000 in Year 2 to nearly $291,000 by Year 11. The District could expect to receive $291,000 each
year after buildout of the altemative.
b. Costs
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 23
The Kent School District would incur additional costs for staff, facilities, transportation and
administrative support generated by school-aged children generated by the land use altematives. One-
time costs represent the pro-rated share of capital costs (land and facilities) for elementary, junior high
and senior high school students associated with the altematives. The total cost for capital facilities is
reflected in the District's impact fees for single- and multi-family residences (Table 13). Under the
Retail/Residential Alternative, capital facilities costs would total approximately $1.28 million dollars.
Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Altemative, capital facilities costs would total approximately
$876,000.
Recurring costs would consist of additional staff, administrative support, transportation and operation and
maintenance. Under the Retail/Residential Altemative, operating costs would grow from approximately
$68,000 in Year 5 (when students were assumed to start school) to approximately $174,000 in Year 10.
Over the 10-year development period, operating costs would total approximately $998,000. Under the
No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, operating costs would grow from approximately $18,000 in Year
4 (when students were assumed to start school) to approximately $156,000 in Year 10. Over the 10-year
development period, operating costs would total approximately $723,000.
Both the Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning Altematives experience a fiscal shortfall
during certain years of the development period - while maintaining a surplus over the entire development
period. This results from assumptions used in the fiscal analysis that assign capital facility costs at the
front-end of the development period and lag property tax collections (as well as including only that
portion of property tax revenues attributable to new development). Under both alternatives, sufficient
revenues are generated in the years prior to the shortfall to cover the amount of the shortfall. In addition,
the full amount of property taxes collected (an amount that includes the value of the land) would increase
the overall surplus that occurs over the entire development period. The School District's portion of the
property tax levy on the current site (land only) generates nearly $33,000 per year or $263,000 over the
1 O-year development period.
D. Conclusions
City of Auburn
Based on the assumptions used in the fiscal analysis, total revenues generated by the proposed land use
altematives would exceed the total costs of services and facilities provided by the City of Auburn over
buildout of the proposed altematives for the Aubum Gateway project. Over the long-term, the City
would be able to maintain established level-of-service standards. No mitigation would be required.
Kent School District
Based on the assumptions used in the fiscal analysis, total revenues generated by the proposed
altematives for the Aubum Gateway project would exceed the total costs of providing school facilities
and services provided by the Kent School District over buildout of the proposed Retail/Residential and
No-Action/Existing Zoning Altematives. Over the long-term, the School District would be able to
maintain established service levels. No mitigation would be required.
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Page 24
APPENDIX D
Method Used for Air Quality Analysis
Method Used for Air Quality Analysis
Two standard computerized tools were used to evaluate potential air quality impacts resulting
from the proposed Auburn Gateway project in both its opening year (2008) and its design year
(2020): the Mobile Sources emissions model (U.S. EPA 1996) and CAL3QHC dispersion model
(U.S. EPA 1992a).
Opening and design years must be considered in the air quality analysis once the conformity
rules are triggered. According to the conformity rules, the opening year should be at least 10
years earlier than the design year and should represent an interim period during which the project
elements would be considered reasonably operational but not necessarily complete. In 2008, any
of the action alternatives associated with the Auburn Gateway project would be partially
completed. According to the City of Auburn, if the Auburn Gateway project is completed by
2008, ! Street NE would be connected to Harvey Street NE south of 45th Street NE, allowing a
complete north-to-south connection from South 277th Street. In addition, several other road
improvement projects funded by the City of Auburn and/or King County would be completed in
the Auburn Gateway project area. Considering the travel implications of these road
enhancements, the project completion schedule, and the conformity requirement that the opening
year be at least 10 years earlier than the design year, 2008 was selected as the opening year for
the purposes of the air quality conformity analysis.
The U.S. EPA requires that a Mobile series emission factor model be used in analyses
investigating the air quality implications of surface transportation sources. Mobile6, which was
released in 2002, is the latest in a series of tools for use in such analyses. However, this model is
not ready for general use because a standard set of input parameters have not yet been developed
for its use in the Puget Sound region. Until Mobile6 is ready for general use, the U.S. EPA has
provided the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) with correction factors to apply to output
from the Mobile5b model to produce results close to those expected from Mobile6. The
correction factors are based on region-specific input parameters and are intended to reflect the
requirements of the Tier I! emission controls that require all vehicles manufactured after 2003 to
meet more stringent emission limits.
