Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINAL EIS FOR KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLATFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WEIS) for KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT City of Auburn, WA Department of Planning and Community Development The intent and purpose of this Draft EIS is to satisfy the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21, and Auburn City Code 16.06, including the requirement to inform citizens and government agencies of a determination pursuant to SEPA. This document is not an authorization for an action, nor does it constitute a decision or recommendation for an action; in its final form, it will accompany recommended action and will be considered in making the final decision on the proposal. DATE OF ISSUE: February 11, 2005 Paul Krauss, AICP Director & SEPA Responsible Official Planning & Community Development TO: Recipients of the Final Environmental Impact Statement SUBJECT: Final Environmental Impact Statement- Kersey III Preliminary Plat Date: February 11, 2005 This Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared under the direction of the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Kersey III Preliminary Plat. The DEIS considers potential impacts and mitigation measures for two land use alternatives for the 170 acre site: the subdivision and use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) criteria to create 403 lots to support 481 dwelling units, and the subdivision and use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) criteria to create 628 lots to support 700 dwelling units. A No Action alternative is also analyzed. The project site is located generally west of Kersey Way right -of -way from 49"' Street SE (if extended) at its northern limits to the King County line at its southern limits. The project site is located adjacent to and east of the existing Lakeland Hills Divisions 8, 9 and 10. Elements of the environment addressed in the DEIS include surface water, ground water, air quality, earth, traffic and transportation, archaeological /cultural resources and land use. FACT SHEET Proposed Action The Proposed Action will involve the development of a low - density preliminary plat of 481 dwelling units or a higher density 700 dwelling unit development on a 170 -acre parcel located in the southerly portion of the City of Auburn. The 700 -unit alternative would be developed under the city's PUD regulations, while a portion of the 481 -unit alternative would require PUD approval. The project consists of seven (7) undeveloped forested parcels. The project will be governed by, among other regulations, the City of Auburn zoning and subdivision ordinances. Open space and sensitive areas would be provided or protected as required by the City of Auburn sensitive area regulations. Certain portions of the site will not be developed due to steep slopes, wetland and power line corridors. The project's proposed construction will consist of three (3) divisions and six (6) phases. The proposal includes approximately 620,000 cubic yards of earthwork, which is expected to remain on the development site. The proposal will require the on -site and off -site installation of new public facilities to serve the development, to include water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines. Onsite storm facilities include wet ponds for detention and water quality treatment. The proposal also requires the dedication of land for use as a public park. The proposal requires the dedication and construction of approximately four (4) miles of new public rights of way to serve the development and provide internal circulation. The improvements include internal streets and a new arterial connection from Evergreen Way SE to Kersey Way. Proponent Dana Mower of DBM Consulting Engineers Representing: Wayne Jones, Lakeridge Development, Inc. Clarence Wright, 6 -W, Inc. Todd Duty Lead Agency City of Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 Responsible Official: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Community Development Contact Persons: Steve Pilcher, AICP Development Services Coordinator (253) 931 -3090 spilcher@aubumwa.gov Duane Huskey, P.E. Utilities Engineering (253) 804 -5062 dhuskey@auburnwa.gov Licenses and Permits City of Auburn: Draft and Final EIS Approvals Preliminary Plat Approval Final Plat Approval Planned Unit Development Approval Grading Permit Land Clearing Permit Facility Extension Permit Building Permits Storm, Sewer and Water Meter Permits Shorelines Substantial Development improvements (potentially) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA): Notice of Construction Notice of Completion State of Washington: General Permit to Discharge Stormwater Hydraulic Project Approvals Electrical Permits Authors and Principal Author: Principal Contributors Apex Engineering Geotechnical Studies: GeoEngineers Air Quality Studies: McCulley, Frick & Gillman Wildlife Habitat/Streams Air Quality Studies: Raedeke Associates, Inc. Traffic Studies: Transportation Solutions, Inc. Archaeological Studies: permit for offsite Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited Date of DEIS Issue Draft EIS: July 1, 2004 Location of the EIS Department of Planning and Community Development and Other Environmental 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA and the Auburn Branch of the Information King County Library 1102 Auburn Way South Approximate Date of Final City Council consideration of the preliminary plat application is 11 Action anticipated no sooner than April 2005. A separate notice announcing the specific date and time of the public hearing will be provided. Final EIS February 11, 2005 FEIS Availability Copies of the FEIS are available, for a fee (to cover the copying charges) at the City of Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development, 25 West Main Street, Auburn Washington. ui TABLE OF CONTENTS Fact Sheet Table of Contents List of Figures_ List of Tables Chapter 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Chapter 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Summary Introduction Objectives of the Proposal Project Location Project Alternatives Description 1.4.1 Alternative 481 — Partial PUD Preliminary Plat 1.4.2 Alternative 700 — Complete PUD Preliminary Plat 1.4.3 No Action Alternative Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Alternatives Description of Alternatives Introduction Alternative 481 — Partial PUD Preliminary Plat_ Alternative 700 — Complete PUD Preliminary Plat No Action Alternative Utilities, Road and Storm Alternatives Chapter 3.0 Responses to Comments Icon Materials Lake Tapps Heights Maintenance Association Sheryl Mansell Jerry Bates Jonie Brook Patrice Murphy Mike Bykonen Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) Robert J. Murrey Bruce and Janet Koch Bruce and Lisa Atkins Todd and Tim Covey Harold and Duanna Richards Stu Collins Perry and Trina Peters Glen L. Wood Mickey Fassbind Margaret and Gary Staples Margaret Staples Frank and Nancy Peterson William K. Rerrick Bridget Ave. S.E. Residents, et. al. La Pianta LLC 1v -iv vi vii 1 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 7 20 21 21 21 21 21 27 28 31 33 35 37 39 42 47 49 51 54 57 60 62 64 68 70 72 74 76 79 81 84 Roger Gillette Roger Gillette Linda Howard S.I. and D. Cock& Mr. & Mrs. John Shoemaker Heidi Shoemaker Mr. & Mrs. John Shoemaker Mark and Dee Lunde Mark and Dee Lunde Lois Davis Brad J. Mosler Randall Hoffert David T. Nehren William Hedrick Kathy Holch Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Tara and Chris Schaefer VOLUME I 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 109 111 113 115 119 121 126 Appendix A Kersey III Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Addendum for the Final Environmental Impact Statement dated January 11, 2005, by T.S.I., Inc. v FIGURE Figure I Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 LIST OF FIGURES Regional Map and Project Vicinity Map Alternative 481 — Site Plan Alternative 700 — Site Plan Stormwater Discharge Points vi PAGE 4 6 25 LIST OF TABLES W: PAGE Table 1 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures vu CHAPTER 1.0 SUMMARY 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter briefly describes the alternatives considered and provides a summary of the impacts and proposed mitigation measures that would occur under the alternatives. A more detailed discussion of the alternatives is provided in Chapter 3 of this DEIS and in the Technical Appendices. 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL The objectives of this proposal are as follows: Provide for single - family housing opportunities in the City of Auburn, Fill the market need for single - family housing and, Complete the project while mitigating minimal environmental impacts. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The Kersey III project is located within the City of Auburn in the southeasterly portion of the City, immediately north of the King County line and east of the Lakeland Hills Planned Community as shown in Figure 1. The project is located between the terminus of Evergreen Way for the Lakeland Hills development and Kersey Way at the intersection of 53rd Street SE, also shown in Figure 1. The project is located in the Southwest and Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 21 North, Range 05 East, W. M., adjacent to and east of the existing Lakeland Hills Divisions 8, 9, and 10. Generally, the site is located west of the Kersey Way right -of -way from 49th Street SE (if extended) to the King County /Pierce County line. The project area includes approximately 1,950 feet of frontage on Kersey Way proximate to its intersection with 53rd Street SE. 1.