In accordance with the agreement between the U.S. EPA and the PSRC, the PSRC was contacted
regarding vehicle emission factors for the years of analysis being considered for the Auburn
Gateway project. The PSRC ran the Mobile5b model, made appropriate adjustments, and
provided the carbon monoxide emission factors for use in the modeling analysis (PSRC 2003).
The Mobile5b input parameters were consistent with those used in the development of
Washington's state implementation plan and maintenance plan for carbon monoxide in the Puget
Sound region, in accordance with the recommendations of the Washington Department of
Ecology and the PSCAA.
The Tier II adjusted Mobile5b emission factors for carbon monoxide and worst-case
meteorological conditions were used as input to the CAL3QHC dispersion model (U. S. EPA
Draft ElS D- 1
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Method Used for Air Quality Analysis
1992a) to calculate ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide near the signalized intersections
selected for hotspot modeling.
Selection of Intersections for CALQSQHC Dispersion Analysis
Consistent with U.S. EPA guidance, signalized intersections that would be affected by the
proposed action alternatives were screened for possible analysis with dispersion modeling. This
screening was based on the traffic level of service, total traffic volume, and proj ect-related trips
in the future year, as determined during the traffic analysis performed for this environmental
impact statement (EIS) (see the Transportation section in Part 3). Intersections were selected for
air quality analysis by ranking the affected intersections based on the worst level of service (most
congested), the highest daily traffic volume, and the peak-hour traffic volume and selecting up to
three intersections from each category. The U.S. EPA suggests modeling intersections with
operations that would deteriorate to level of service (LOS) D or worse due to a proposed project.
U.S. EPA guidance, therefore, focuses on completing modeling analyses at as few as three to as
many as six signalized intersections, if warranted. For this project, the level of service during the
PM peak hour represents the worst-case intersection volume and delay. The signalized
intersections with LOS D or worse during the PM peak hour are listed in Table D-1.
Based on U.S. EPA guidance and available traffic data, three intersections were selected for
detailed dispersion modeling for this project. As shown in Table D-l, the same three
intersections have the largest volumes in both the opening and design years. After ranking the
intersections by cumulative delay (average intersection delay multiplied by total intersection
volume), the intersections with the three highest volumes also had the greatest cumulative delay.
Therefore, these three intersections represent the intersections that would be most affected by the
project during the PM peak hour in both the opening year and the design year:
South 277th Street at Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Avenue SE
South 277th Street at West Valley Highway
South 277th Street at Auburn Way North.
CALSQHC Dispersion Modeling
The CAL3QHC, Version 2, dispersion model was used to calculate peak-hour carbon monoxide
concentrations near the intersections most affected by the project. CAL3QHC is a dispersion
model designed to calculate pollutant concentrations caused by transportation sources (U. S. EPA
1992a). It considers free-flow and queue emissions (based on Mobile5b emission factors)
together with intersection geometry, wind direction, and other meteorological factors.
NE Aubum/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
D-2 Draft ElS
Method Used for Air Quafity Analysis
Table D-1.
Traffic delay and volume at project-affected signalized intersections during
PM peak-hour traffic.
Alternatives in 2008
Alternatives in 2020
Location No Build 1 2 3 No Build 1 2 3
S. 277th St. with Delay 111.8 115.4 116.8 112.6 154.0 166.6 162.1 158.1
Kent-Kangley Rd. Volume 5,156 5,249 5,296 5,223 6,379 6,728 6,601 6,494
S. 277th St. with W. Delay 75.3 82.0 83.5 80.6 131.5 142.0 141.9 137.6
Valley Hwy. Volume 4,782 4,831 4,859 4,821 5,917 6,095 6,039 5,986
S. 277th St. with Delay 50.0 45.0 47.7 43.7 77.2 111.2 99.1 92.7
Auburn Way N. Volume 4,627 4,805 4,902 4,874 5,725 6,390 6,160 6,025
Central Ave. with Delay 59.4 61.4 63.1 60.0 108.3 115.8 113.1 111.9
Willis St. Volume 3,850 3,896 3,918 3,889 4,764 4,937 4,871 4,843
Auburn Way N. Delay 40.9 42.1 NA 40.9 55.0 63.3 61.8 64.8
with 15th St. NE Volume 4,080 4,120 NA 4,113 5,048 5,197 5,142 5,114
Auburn Way N. Delay 40.5 43.5 46.2 46.1 69.8 91.9 87.5 79.4
with 37th St. NE Volume 3,144 3,234 3,283 3,228 3,890 4,226 4,111 4,069
S. 277th St. with I Delay NA NA NA NA 54.2 92.5 72.4 56.0
St. NE Volume NA NA NA NA 4,616 5,680 5,329 5,027
I St. SE with Harvey Delay NA NA NA NA NA 47.2 37.4 NA
Rd. NE Volume NA NA NA NA NA 4,076 4,001 NA
Auburn Way N. Delay NA NA NA NA NA 45.6 a NA NA
with 45th St. NE Volume NA NA NA NA NA 3,207 NA NA
The txaffic a~alysis considered two txaffic conditions for the determinations of level of service: roadways with and without
previously approved planned improvements. The air quality analysis included only the condition with planned improvements
because it is reasonable to assume that these improvements would be in place before the opening and design yeays, improving
level of service at nearby intersections.
Only signalized intersections with LOS D or worse under any alternative are included in this table.
NA = level of service better than LOS D under applicable alternative.
a Options for vehicle access to the Auburn Gateway project ayea were considered at several new or improved intersections
directly adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project ayea. Of all the intersections considered for the analysis of vehicle access
th
options, the intersection at Auburn Way North and 45 Street NE would operate at LOS D or worse under vehicle access
option B only.
The following assumptions and parameters, which were used in the CAL3QHC modeling, are
consistent with the Washington's state implementation plan for carbon monoxide, Washington
state's maintenance plan for carbon monoxide, and U.S. EPA guidance for dispersion modeling:
Critical meteorological parameters were a mixing height of 3,280.8 feet, a
low wind speed (3.28 feet/second), and a stable atmosphere (Class E)
(U.S. EPA 1992b).
The modeling evaluated 72 wind directions (in 5-degree increments) to
ensure that worst-case conditions were considered for each receptor
location (U.S. EPA 1992b).
wp4 /01-01924-000 opperdix ddac
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Draft ElS D-3
Method Used for Air Quality Analysis
A background 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration of 3 parts per
milliion was assumed to represent other sources in the project area (U. S.
EPA 1992b).
The modeling configuration considered road links extending 1,000 feet
from each intersection. Using the procedures required for the CAL3QHC
dispersion model, both free-flow and queue links were configured
approaching and departing the intersections evaluated. Near-road
receptors were placed 10 feet, 82.5 feet, 165 feet, and 330 feet from cross
streets, 10 feet from the nearest traffic lane, and 5.7 feet above the ground
to correspond with a typical sidewalk location at breathing height.
Modeling used approximately 24 near-road receptors near each
intersection (U.S. EPA 1992b).
The PM peak-hour traffic conditions provided by the transportation
consultant would lead to the highest possible 1-hour and 8-hour carbon
monoxide concentrations.
Modeled 1-hour concentrations were converted to represent 8-hour
concentrations using a persistence factor (i.e., the ratio of 8-hour to 1-hour
carbon monoxide concentrations) to represent variability in both traffic
volumes and meteorological conditions. Since actual monitoring data
were not available, a U.S. EPA default persistence factor of 0.7 was used.
All roadways and intersections were considered to be at-grade.