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION 1.4.1 ALTERNATIVE 481— PARTIAL PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT This alternative assumes that 481 dwelling units will be constructed on the approximately 170 -acre project area utilizing the PUD ordinance on a portion of the site in order to accommodate 409 single family lots and 18 lots to accommodate 72 multiple family dwelling units in four - plexes, as shown in Figure 2. Open space and sensitive areas would be protected as directed by City of Auburn policies and applicable regulations. Under the proposal, approximately 31.4 acres of the site, including wetland and buffers and steep slopes, would be set aside as natural open space, 7.0 acres of land would be designated for dedication as a public park and 11.1 acres would be retained within the existing powerline corridor. Kersey N ALTERNATIVE 481 FIGURE 2 PLAN IS FWMAWRr AND Qy all" �gl�Zl The project would consist of three (3) divisions developed in six (6) phases each. The proposal will require on -site installation of new public facilities to serve the development to include water, stormwater and sanitary sewer lines. Two stormwater detention and treatment facilities would be constructed totaling approximately 15.0 acres. The proposal requires the dedication and construction of approximately four (4) miles of new public right of ways to access the development and provide internal circulation. These roads include internal streets and anew arterial connection from Evergreen Way SE to Kersey Way. Off -site improvements include the extension of water lines in Kersey Way to the White River or additional connection to the existing East Valley Highway main. Either water system will require an additional booster station. Off -site sanitary sewer could include either the extension of sewer on Kersey Way to an existing pump station in Oravetz Road or a partial extension on Kersey Way with a pump station extending to existing gravity sewer in Evergreen Way in Lakeland. Off -site stormwater facility improvements include the modification of an existing erosion problem along Kersey Way. 1.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 700 — COMPLETE PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT This alternative assumes that up to 700 dwelling units will be constructed on the approximately 170 -acre project area utilizing the PUD ordinance over the entire site in order to accommodate up to 628 single family lots and up to 18 lots to accommodate 72 multiple family dwelling units in four - plexes, as shown in Figure 3. The project will require the application of City of Auburn zoning and subdivision ordinances. Open space and sensitive areas would be protected as directed the City of Auburn policies and applicable regulations. Under this proposal, approximately 31.4 acres of the site, including wetland and buffers and steep slopes would be set aside as native open space, 10.6 acres of land would be designated for dedication as a public park and 11.1 acres would be retained within the existing powerline corridor. Off -site improvements include the extension of water lines in Kersey Way to the White River or additional connection to the existing East Valley Highway main. Either water system will require an additional booster station. Off -site sanitary sewer could include either the extension of sewer on Kersey Way to an existing pump station in Oravetz Road or a partial extension on Kersey Way with a pump station extending to existing gravity sewer in Evergreen Way in Lakeland. Off -site stormwater facility improvements include the modification of an existing erosion problem along Kersey Way. The project would consist of three (3) divisions developed in six (6) phases each. The proposal will require on -site and off -site installation of new public facilities to serve the development to include water, stormwater and sanitary sewer lines. Two stormwater detention and treatment facilities would be constructed, totaling approximately 15.0 acres. The proposal requires the dedication and construction of approximately four (4) miles of new public right of ways to access the development and provide internal circulation. These roads include internal streets and a new arterial connection from Evergreen Way SE to Kersey Way. 1.4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action Alternative would allow development of the 170 -acre Kersey III site under existing zoning regulations and comprehensive plan. The site is currently zoned R -1, allowing 8,000 square -foot minimum lots. The No Action Alternative would allow for the subdivision of each of the parcels that make up the Kersey III project. The No Action Alternative assumes that public utilities and the extension of Evergreen Way SE to Kersey Way will not be completed because of a lack of coordination and that a lower density would result based on the utilization of on -site wells and drainfield systems. For purposes 5 of the No Action Alternative, it is assumed that a 5 -acre minimum lot size (pursuant to King County Code 12.32.010, related to water service requirement) is required to provide for on -site wells. The No Action Alternative would then yield no more than 34 lots. The No Action Alternative did not consider the location of the 34 lots related to access to the public right -of -way and the City's regulatory limits on the length of dead -ends and single access points. The application of these additional standards would likely further limit the number of lots constructed under the No Action Alternative, but for purposes of the evaluation, the yield is projected at 34 lots, the number capable of meeting the area requirement for individual wells. This is not consistent with the zoning and Comprehensive Planning policies. Kersey III ALTERNATIVE 700 w m owwvs�, �_ _ 251 Lots 205 Lots �i'lam 305 Units 169 Lots FIGURE 3 205 Units 169 Units MIS PLAN 5 PRM S h= Q� H n 1111 0 ANO II 1 0, 1.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE ALTERNATIVES The following is a summary of the impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts for the three alternatives. A more complete description of the impacts and mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 3. Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives Topography Applicable to: No Action Alternative Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Note: Alternative 700 will have less impervious area and more open space resulting in less grading and moderation to topography. The No Action Alternative is assumed to have smaller topographic impacts due to the smaller number of anticipated building lots and less secondary roads and cul -de -sacs. Soils and Geography Applicable to: No Action Alternative Alternative 481 Alternative 700 EARTH RESOURCES Impacts Cut slopes on the order of 25 feet and fills on the order of 20 feet for the main roadway. Modification to existing topography for transitions between main roadway, secondary roads, building lots and connections to Evergreen Way and Kersey Way. Approximately 451,800 cubic yards will be graded for the main road, internal roads, lot grading and detention ponds. Settlement due to placing new loads (structures or fill embankments) over potentially compressible materials such as forest duff and undocumented existing fill. Earthwork constraints associated with excavating, hauling, placing and compacting moisture sensitive soils such as the native ice contact and glacial till materials. Excessive infiltration of stormwater into the soils below detention ponds if relatively free draining materials such as advanced outwash are exposed in the pond bottoms. Potential Mitiszation Measures Cuts to range from 5 to 15 feet can typically be held in place using conventional gravity retaining walls or by grading the slopes 2:1 or flatter. Cuts in excess of 15 feet that cannot be sloped back could require tiebacks, soil nail or similar engineered walls. Fills compacted and placed to support the new roadways and homes should be designed to accommodate the type of fill material used and the underlying soil conditions. Permanent fill slopes will generally be inclined at 2:1 or flatter. Retaining walls can be used to limit the lateral extent of the fills. Potential retaining wall options for fill applications include concrete cantilever walls, concrete masonry unit (CMU) block walls, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls and soldier pile walls. Proper site preparation techniques that include removal of all surficial organic materials (vegetation, forest duff, topsoil and large roots) from below proposed infrastructure and new fill locations. Unless subsequent exploration and testing indicates portions of the existing fill meet structural fill specifications, all fill should be removed from below proposed infrastructure and new fill embankment locations. Use of ground improvement techniques such as deep dynamic compaction or compaction grouting to enhance the in situ condition of existing fill. Mitigate onsite moisture sensitive soils by limiting earthwork activities to the dry season, typically considered to extend from June through October. Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives EARTH RESOURCES I I Impacts I Potential Mitigation Measures I Soils and Geography Geologic Hazards Chapter 3.1.3 Applicable to: No Action Alternative Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Erosion. Grading and Vibrations Erosion could lead to silt laden runoff being transported offsite, resulting in a water quality degradation of local surface water. If unmitigated, the sediment budget analysis indicates that soil loss rates could be as high as 2,000 tons per year during construction of Alternative 700. Excavation soils to be used as fill will need to be stockpiled and unsuitable or excess materials would need to be removed from the site. Heavy trucks would be required to transport fill and waste materials, which could have impacts on noise and air quality due to dust and could damage pavement along haul routes. Excavation, compaction and construction vehicles and equipment may result in vibrations that could damage nearby structures or disturb nearby residents or wildlife. Vibration impacts from earthwork are anticipated to be moderate to low. 10 Use add mixtures such as lime or cement can be used to improve the workability of onsite moisture sensitive soils during wet weather conditions. Line ponds with relatively impermeable materials if advance outwash deposits are exposed during construction. Liners could consist of natural soil liners or geosynthetic membranes. Onsite ice contact and glacial till soils may be suitable for use for natural soil liners if the use of onsite soils is desired. An erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) shall be implemented for the interception and treatment of potential silt laden runoff that could occur during clearing, grading, construction of infrastructure, and site stabilization. The ESCP should provide measures to ensure that no silt -laden runoff leaves the construction site. Measures identified in the City of Auburn Design Manual and Storm Drainage Manual to mitigate short-term impacts to earth environment during construction are proposed. Following construction, the side slopes of embankments and cut slopes shall be protected against erosion by re- vegetation (i.e. hydroseeded). Vibration mitigation should include a pre- condition survey of areas within 100 feet of construction activity and a vibration- monitoring program. Design, construct and that limit uncontrolled ground water flow it areas. maintain features surface water and landslide hazard Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives EARTH RESOURCES Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Geologic Hazards Steep Slopes and Landslides Steep slopes and landslides Potential for landslide of existing steep Mitigation for construction in landslide landslide prone slopes. hazard areas or adjacent to landslide areas Applicable to: includes the use of retaining structures and No Action Alternative The conceptual design suggests that new enhanced drainage and /or setbacks to limit Alternative 481 infrastructure will not traverse or be built the potential impacts of landslide hazards Alternative 700 over landslide hazard areas; however, on the proposed development and vice some roads and perhaps the northwest versa. stormwater detention pond might be built adjacent to landslide hazard areas. Design, construct and maintain features that limit uncontrolled surface water or groundwater flow and steep slope and landslide areas. In pond areas, it may be necessary to line the ponds. New permanent cut and fill slopes should be designed and constructed using accepted standards of practice. 11 Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives Surface Water Applicable to: No Action Alternative Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Groundwater Applicable to: No Action Alternative Alternative 481 Alternative 700 WATER RESOURCES Impacts Creation of approximately 60 acres of impervious surfaces without mitigation would cause a net increase in surface water runoff. Increases in surface water runoff have the potential to increase onsite erosion and increase the rate of offsite stream channel erosion. Unmitigated increases in stormwater flow volumes would likely cause accelerated erosion along portions of the stream banks of Bowman Creek and unnamed tributary 0043, impacting Kersey Way. Potential reduction in volume of sediment exiting the project site downstream of proposed stormwater detention ponds. The reduction in sediment could also accelerate erosion downstream of the culvert by Kersey Way. The creation of impervious surfaces would cause a net reduction in groundwater recharge and shallow groundwater flow. Potential reduction of groundwater recharge to regional aquifers is not considered to be significant because of the relatively small area of the site. A reduction in shallow groundwater flow, however, could adversely affect nearby wetlands. Potential impacts on groundwater due to surface spills of fuels, lubricants and other chemicals used during construction. Potential diversion of groundwater along the sewer system with groundwater following the backfill materials. 12 Potential Mitiszation Measures Surface water discharge from proposed stormwater detention ponds will be designed to match 50 percent of the existing peak flow rate for the two year event under existing conditions and match the 100 percent peak flow rate for the 10- year, 25 -year and 100 -year storm events under existing conditions. Restricted discharge rates will reduce the potential for increased storm channel erosion. Partial infiltration of stormwater on individual home sites will also help to mitigate reductions in shallow water flow. Supplemental evaluation of stream channel conditions along Bowman Creek in the vicinity of the outlet of the culvert beneath Kersey Way that has an existing erosional feature. Mitigation for the existing condition could consist of a properly designed and constructed energy dissipater and stream channel and bank protection. Direct roof runoff water from selected areas to infiltration and dispersion trenches on the upslope ends of wetlands in order to restore average annual shallow groundwater flows to onsite wetlands. Define and implement groundwater quality protection measures such as best management practices, spill prevention plans and monitoring of any stormwater discharge to groundwater. Due to the limitations of onsite soils, it is not proposed that any stormwater would be discharged to groundwater. Infiltration of runoff from approximately 3.44 acres of impervious surfaces from Alternative 481 could restore average annual shallow groundwater flow rates to onsite wetlands Install backfill seepage barrier with the sewer line connection at defined intervals. Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives Applicable to Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Note: The No Action Alternative is not anticipated to impact wildlife and habitat because of the smaller number and anticipated density of potential anticipated building lots. WILDLIFE AND HABITAT Impacts Clearing and grading activities will impact movement patterns of some wildlife species between habitats on and off site. State monitored or candidate species would continue to find some habitat onsite, but use of the site would be reduced and fewer individuals would be able to use the retained habitats. Development of the site would increase the degree of fragmentation of existing natural habitats onsite. The artificial edge is created between the edges of native forest habitat and development areas would likely increase the spread of invasive or weedy plant species. Open space or park areas would convert natural areas to more open managed habitat of lesser value to wildlife. Reduction of hydrology to wetlands would potentially reduce available breeding and foraged habitat. The creation of impervious surface, which will likely cause an increase in stormwater flow volumes leaving the site and causing potential downstream channel and bank erosion. 13 Potential Mitiszation Measures Wetlands would be encompassed in open space tracts that would greatly exceed wetland buffer requirements. Hydrologic changes to wetlands have the potential to affect vegetated communities and wildlife. Measurements of hydrologic conditions in wetlands after development would provide information necessary to confirm the maintenance and preservation of vegetative and wildlife habitats. Implementation of enhanced open space designs and avoidance of all 40% slopes and landslide areas (except for arterial roads) and use of low impact development techniques as part of the PUD design would further reduce impacts to wildlife and habitat. Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives WILDLIFE AND HABITAT Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Applicable to: Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts Loss of the existing vegetation and soils Alternative 481 and replacement by urban areas that Alternative 700 include impervious surfaces. Retained native habitats would be Note: fragmented and/or isolated from other The No Action Alternative native habitats, thus reducing the value to is not anticipated to wildlife. impact wetlands and streams because of the An increase in the disturbance of the smaller number and patches of native habitats retained onsite as anticipated density of a result of increased human activity. potential anticipated building lots. Impacts to wildlife include direct loss and alteration of existing native habitat and increased levels of human activity. Short-term disturbance associated with clearing and grading that would kill burrowing mammals, nesting birds and amphibians and displace the more mobile wildlife. Local populations of most native species would be reduced and cause a number of changes in the species' common position because of the urban level of development. Animals that are least tolerant of human disturbance such as ground- and shrub - nesting birds, small, ground- dwelling mammals, carnivores and amphibians would be most affected by the proposed development. 