NE Aubum/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
D-4 Draft ElS
APPENDIX E
Plant and Animal Species List
Wildlife Species That May Exist or Were Observed
in the Auburn Gateway Project Area and Vicinity
Habitat Type
Permanently Seasonally
Flooded Flooded
Emergent Emergent Shrub Forested Upland Agricultural
Species Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Forest/Shrub Grasslaxtd
Amphibians
Bullfrog X
Ensatina X
Long-toed salamander X X X X
Northwestern salamander X X X X
Pacific chorus (tree) frog X X X X X
Pacific giant salamander X X X
Rough-skinned newt X X X
Western toad X X
Reptiles
Common garter snake X X X X X X
Northwestern gm:ter snake X X X X X
Rubber boa X X X X X X
Western terrestrial ga~ter snake X X X X
Birds
American crow a X X X X X
Americaxt gold£mch X X
Americaxt kestzel X X X
American pigeon X X X
American robin a X X X X X X
Anna' s hummingbird X X X
Bald eagle a X X
Band-tailed pigeon X X X X X X
Barn owl a X X X X X X
Bewick' s wren X X X
Black-capped chickadee X X
Black-headed grosbeak X X
Brown-headed cowbird X X X X X X
Bushtit X X
C axtada goose X X X
Chestnut-backed chickadee X X
Common snipe a X X
Common yellowthroat a X X
Dark-eyed ,junco X X
Downy woodpecker X X
European starling a X X X
wp4 /01-01924-000 c~petMix e. doc
Draft ElS E- 1
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Wildlife Species That May Exist or Were Observed
in the Auburn Gateway Project Area and Vicinity (continued)
Habitat Type
Permanently Seasonally
Flooded Flooded
Emergent Emergent Shrub Forested Upland Agricultural
Species Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Forest/Shrub Grassland
Birds (continued)
Fox sparrow X X
Golden-crowned kinglet X
Golden-crowned sparrow X
Great blue heron a X X X X X
Green-winged teal X X X
Hairy woodpecker X X
House finch a X X X
House spazrow a X
Killdeer a X X X
MacGillivray's warbler X X
Mallard a X X X X
Marsh wren a X X
Mourning dove X X
Nor/hem flicker X X
Nor/hem hamer X X X
NortStem pintail X X X
Osprey X
Pileated woodpecker X X
Red-tailed hawk a X X X
Red-winged blackbird X X X X
Rock dove X
Ruby-crowned kinglet X
Rufous hummingbird X X X
Rufous-sided towhee X X
Songsparrow a X X X X X X
Townsend's warbler X X X X X X
Tree swallow X X X X X X
Turkey vulture X
Varied/5u-ush X X
Vaux' s swift X X X X X X
Violet-green swallow X X X
Western screech-owl X X
White-crowned sparrow X X
Wilson' s warbler X X
Winter wren X
Yellow warbler X X
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
E-2 Draft ElS
Wildlife Species That May Exist or Were Observed
in the Auburn Gateway Project Area and Vicinity (continued)
Habitat Type
Permanently Seasonally
Flooded Flooded
Emergent Emergent Shrub Forested Upland Agricultural
Species Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Forest/Shrub Grassland
Yellow-rumped warbler I I I I X I X I
Mammals
Big brown bat X X X
Black rat X X X
Bushy-tailed woodrat
California myotis X X X
Coyotea X X X X
Creeping vole X X
Deer mouse X
Douglas' squirrel X X
Eastern gray squirrel X X
Hoary bat X X X
House mouse X
Little brown myotis X X X
Long-eared myotis X X X
Long-legged myotis X X X
Marsh shrew X X
Mule deer X X X X
Norway rat X X X X X X
Raccoon a X X X X X
Red fox X X X
Shrew-mole X
Silver-haired bat X X X
Stziped skunk X X X
Townsend's chipmunk X X X
Townsend's mole X X
Vagra2t shrew X X X X X
Virginia opossum X X X X X
Western pocket gopher X
Western red bat X X X
Western small-footed myotis X X X
Western spotted skunk X X X
White-tailed deer a X X X X
Sources: Sibley 2003; Bats Northwest 2003; Burke Museum of Natural History axtd Culture 2003; Burt and Grossenheider 1980;
Corkra2 a2d Thomas 1996; Eder 2002; Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973; Ingles 1965; Leonard et al. 1993; Nagorsen and Brigham
1993; Pacific Biodiversity Institute 2003; Parametxix 200lb; St. John 2002
a Animals or signs of tfteir presence were observed by Herrera Environmental Consultants on March 2003 or Parametxix
(200lb).
wp4 /01-01924-000 opperMix e. doc
Draft ElS E-3
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
APPENDIX F
Hazardous Materials Regulations
and Database Resources
Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database
Resources
Hazardous materials may be classified into a number of different categories based on applicable
laws and regulations that define their characteristics and use, including the following:
Hazardous waste
Dangerous waste
Hazardous substances
Toxic substances.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U. S. EPA) and the Washington Department of
Ecology maintain databases to track sites with potential and confirmed releases of chemicals to
the environment and to monitor facilities that manage hazardous materials as part of their
operations.
The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) defines what is meant by
hazardous waste. In Washington state, the Department of Ecology has been authorized by the
U.S. EPA to implement most of the RCRA program. This authorization was based on state
"dangerous waste" regulations that are consistent with and at least as stringent as the federal
requirements. The U.S. EPA tracks hazardous waste management at individual facilities
throughout the state based on notification requirements and records that define the magnitude of
waste generated (i.e., small or large quantity), define the type of handling performed (i.e.,
treatment, storage, or disposal), and identify whether a release to the environment has occurred.
The Department of Ecology tracks facilities based on the required registration of underground
storage tanks; it also maintains an inventory of solid waste facilities and landfill sites.
Nationally, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), also known as Superfund, defines hazardous substances. The Department of
Ecology operates a parallel program in Washington state under the Model Toxics Control Act
(MTCA). Both programs are designed and administered to provide appropriate responses to the
release of hazardous substances to the environment. MTCA also addresses releases of petroleum
products that are not covered under federal statutes. The U.S. EPA tracks sites based on reported
potential or actual releases of hazardous substances to the environment, emergency response
notifications, and cleanup progress at maj or release sites. The Department of Ecology tracks the
same types of sites and also tracks petroleum releases, including releases from underground
storage tanks.
Toxic substances are a subset of hazardous substances that are additionally regulated by the
federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA was adopted so that all new chemical
substances and existing chemicals put to new uses, other than pesticides, could be evaluated for
their health and environmental effects. Beyond CERCLA and RCRA, additional controls
Draft ElS F- 1
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources
governing disposal have been specifically applied to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). TSCA
sites are tracked by the U.S. EPA.
The following discussion provides detailed information about the regulatory framework and
reference material accessed to determine existing site conditions based on available
documentation.
Regulatory Databases
The U.S. EPA and the Department of Ecology maintain databases to track conditions related to
the handling of hazardous materials or their discharge to the environment. A description of the
databases reviewed for the Auburn Gateway project is provided below.
Federal Databases
The U.S. EPA maintains several databases to track properties or facilities that it has investigated
or is currently investigating for releases or threatened releases of hazardous substance to the
environment. The U.S. EPA also identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of
generation to the point of disposal. The following federal databases were searched to identify
and evaluate potential sites of concern in and surrounding the Auburn Gateway project area.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) includes data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the
U.S. EPA by states, municipalities, private companies, and private persons pursuant to Section
103 of CERCLA. CERCLIS includes sites that either have been proposed for inclusion or are
already on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites in the screening and assessment phase for
possible inclusion on the NPL. The CERCLIS list includes sites from 1983 to the present.
Emergency Response Notification System
The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) records and stores information on
reported releases of oil and hazardous substances.
National Priorities List
The NPL, which a subset of the information included in CERCLIS, identifies over 1,200 sites for
priority cleanup under the Superfund program.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) includes selective
information on sites that generate, transport, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste, as
identified by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
NE Aubum/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
F-2 Draft ElS
Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources
Corrective Action Reports
Corrective Action Reports (CORRACTS) identify waste handlers with RCRA corrective action
activity.
Facility Index System
The Facility Index System (FINDS) is a database of facilities (or sites) that are monitored or
regulated by the U.S. EPA. FINDS uses several databases to track these sites:
Permit Compliance System (PCS)
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
Docket for civil enforcement cases (DOCKET)
Docket for criminal enforcement cases (C-DOCKET)
Federal Underground Injection Control (FURS)
Federal Facilities Information System (FFIS)
State Environmental Laws and Statues (STATE)
PCB Activity Data System (PADS).
The FINDS database is updated quarterly; the version evaluated for the purpose of this EIS was
dated April 1998.
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
The Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (HMIRS) contains information about
incidents of hazardous materials spills that are reported to U.S. Department of Transportation.
Materials Licensing Tracking System
The Materials Licensing Tracking System (MLTS) is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC); it lists approximately 8,100 sites that store or use radioactive materials and
are subject to NRC licensing requirements.
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
The RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (RAATS) contains records based on
enforcement actions issued under RCRA that pertain to maj or violators and includes
administrative and civil actions brought by the U.S. EPA.
Records of Decision
A Record of Decision (ROD) mandates a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site and
includes technical and health-related information to aid in the site cleanup.
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS) identifies facilities that release toxic
chemicals to the air, water, and land in reportable quantities under the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, Section 313.
Draft ElS F-3
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources
Toxic Substance Control Act
The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory list identifies
manufacturers and importers of chemical substances. The list also includes the product volume
of these substances by manufacturing plant site.