14 Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives Applicable to Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Note: The No Action Alternative is not anticipated to impact wildlife and habitat because of the smaller number and anticipated density of potential anticipated building lots. WETLANDS AND STREAMS Impacts I Potential Mitiszation Measures Indirect impacts could result from construction activity affecting surface and near surface flows with potential impacts to the hydrology of the onsite wetlands. Reducing water flows to wetland areas could impact the wetlands and their associated plant and animal communities. The creation of impervious surfaces would likely cause a net reduction in groundwater recharge and shallow water interflow to the wetlands and streams. Native growth open space encompassing the wetlands and their total buffers would total essentially the same acreage as Alternative 700. Sediment transport deposition, particularly during construction, can adversely impact plant and animal communities of the wetlands by affecting water quality (increased turbidity, suspended and settleable solids, temperature, pollutants), which could adversely affect the suitability for wildlife habitat. Increases in sediment deposition could occur during construction which could adversely affect some wetland vegetation and associated wildlife in the wetlands. Clearing and conversion of adjoining areas to residential and recreational uses will increase fragmentation of native habitat and increase the risk of spread of invasive species and the addition of increased human activity and associated increase in domestic pets could adversely affect the habitat value of remaining native open space areas. 15 Preservation of all onsite wetlands and providing buffers that meet or exceed the recommended requirements. Routing stormwater runoff from the proposed development through stormwater detention and water quality facilities prior to discharge to sensitive downstream areas. Limiting hydrologic impacts to major onsite wetlands by routing roof runoff and runoff from undeveloped portions of the onsite and offsite sub -basin to the wetlands. The use of stormwater detention ponds to control discharge rates before releasing roof runoff and other runoff from undeveloped surfaces to the major wetlands to avoid substantial erosion impacts. Monitoring of wetland performance after construction. Additional infiltration trenches or flow spreaders located near the source of Stream A to minimize hydrologic impacts from site development. Provide a 50 -foot wetland buffer around Wetland D. Clearly marking the limits of wetland buffers or setbacks prior to construction activities on the site to prevent inadvertent or unnecessary encroachment. Including energy dissipaters or flow dispersion facility that outfalls for stormwater detention/water quality treatment facilities to prevent substantial erosion impacts within Stream A and B. Limiting major initial clearing, grubbing and grading activities where feasible to the drier months of the year (e.g. April to October) or implementing additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) for any such activities during the wet season. This would further reduce the potential for substantial adverse impacts to wetlands from sediment deposition. Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives Applicable to No Action Alternative Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Applicable to Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Note: The No Action Alternative is not anticipated to impact the transportation network. Police and Fire Service to: LAND USES Impacts The development of the Kersey III project will convert existing forested and open space land into a preliminary plat with residential and open space land uses. TRANSPORTATION Impacts Alternate 481 will generate 428 total new trips while Alternate 700 will generate 622 new trips. The intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE will be degraded to a poor level of service. The new intersection of Evergreen Way SE at Kersey Way and 53rd Street SE requires traffic control and realignment to maintain functions operations of a four -way intersection. Entering site distance requirements in the southbound direction along Kersey Way SE at the eastern site access should meet or exceed City of Auburn standards with the construction of Evergreen Way SE PUBLIC SERVICES Impacts Commensurate increase in demand related to constructed density. 16 Potential Mitiszation Measures Mitigation is not anticipated regarding land use in the DEIS as the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives and the Zoning Ordinance. The City is likely to impose mitigation on specific development proposals during the process associated with subsequent permit reviews to ensure compliance is achieved. Potential Mitigation Measures The City of Auburn collects transportation impact fee. Construction of a signal at Evergreen Way SE (extended) and Kersey Way SE is included in the project. Traffic control measures are needed, that will include a roundabout at Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE prior to the opening of the Evergreen Way SE extension to Kersey Way. Realignment of 53rd Street SE/Kersey Way intersection with the proposed Evergreen Way SE intersection is required. An Addendum Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 11, 2005, and included in this FEIS, has been prepared to address safety along Kersey Way S.E., safety along Evergreen Way, analysis of 53rd Street S.E., corridor analysis under 2008 conditions rather than 2005 conditions, and roundabout analysis of Evergreen Way and Lakeland Hills Way. The TIA addendum identified the need for the addition of auxiliary lanes at 53rd St. SE & Kersey Way and an advance signal warning for the Kersey Way/Evergreen Way intersection Potential Mitigation Measures Tax revenues generated by the preliminary plat will be available to the City of Auburn to finance additional staff and equipment Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives No Action Alternative Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Parks Applicable to Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Schools Applicable to No Action Alternative Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Sanitary Sewer Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Option 1 — Sewer Main This option would require the construction of a sewer main from the Kersey III site on Kersey Way north to Oravetz Road, then along the south side of the White River, connecting to an existing manhole /sewer stub northeast of Lakeland Hills Lift Station in Oravetz Road. Increase in residential population increases demand for viable park spaces and recreational opportunities. PUBLIC SERVICES Impacts Commensurate increase in the number of school -aged children based on the constructed density. UTILITIES Impacts Increases the amount of sewage flows proceeding to the downstream pumping station and eventually the overall King County Department of Natural Resources, Waste Water Treatment Division (King County) treatment system. Construction impacts would include the trenching and excavation of the sewer line along the entire length of the conveyance system, creating the potential for impacts from erosion and sedimentation to Bowman Creek, located to the east, generally follows Kersey Way corridor. Either project creates the need to provide for a sanitary sewer system pursuant to the Auburn 2001 Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 17 needs. Incorporation of crime prevention through environmental design strategies into subdivision and house design to minimize opportunities for crime. Dedication land for park in accordance with City policy, 6.25 -acres for each 1,000 persons of projected population. Potential Mitigation Measures Payment of the applicable school impact fee at the time of building permit Potential Mitigation Measures Implementation of Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control along Kersey Way for the protection of Bowman Creek and along the southerly boundary and through the site for the protection of drainage courses, wetlands and slope areas. Observation of geotechnical engineering recommendations for the protection of slope areas during the trenching excavation of the force main. Size of pipes in order to accommodate the remainder of the South Hill Service Area. Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives Sanitary Sewer Alternative 481 Alternative 700 Option 2 — Sanitary Sewer Pump Station Interim Pump Station which would be designed to place a gravity sanitary sewer main in the new Evergreen Way SE extending to Kersey Way, and north on Kersey Way to the north end of the project site. A pump station would connect to the existing gravity system in Evergreen Way within the Lakeland Hills development, discharging into the existing sanitary sewer main within Lakeland Hills. Sanitary Sewer No Action Alternative UTILITIES Impacts This option would require the excavation, trenching and construction of the sewer main, force main, and pump station along the southerly boundary of the Kersey III project site and through the project site, primarily through open space and residential right -of -ways of the plat, creating the potential for impacts from erosion and sedimentation to downstream wetlands and Bowman Creek. Analysis of pumping demands indicates that capacity improvements are needed in the Lakeland system. The downstream capacity would accommodate Alternative 481 plus approximately 109 lots in the surrounding service area. The downstream capacity would accommodate approximately 638 units under Alternative 700. Under this option, however, no other portion of the South Hill service area basin could be accommodated within the Lakeland system. The No Action Alternative would require the development of 34 new wells and onsite drainfield systems. 