State Databases
The state of Washington and county governments also maintain databases of information on
hazardous materials sites. The following state databases were searched to identify and evaluate
potential sites of concern in and surrounding the Auburn Gateway project area.
Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List
The Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) constitutes the state's record of
hazardous substance sites; it is the state's equivalent of the federal Superfund CERCLIS. The
sites on the CSCSL may or may not be included on the federal CERCLIS list.
Hazardous Sites List
The Hazardous Sites List (HSL) is a subset of the CSCSL. It includes sites that have been
assessed and ranked using the Washington Ranking Method (WARM).
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Site List
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site list contains an inventory of reported
incidents of leaking underground storage tanks. This list may also identify the type of material
released and the affected media (i.e., air, soil, and water).
Solid Waste Facility Database
Solid waste facilities/landfill site records contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities
and landfills across the state.
Underground Storage Tank Database
Underground storage tanks are regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA and must be registered with
Ecology. The database contains information such as the site location, number of tanks, materials
stored, and date of installation for registered tanks.
Independent Cleanup Reports
The Independent Cleanup Reports database identifies sites that have submitted remedial action
reports to the Department of Ecology. These are independent remedial actions conducted
without the oversight or approval of the Department of Ecology. Owners/operators are not under
an order or decree to conduct these cleanup actions.
NE Aubum/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
F-4 Draft ElS
Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources
Other Records
Washington Department of Ecology Records
For sites identified on the LUST and CSCSL lists, all available the Department of Ecology
records were reviewed. Information gathered from the file reviews included the type of release,
affected media (soil or ground water), limits of contamination, corrective actions taken, and
potential impacts associated with planned construction.
King County Records
The King County archives were reviewed, including property tax records dating from the early
1900s to the present.
Historical Records
The following historical records were reviewed:
Historical topographic maps from the U.S. Geological Survey with
coverage from the late 1940s through the early 1990s (Landau 2003)
Historical aerial photographs with coverage from the 193 Os through the
1990s (Walker & Associates 1936-2000)
Historical property tax records prior to 1974 (Washington State Archives
2003)
Auburn City Directories between the 1960s and the late 1970s
Results of a phase I environmental site assessment of Auburn Valley 6
Drive-in Theater (Landau 2003)
Results of an asbestos and lead survey of Auburn Valley 6 Drive-in
Theater (Prezant 2002).
Reconnaissance of Sites in the Auburn Gateway Project Area
On February 27, 2003, a visual reconnaissance of the Auburn Gateway project area and adjacent
properties was conducted to observe current site conditions and identify visible indications of
hazardous or potentially hazardous substances historically or currently used, generated, stored, or
disposed of. Site locations in and around the project area identified on the LUST site list and the
C SC SL were visually confirmed and mapped. Reconnaissance of adjacent properties was
restricted to observations from public areas.
Draft ElS F-5
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
APPENDIX G
Level of Service Definitions
Level of Service Definitions
Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions. These levels
of service are designated with letters ranging from LOS A, which is indicative of good operating
conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which is indicative of stop-and-go conditions with
frequent and lengthy delays. Levels of service for this analysis were developed using procedures
presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000).
Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay can be a cause of
driver discomfort, frustration, inefficient fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically,
level-of-service criteria are stated in terms of the average delay per vehicle in seconds. Delay is
a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables including: the quality of
progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume-to-capacity ratio for the lane group or
approach in question. Table B-1 shows the level of service criteria for signalized intersections
from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000.
Table B-1. Level of service for signalized intersections.
Level of
Service Average Delay Per Vehicle General Description
A Less than 10.0 seconds
B 10.1 to 20.0 seconds
C 20.1 to 35.0 seconds
D 35.1 to 55.0 seconds
E 55.1 to 80.0 seconds
F Greater than 80.0 seconds
Free flow
Stable flow (slight delays)
Stable flow (acceptable delays)
Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay---occasionally wait tStrough
more than one signal cycle before proceeding.
Unstable flow (approaching intolerable delay)
Forced flow (jammed)
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacit~ Manual, 2000.
For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the average delay per vehicle for each
turning movement. The level of service for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is
determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement.
Delay is related to the availability of gaps in the main street's traffic flow, and the ability of a
driver to enter or pass through those gaps. Table B-2 shows the level of service criteria for
unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual.
Table B-2. Level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections.
Level of Service Average Delay (seconds per vehicle)
A Less than 10.0
B 10.1 to 15.0
C 15.1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 35.0
E 35.1 to 50.0
F Greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacit~ Manual, 2000.
NE Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Draft ElS G- 1
APPENDIX H
Internal Capture Rates
Z
lO~ ~ · ~ ~nar~on H~xx* O~ ~
T~pc~m~ H~n~txx~ ~ ~ · n11o3
z
APPENDIX I
Trip Distribution Patterns
! ®~~~ ~~1..... 304TH
D
O ROUTE DISTRIBUTION '~ ~ F ~
NORTHEAST AUBURN A,,~.,,~ ,.~ ~:' ~ <~ :~ !',~'" <?~ :~ ::~
SPECIAL A~A PLAN R~TAIL TRIP DISTRIBUTION II~I~~I~t~~
APPENDIX J
Determination of Significance
and Request for Comments
on the Scope of the
Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
Determination of Significance and Request for
Comments on the Scope
of the
Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties
Special Area Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
Description of the Proposal
Robertson Properties Group (RPG), owner of the Valley Six Drive-in theaters and adjacent properties,
proposes to redevelop their property with a mix of retail, office, and/or multifamily residential uses. The
current zoning for much of the RPG property is ~Unclassified" and the site is located within a larger area
designated as a ~Special Planning Area" by the Aubum Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the City of
Aubum is preparing a special area plan or %ub-area plan" to establish new zoning for the RPG property,
as called for in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is the preparation and adoption of a new, sub-area plan as an element of the Aubum
Comprehensive Plan, and new zoning, and design guidelines to allow development of a mix of land uses
including new retail space, office space, and/or multifamily residential units. The project would include
new roads and utilities, surface parking, and stormwater detention facilities. The existing theater and other
structures on the RPG property would be demolished. Access to the site is proposed from Aubum Way
North, D Street NE, South 277th Street, and an extension of I Street NE that would reach South 277th
Street. The project would be constructed in multiple phases to occur over approximately 10 years.
Currently, development on the project site is subject to the requirements of the Unclassified (UNCL),
Heavy Commercial (C-3) and Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning districts of the Auburn Municipal
Code. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan recognizes that future development of the Northeast
Aubum area would benefit from a special planning study to establish how the property should be zoned
and developed. Changes to zoning and development standards will affect the type, size and location of
uses permitted on the properties. The new zoning could be a modification of an existing zoning
designation or an entirely new zone.
January14, 2003 1
Project Location
RPG proposes to develop several parcels totaling approximately 55-acres located between D Street NE
and the northward projection of I Street NE, south of South 277th Street and north of 45th Street NE in
Auburn, Washington. (See attached Map, Page 5.) The EIS and special area plan will address an
approximately 103-acre study area consisting of the RPG property and an additional approximately 48
acres. The study area extends east of the RPG property to the existing I Street NE right-of-way, and west
of the RPG property to Aubum Way North.
Project Proponent: Robertson Properties Group. Michael Dee, Director of Development
Lead Agency: City of Aubum Department of Planning and Community Development
File Number: SEP02-0008
Environmental Impact Statement Required
The City of Auburn, as lead agency for environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA; Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21C) and Auburn City Code 16.06, has determined that
the proposed RPG development could result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. The
applicant has agreed that an environmental impact statement (EIS) as required under RCW
43.21.030(2)(c) will be prepared.
Actions Required for Approval of the Proposal
Approval of the proposal would require: 1. Adoption of a sub-area plan amending the comprehensive plan;
2. Adoption of zoning regulations and design guidelines applicable to the sub-area;
3. Adoption of a planned action ordinance, and
4. Approval of development plans.
Description of Alternatives
Under SEPA rules (WAC 197-11-0440(5)) the ElS shall evaluate reasonable altematives that meet the
proponent's objectives, and a no-action altemative. Accordingly, the ElS will evaluate the proposed
action in three scenarios developed by RPG that cover the potential range of land uses that could be
developed under the proposed new zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. Each scenario will be
evaluated as an alternative in the ElS, although it is recognized that any development that is ultimately
approved and constructed following this evaluation could be a combination of the altematives. The
proposed land uses that form the basis of these alternatives include:
· Retail Altemative: 720,000 s.f. of retail
· Retail and Office Alternative: 200,000 s.f. of retail, and 1,600,000 s.f. of office
· Retail and Residential Altemative: 360,000 s.f. of retail, and 500 residential units (not to exceed
50% of land area of RPG holdings).