18 Potential Mitigation Measures Replacement or bypass of the first two pipes in Evergreen Way in order to provide the necessary capacity that is available in the downstream system within the Lakeland Hills system. Implementation of Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control along Kersey Way for the protection of Bowman Creek and along the southerly boundary and through the site for the protection of drainage courses, wetlands and slope areas. Observation of geotechnical engineering recommendations for the protection of slope areas during the trenching excavation of the force main. The number of units served by this alternative would be limited to the downstream capacity. Pump station is an interim solution and participation in the construction of the main along Kersey Way to the Metro Pump Station is still required. Lot sizes would be 5 acres in size or greater to meet State Health Standards. Lot sizes and drainfield systems would need to be sized to address existing onsite soils and slope conditions. Table 1— Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Alternatives UTILITIES Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Water Alternative 481 would require Development of a booster pump facility approximately 332 gallons per minute and extension of water main along Kersey Alternative 481 (gpm) to be supplied to the site while Way to the Kersey III site per the City of Alternative 700 alternative 700 requires approximately 483 Auburn Comprehensive Sewer System gpm for peak day domestic supply. Plan. Construction impacts include the installation of water service mains along rights -of -way, which would include the management of excavation materials and possible interruption of traffic during construction. Water No impacts are expected from the installation of wells to serve large lot No Action Alternative developments ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Applicable to: Potential impacts of five areas within the A professional archaeologist should site which may have moderate potential for monitor ground- disturbing activities No Action Alternative archaeological deposits which were not through topsoil and the upper layer of Alternative 481 evident during the field reconnaissance. glacial deposits in the five areas for the Alternative 700 proposed Kersey III project. These areas may have potential for archaeological deposits due to the ridge In the event that hunter - fisher - gatherer or line and flat areas found in these five areas. historic period archaeological deposits and/or human remains are inadvertently Potential impact to inadvertently discovered during construction, ground - discovered archaeological deposits that disturbing activity should be halted could be encountered during construction. immediately in an area large enough to maintain integrity of the deposits and coordination with several local and state agencies should be held. Discovery of archaeological resources during construction of individual plat developments or under large lot scenario would also require the halting of ground disturbing activities in order to assess and maintain the integrity of archaeological deposits. AIR QUALITY Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Applicable to: Control measures and best management Air and odor pollutants from trucks and practices of the Associated General No Action Alternative construction equipment and operations Contractors of Washington shall be defined Alternative 481 could occur. and implemented for use during Alternative 700 construction. Traffic delays due to construction traffic. 19 CHAPTER 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 20 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a summary and review of the Alternatives to be considered in relationship to the proposed Kersey III Preliminary Plat project alternatives and described in section 1.4. In addition, a review is made of several feasibility alternatives involving options for providing water and sewer service, road access and stormwater management. 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 481- PARTIAL PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT Alternative 481 proposes 481 dwelling units on the 170 -acre site, including 409 single- family and 72 multifamily units. This alternative will provide approximately 31.4 acres of open space, in addition to 7 acres of public park. This alternative would create approximately 60 acres of impervious area. 2.3 ALTERNATIVE 700 - COMPLETE PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT Alternative 700 proposes the development of a maximum of 700 dwelling units, 628 single family houses and 72 multifamily units. This alternative would provide approximately 35 acres of open space and including approximately 10.6 acres of land for public park. This alternative would utilize the City's Planned Unit Development Ordinance to increase density and provide for more open space. This alternative would create approximately 56 acres of impervious area. 2.4 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action Alternative assumes the use of onsite wells to provide water and would require 5 -acre minimum lots. This alternative would propose 34 units on 5 -acre lots. The alternative would also utilize onsite drainfields for sanitary service. Access would be provided individually for each of the three separate parcels that make up the site. 2.5 UTILITIES, ROAD AND STORM ALTERNATIVES As part of the environmental impact analysis for the Kersey III preliminary plat, several conceptual alternatives for the provision of water, sewer, storm and roads for the project were identified. This section summarizes the alternatives and related environmental and administrative impacts or feasibility. In this section a number of alternatives are presented. Some alternatives were determined to be unfeasible or would not otherwise meet City requirements. While analyzed briefly here, these alternatives were not further analyzed in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. 21 Sewer Alternative Two alternatives for sewer service were proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIS. Option 1 — Sewer Comprehensive Plan The City's Sewer Comprehensive Plan, defines service to the project site via a gravity sewer main in Kersey Way, which would follow Kersey Way north to Oravetz Road and then west to a connection to the existing system in Oravetz Road. This alternative would consist of constructing the sewer main in Kersey Way with the sewer main being sized to accommodate the entire South Hill Service Area as identified in the City of Auburn Sewer Comprehensive Plan. The sewer main would connect to the existing manhole northeast of the Lakeland Hills Lift Station in Oravetz Road. A Shorelines Substantial Development Permit would be required since work would occur within 200 feet of the shoreline of the White River. Option 2 — Interim Pump Station The sanitary sewer system under the Interim Pump Station option would be designed to place a gravity sanitary sewer main in the new Evergreen Way right -of -way internal to the project, extending to Kersey Way, and north on Kersey Way to the north end of the project site. From there, the sewer main would extend westward to a pump station, which would then pump south through the Kersey Three project, connecting to the existing gravity system in Evergreen Way within the Lakeland Hills development, discharging into the existing sanitary sewer main within Lakeland Hills. This option presents a financial and construction timing risk to the City that requires additional consideration by the City before this option can be pursued. Water Option 1 — Intertie with the City of Bonne The City of Auburn Currently has two interties with the City of Bonney Lake. The first is located on Evergreen Way and approximately 60th Street SE. This intertie is a one -way emergency intertie from Bonney Lake to Auburn. The second intertie is on Kersey Way (182"d Ave E.) at the King- Pierce County line. This intertie is for two parcels in Auburn and would require an upgrade to the facilities and a revised interlocal agreement to be of use for the Kersey III project. In addition, the Comprehensive Water Plan for the City of Auburn would also need to be amended to allow for the expansion or change of use for these interties. The option is considered unfeasible because of the lack of jurisdictional coordination to successfully implement this option and lack of available supply from the City of Bonney Lake. Option 2 — Single connection to the Lakeland Hills System This alternative would assume the development of the westerly supply for the Lakeland Hills service area, which would include the extension of a water main in East Valley Highway and the development of a booster pump within the Terrace View development, and providing the additional supply to the Kersey III project through the Lakeland Hills development. If the Kersey III project were to be served solely from the East Valley Highway system, a booster pump within Terrace View may need to be upgraded in order to provide adequate supply for the Kersey III development without the use of the easterly supply system along Kersey Way. Supplying the Kersey III project and surrounding areas solely from the East Valley Highway system could potentially require an 22 amendment to the Water Comprehensive Plan to allow for the interim use of the East Valley Highway system to supply the Kersey III project. When the booster pump and service areas are installed within the Terrace View development, the system of pipes between Terrace View, through Lakeland Hills and to the Kersey III site, would be adequate to provide the supply of water to the Kersey III project. Option 3 — Well 5B An alternative source of water supply originally considered was the water that could be extracted from Well 513, which is constructed in the southwest portion of the Foxwood development of Lakeland Hills. The connection of Well 5B to the Lakeland Hills service area system would only provide additional reliability since only supplemental water rights were issued for this well. The City's maximum withdrawal rate has not increased associated with these supplemental rights so this option is not viable as the existing supply in Lakeland is not capable of supplying the water necessary to serve the project. Option 4 — Kersey Way Extension (Water Comprehensive Plan) The Water Comprehensive Plan for the City of Auburn shows an extension of water main south on Kersey Way from the existing terminus at the White River. A booster pump station would also be required. This extension reaches the frontage of the Kersey III property and is the planned method for providing water services to the site. Four alternatives and the improvements, constraints and approvals were reviewed regarding water service. Only two of these alternatives were determined to be feasible. Only Options 2 and 4, the connection from East Valley through Lakeland and the Kersey Way Extension will meet City of Auburn water plans and were analyzed further in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. Road Design The specification for the road to service the Kersey III site includes a connection from the terminus of Evergreen Way east to Kersey Way. While minor modification in alignment may be made, the flowthrough connection through the site is a City requirement. Analysis of the road in the EIS is found in Appendix I of the Technical Appendices. The analysis in Appendix I includes the engineering specifics of the road in making the transition down the hill to Kersey Way as well as other requirements such as intersection spacing. The City requires more than one access point to subdivisions greater than 75 units and a through connection will be made between the existing Evergreen Way terminus through the project site to Kersey Way. This road would be a Residential Collector, designed with no stop signs or significant turns in order to provide for adequate flow of traffic through the site. The road would also have restricted lot access, i.e. all lots would need access off side streets or minor access roads and would not be permitted direct access to the arterial. While the road may have slight variations in alignment within the project, the connection to Kersey, the flow through and restricted access characteristics will need to remain. Storm Drainaae Option I — Infiltration versus Detention Infiltration of stormwater, pursuant to the City of Auburn's Design and Construction Standards, is the preferred disposal method. This disposal method is dependant on acceptable soil conditions, topography 23 and proper treatment of water. However, due to the existing soil conditions /types and steep topography, large -scale infiltration of stormwater is not feasible. Option 2 — Selection of Discharge Point The conceptual storm drainage plan identifies two existing discharge locations would be utilized. These are labeled as Point A and Point B on Figure 4. Point A is located at the northeast corner of proposed Division III. This is a 24 -inch corrugated metal culvert crossing under the unimproved /dirt driveway within 49th Street SE right of way. This culvert is located within a relatively deep drainage course /stream and receives runoff from the majority of Divisions II and III. Figure 4 illustrates the approximate onsite basin contributing flows to this location. This discharge location would be the appropriate outlet for this storm facility as it is the natural outlet location for the contributing drainage basin. Point B is an 18 -inch culvert crossing under Kersey Way near the northwest corner of proposed Division L This culvert receives runoff from a small portion of Division II, the existing BPA /easement and approximately the remaining westerly 2/3 of the Division I site. Runoff then crosses Kersey Way and drains into Bowman Creek. The other two culvert crossings are located east of Point B, along Kersey Way, adjacent to proposed Division II and are labeled as Point C and Point D in Figure 4. Point C is an 18 -inch culvert crossing located approximately 350 feet northwesterly of the Kersey Way /53rd Street SE intersection. The on -site tributary area is relatively small portion of Division L This culvert outlets into Bowman Creek. Point D is an 18 -inch pipe that crosses Kersey Way at the northeast corner of 53rd Street SE. intersection. This pipe enters a catch basin, crosses 53rd Street SE, heads northerly and outlets into Bowman Creek. This pipe receives runoff from a relatively small position of the easterly side of Division I. Point B would be the appropriate location for this detention point outlet. This location is approximately 16+ and 50+ feet downhill of Point C and Point D respectively. This allows a better opportunity to convey this portion of site's drainage into the detention facility. Point B receives the majority of the runoff from the existing sub - basins contributing flows to Points B, C and D. Diverting runoff into Point C or Point D would contribute more water into the upper sections of Bowman Creek than what those stream reaches currently experience. This can create significant or accelerated stream channel erosion within those upper reaches. Discharge rates are to meet the City of Auburn's Design and Construction Standards. These rates are usually calculated using the existing contributing area to a discharge point. DBM's preliminary analysis for the detention pond within the Division II included the entire area of Division II and Division III, 77.7 + acres. The contributing existing area to Point B is approximately 42.7 + acres. The detention system release rates would need to be adjusted. Generally, using the lesser contributing existing area will calculate lower existing flow rates. Assuming the same developed area as DBM's analysis, this will result in larger pond volume requirements. 24 STORMWATER DISCHARGE POINTS Option 3 — Multiple versus Consolidated Detention Facility Locations Due to the existing discharge locations described within Option 2, a single large detention system /water quality facility outletting into one location would not be feasible. This concept would not maintain the natural drainage patterns by diverting runoff from one existing sub basin into another. Diversion of stormwater can cause greater impacts than would otherwise occur by discharging runoff at the natural/existing locations. The site improvements proposed within Division III have the potential to divert stormwater away from the existing wetlands, creating impacts to wetland function. An analysis was prepared to determine the existing average monthly flow volumes supplying these wetlands and how much of the site roof area is necessary to closely match those flow volumes. The analysis concludes that the roof areas within Division III and a portion of Division II, along with the contributing offsite basins, need to be directed to these wetlands. A Preliminary Wetland Hydration Plan showing a stormwater pond capable of supplying runoff to these affected wetlands demonstrated this can be accomplished. The larger detention pond outlet is to have a flow sputter to convey a portion of the discharge into Wetland C. The remaining discharge is to be conveyed towards Point A. Option 4 — Locating Storm Drainage Facility within the BPA Easement An existing Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement, with transmission lines, is located along the western portion of the Division I site. This area had been cleared and is currently grass covered with small areas of tree groups and bare dirt. Dirt/gravel maintenance access roads traverse the easement areas. To minimize clearing of the site, locating storm facilities or portions of these facilities may be an alternative. BPA staff has indicated that it may be possible to locate storm facilities within their easement areas. This is reviewed on a case -by -case basis. A BPA application together with the storm drain system designs must be submitted for their review and comments. The BPA reviews designs for clearances around the transmission towers, safety and how access is maintained through the easement areas. The conceptual storm drainage plan shows approximately the easterly 1/4 of the proposed detention pond within the easement area. Storm pipes from the east cross this area to discharge into the pond. It appears feasible to locate more of the detention pond into the BPA easement. This could allow the pond outlet be located closer to the existing discharge location; Point B as shown on Figure 4. The pond access road could be combined with the BPA access roads, pending future discussions. 26 CHAPTER 3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 27 Icon Materials In SITE DEVELOPMENT ' PAVING CONTRACTORS RECEI� AUG z I P�'NNHVG DEp, ;x August 16, 2004 Sean Martin, AICP Development Services Coordinator Planning & Community Development City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 -4998 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Kersey III Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Martin: As you may know, ICON Materials conducts surface mining at its Auburn Pit located in the City's Designated Mineral Resource Area ( "MRA "). The MRA was established by the City of Auburn in response to Washington's Growth Management Act and in recognition of the fact that the site contains marketable mineral resources of long term commercial significance. We are proud to operate in the City of Auburn which took very seriously its responsibility to protect natural resources within its boundaries while at the same time establishing guidelines for surface mining that allow sand and gravel resources to be extracted and made available to neighbors at a reasonable price. We do not believe the higher density PUD proposed by the Kersey III Preliminary Plat is in keeping with the protections afforded the Mineral Resource Area by the Growth Management Act or the City of Auburn's regulations. Although we support growth and understand that Auburn is an attractive community, development must occur in balance with the City's responsibilities. We believe the City's existing plans calling for lower density residential uses and open space in this area is preferable to a higher density PUD. In addition, we understand that King County's water service requirements would limit lot sizes to 5 acres. ICON Materials Corporate Office • 6819 South 2281 Street, Kent WA 98032 -2961 • 206.575.3200 phone Mailing Address • P.O. Box 88050, Tukwila, WA 98138 -2050 • 206.575.3207 facsimile ICONM''982CF An Equal Opportunity Employer Sean Martin, AICP RE: Kersey III Preliminary Plat August 16, 2004 Page 2 1.2 Based on our reading of the document, the DEIS does not adequately address the impacts of construction on Kersey Way from a traffic congestion and safety standpoint. In addition, impacts to Bowman Creek must be considered, Erosion and sedimentation 1.3 control measures should be carefully implemented to protect Bowman Creek and its associated wetlands. Insofar as this plat fronts along Kersey Way, we believe that in order to protect the mine and possible future residents of the proposed development, the RCW 36.70A.060 1.4 resource use notice should be applied to all parcels within this development. The notice standard should be revisited and if the radius needs to be increased to protect the mine and Auburn's citizens, that change should be considered. The traffic study indicates that by the time the plat is built (2005 ? ?) a signal will already be in place at Oravetz Road and Kersey Way. "A new traffic signal will be constructed at the existing unsignalized intersection of Oravetz Road at Kersey Way SE." [See Transportation Impact Analysis, March 2004 at page 16]. We were unable to locate information showing details about this signal. It is inappropriate to assume that this capital improvement will be in place when its design, land acquisition and funding are yet undetermined. The design of such a signal should take into consideration the need for safe ingress and egress to and from the pit by trucks and other vehicles. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, ICON aterials ey . Thomas Operations Manager KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Icon Materials August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 1.1 The Kersey III PUD is located within an area designated as "Single Family Residential" by the City's comprehensive plan and is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. Comprehensive Plan policy LU -14 states that densities of 4 -6 units per acre are suitable within these areas. Neither Alternative 481 or Alternative 700 exceed these density limitations. ICON Material's surface mining operation is recognized in the Comprehensive Plan as Mineral Resource Area; this proposal does not compromise that designation. 1.2 Construction vehicles related to this development are expected to have an impact for only a limited span of time. Construction related vehicular activity is expected to be limited to off -peak hours of the day whenever possible. The city will review and approve the hauling of materials to and from the site under a permit. The applicant will be required to establish a traffic control plan, define a haul route, and comply with any city requirements of the permit including but not limited to providing a variety of traffic control measures, changing their proposed haul route, limiting the days or time of day they operate at city request and repairing the roads over which they operate if they damage them. 1.3 A. As described on pages 46 and 47 of the DEIS, and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and implemented under Alternatives 481 and 700. In addition, the following stormwater management practices will be implemented by Alternatives 481 and 700: 1) Stormwater runoff directed to the on -site detention ponds will be routed through pipes (instead of open channels) to reduce the potential for erosion; 2) Partial infiltration of stormwater runoff to mitigate shallow groundwater recharge will reduce some of the increased runoff caused by impervious surfaces; 3) Discharge from the detention ponds will be controlled to reduce the potential for increased stream channel erosion, as described on page 50; and 4) An energy dissipater will be installed near Bowman Creek station 14 +00 to mitigate existing erosive conditions, as described in Response CA.2 of this letter. 29 B. Bowman Creek, which is located off site east of Kersey Way and flows to the White River, would not be directly affected by the proposed development of Kersey III. As discussed in Section 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS, development of the site would cause an increase in stormwater runoff from the site. If unmitigated, this could cause downstream channel and bank erosion in the unnamed Tributary 0043 and Bowman Creek. However, with the proposed stormwater management facilities to collect and detain runoff and through the retention and buffering of the on -site portion of wetlands and streams, no significant adverse changes to downstream channels are expected. In addition, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and implemented under both Alternatives 481 and 700. Consequently, no significant adverse impacts to Bowman Creek and its associated wetlands are anticipated. 1.4 The City of Auburn is aware of the notice requirements of RCW 36.70A.060 and will make this a requirement of the final plat for this project. 1.5 The new horizon year for this development is 2008; by that time this improvement is expected to be constructed and in operation. The City has plans to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Kersey Way and Oravetz Rd at City expense in 2005. It is listed as project C 205A in the City's 2005 -2010 Transportation Improvement Program. 30 Lake Tapps Heights Maintenance Association 31 August 5, 2004 Sean Martin Development Services Coordinator City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 -4998 Dear Mr: t AA a, 1 ?Opp We are writing regarding the Public Notice posted on Kersey Way describing the Kersey III project which you are listed as the "responsible official ". Title 16, Chapter 1606 of the Auburn Municipal Code under "Environmental Review" states: 16.06.090 Public notice. A. Whenever public notice is required under the SEPA rules, the responsible official shall cause notice to be given in the following manner: 1. By posting the subject property in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.27 ACC (site - specific proposals only). B. Additional public notice may be provided for proposals having or potentially having unusually widespread, unique or significant adverse impacts, or for other proposals, at the discretion of the responsible official C. Where notice is required for a proposed action which has been proposed or initiated by a party other than the city or a city department, the cost of newspaper publication of such notice or notices shall be borne by the city with fees paid by the proponent or applicant. (Ord. 5811 § 4, 2003; Ord. 4840 § 1, 1996.) The enormity of this project requires careful review by our community. We have several issues with the posting requirement for this project, and they are as follows: s The sign posting for the Kersey III project was placed on a dangerous curve at the power line easement, with virtually no way for a car (of any size) to safely exit the road. It was placed next to a wrecked car and a pile of garbage. ® There is virtually no pedestrian traffic on Kersey way due to the high volume of traffic and the lack of sidewalks and shoulders. • The posting was located at the far end of the project, past the intersection at 53rd St. Citizens living on 53rd had no opportunity to view the announcement which outlined the plans of the city to construct a major road that would intersect with 53rd. Many who live on 53rd were shocked to learn of this. • Homeowners who live on Olive Way (and surrounding streets) in Lakeland Hills were not given notification of the proposed construction of a road connecting 53rd 1 2.1 to Evergreen Way. Connecting these roads will significantly increase traffic and noise in their neighborhoods. That could certainly be described as "a unique or significant adverse impact ", [ 16.06.090 (B)] which would require additional notification. • The sign posting has not been maintained. The few flyers describing the project have long since been taken and there has been no effort to replentish the supply. 1.27.050 Specifications A. The mounting boards shall be erected on the subject property adjacent to and be visible from the abutting public or private right -of -way. Any sight distance hazards must be avoided. B. The mounting boards shall be securely fastened to sturdy posts, either wood or metal. The boards may be attached to existing buildings if it is not possible to place the boards elsewhere on the property. This must be approved by the planning department. C. The mounting boards must be located in order to be easily walked to by the general public. This may require the removal of brush or other obstacles. If it is not possible to erect the board in a location that is reasonably and safely accessible for the public then the applicant may make a written request to the planning director to allow the board to be located elsewhere or not require the board at all. D. The mounting boards shall be erected such that the top of the board is at least four feet above the ground but no higher than six feet above the ground. (Ord. 5341 § 1, 2000.) It is for these specific reasons that we are asking for the Public Notice Postings to be moved to more appropriate locations, namely; 53`d Street & Kersey Way and Evergreen Parkway in Lakeland Hills, and to extend the public comment period to allow true public input. If you are truly interested in public comment on this project, you will position the signs where the citizens who will be affected by this project will see them, and allow adequate time for comment. 1.27.070 Penalties If the applicant/owner fails to erect the mounting board by the time the city stipulates pursuant to ACC 1.27.040(B), or fails to erect the board pursuant to the specifications of ACC 1.27.050, or fails to maintain the board pursuant to ACC 1.27.040 (C), then all city processing of the subject application, including any public hearings, shall cease until the board(s) complies with this chapter as determined by the planning director. (Ord. 5341 § 1, 2000.) N Please feel free to contact us regarding any of the issues outlined above. When you made the comment to Mike Bykonen that "not many people had commented on the project so people must want it ", we realized that most people affected would not have seen the sign. 2.1 Adding 700 houses to an already congested two -lane road into Auburn is an enormous impact on the community, and the citizens who will be affected by this development have a right to have their voices heard. I hope you will listen. Please respond in writing to Mike Bykonen, President. Sincerely, Lake Tapp's Heights Maintenance Association Mike Bykonen, President 111— 176`x' Av. E. Sumner, WA 98390 (253) 862 -6237 C�-� pa"e, Darren Porter, Yyce President Stan Purdin,, Cc: Representative Dan Roach Mayor Pete Lewis Paul Krauss, Director, Planning & Community Development Councilmember Nancy Backus Councilmember Gene Cerino Councilmember Lynn Norman Councilmember Bill Peloza Councilmember Sue Singer Councilmember Roger Thordarson Councilmember Rich Wagner 3 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Lake Tapps Heights Maintenance Association Letter August 5, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 2.1 The City will direct the project proponent to place the notification signs in locations that are both more visible and accessible when this project is ready to proceed to public hearing on the preliminary plat /PUD. 32 Sheryl Mansell 33 Page 1 of 1 Sean Martin From: Mansell, Sheryl [SMansell @auburn.wednet.edu] [SMansell @auburn.wednet.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 20048:47 AM To: smartin @ci.auburn.wa.us Cc: frank.mansell @dhs.gov Subject: Kersey III Preliminary Plan DEIS Good morning Sean, Just wanted to let you know that our preference concerning the Kersey III development would be the no action alternative (34 five -acre lots). We have concerns about how existing water pressure (low at the best of times) and traffic issues would be affected if alternative 481 or 700 were to proceed. Traffic along Evergreen Way SE would definitely be adversely affected by 3.1 the number of vehicles traveling into a development of 481 to 700 homes versus 34 homes. We consider Evergreen Way SE to be a relatively low traffic neighborhood access road, but worry that it would become a main thoroughfare. Thank you for the opportunity to make public comment. Sheryl Mansell, Registrar Aahurn Riverside HS (253) 804-516' ext. 3290 smansell(?mx auhuzn. wednet.edu 7/15/2004 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Sheryl Mansell E -mail July 15, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 3.1 The No Action Alternative would consist of 34 5 -acre lots on private wells and septic tanks. The No Action Alternative would have no direct impact on existing water and sewer utilities. Traffic would be lower, with approximately 340 daily trips versus 4,810 or 7,000. The City of Auburn could still require the connection of Evergreen Way to Kersey Way as part of the 5 -acre subdivision. Either Alternative 481 or 700 will be required to provide water and sewer improvements. On page 132 of the DEIS, it is noted that water supply would need to be provided by an extension of water supply either from the Kersey Way connection or the East Valley connection, which would provide sufficient water for the Valley service area to service the plat. Connections to the existing systems in the area, including Lakeland, may increase water service, including water pressure. . Water pressure and water supply are not always related since water pressure decreases with elevation within any pressure zone. The level of service for pressure at a meter in the Auburn portion of the Lakeland Water service area is 40 -80 pounds per square inch. If you are aware of an area in the Auburn service area that does not meet this level of service or have concerns about water pressure in a specific area please call our water division at (253) 931 -3048 and a staff person come out and perform a pressure check. Page 49 in Appendix F of the Kersey III DEIS shows that with the proposed mitigation in place, the Evergreen corridor is forecast to operate at level of service B, which is defined in the "Highway Capacity Manual" as "representing reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the free -flow speed for the arterial classification. The ability to maneuver in the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and delays are not bothersome ". The City of Auburn's 1997 Comprehensive Transportation Plan had identified Evergreen Way as a future residential collector arterial, with or without this project. 34 Jerry Bates 35 08/13/2004 16:14 2537983376 PIERCE_CO_SHERIFF PAGE 01 CITY OF WASHfNGTON �p J KERSEY M PRELIMINARY PLAT 4tiG `� 1 stiff DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) u COMMENT SHEET'�� The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. your comments may address such issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be required for the proiect, Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to; Sean Martin 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Co'nments'oust be received in writing and arrive at City Hail by 5 pm on Mondav Au,n,Qt 14 7an.4 1 - �*-� s• pn..� 1. bf .ltC OP " ia{r..t _�Ci 4t+�erY.�y'7tS '�:S �rs„ _CCU faat� �+►i tr-.4 � {^�,.wo.� {a �u aa�� ?lease 511l out the information below and your nam added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Please pant ckarly. I Name ttrz^< '6ATet5 Address 5714 0W V0 AVM 51= A,- ki3t&J:k J WA- lq 017L KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Jerry Bates Comment Sheet August 13, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 4.1 Safety concerns along Evergreen Way, including its intersection with Olive Avenue SE, have been taken into consideration. Analysis regarding pedestrian safety along the Evergreen Way corridor are included in the Final EIS. See the Kersey III TIA Addendum to the Final EIS, dated January 11, 2005, by TSI, Inc. With the planned signalization or roundabout control of Evergreen Way at Lakeland Hills Way in place, the Lakeland Hills Way corridor is forecast to experience minimal delay, therefore the desire by motorists to use the Olive Way corridor as an alternative route to and from Top Foods and other businesses to the south is forecast to be very minimal. An addendum to the traffic study for the EIS was submitted January 11, 2005 in response to public comments. The primary new traffic impact to the neighborhood immediately west of the proposed development will occur on Evergreen Way SE. The addendum study recommends specific safety improvements to Evergreen Way SE which will improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow. Bulb outs (curb designs to narrow the existing pedestrian crossing at Evergreen Way SE and Olive Ave) in conjunction with an enhanced crosswalk are recommended to accommodate pedestrians. Additionally, traffic improvements are identified as being required for the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way . This will likely be a roundabout. A collector road such as Evergreen