· No Action Alternative: Development consistent with the current zoning, which includes heavy
commercial and multifamily residential uses on some portions of the site, and single-family uses
in the Unclassified zone, which comprises the majority of the site.
Elements of the Environment to Be Addressed in the ElS
The lead agency has determined the following areas for discussion and evaluation in the ElS:
January14, 2003 2
Earth/geology
A large quantity of fill will be required to raise the grade above the level of the floodplain. Grading for
the project could increase the potential for soil erosion during and after construction. Filling and soil
compaction may also adversely affect subsurface and surface hydrology.
Air
Air quality could be adversely impacted by dust during construction and by vehicle emissions during
operation of the proposed development.
Water
Construction of the project is expected to significantly increase the amount of impervious surface within
the project area, in mm increasing the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. Although city stormwater
regulations provide controls, this increase could still have significant impacts on the hydrology and water
quality of nearby surface and groundwater, subsequently resulting in impacts on surface waters in the
area. The ElS will evaluate the effect of discharges and pollutant loadings to surface waters that could be
expected from development of the site under each altemative scenario.
Floodplain filling is allowed only when adequate compensatory floodplain capacity is provided. The
project involves floodplain filling, and modifications to the floodplain could have significant impacts on
the existing hydrology of the site and adjacent properties.
Plants and Animals
The planning area includes wetlands, and is adjacent to a proposed wetland mitigation project site on the
Green River. Wetlands provide habitat for diverse plant and animal species. The project could adversely
affect the existing and proposed wetland habitat in the project area. Potential impacts on threatened or
endangered species in the study area vicinity will also be evaluated.
Environmental Health
The project would generate noise during construction and could also include noise generators such as
ventilation equipment during operation of the development. The project site also is adjacent to potential
noise sources such as commercially zoned properties where a wide range of uses could occur and existing
and proposed high volume roadways. Residential uses in particular could be adversely affected by noise
impacts from the development.
Previous land uses may have left hazardous materials on the site and could pose health risks to future
users of the site and adjacent natural properties.
Land Use
The proposed land uses could present incompatibilities due to hours of operation, location of service and
loading activities, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts. The analysis will also assess the proposal's
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Historic and cultural resources
The project area is located on lands that may have cultural significance dating prior to European
settlement. Valuable cultural resources could be impacted by the project in areas where excavation might
occur. Due to their age, the buildings on the drive in theater site are not anticipated to be eligible for
listing on historic registers. As a result, the removal of the structures is not considered a significant
impact and is not proposed to be evaluated.
January14, 2003 3
Transportation
The project will impact arterial streets adjacent to the project site and potentially other areas of the city of
Auburn and neighboring areas. The ElS will evaluate the impacts of the project's vehicular trip
generation on transportation systems based on the City's 2020 transportation model. This analysis will
include potential impacts to intersection and arterial level of service (roadway capacity); traffic safety;
emergency vehicle access; transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movement from each alternative. The ElS will
evaluate alternative access locations on South 277th Street and Auburn Way North, and potential
realignments or closures of other local streets including, D Street NE, 49th Street NE, and the existing I
Street NE right-of-way alignment. It will also assess the potential collector roadway locations and their
access to arterial roadways. Transportation impacts from proposed development near the site could
contribute to cumulative impacts.
Public Services and Utilities
The project would create new demands on public services including police, fire, parks, and schools, and
utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, and communications and electric lines.
Scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement
Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS
during the 21-day public comment period from January 14 through February 4, 2003. You may comment
on altematives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be
required. A public meeting to accept comments on the scope of the ElS will be held on January 28, 2003
at 7:00 p.m. at Auburn City Hall, Council Chambers, 25 West Main, Aubum. Written comments on the
scope of the ElS must be postmarked by February 4, 2003 to the following address:
Paul Krauss, Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Auburn
25 West Main
Aubum, WA 98001-4998
The intent of the scoping process to narrow the scope of the ElS to those areas where significant impacts
are probable and to define appropriate altematives for consideration. It is possible that through public
comment, other areas of probable significant impact or additional altematives will be identified.
Paul Krauss, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development &
SEPA Responsible Official
Date
January14, 2003 4
Study area
Robertson Properties Proposal Site
S 277th Street
Not to scale
N
HERRERA
EhIViRONMENTAL
CONSULT4NT$
Vicinity map for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan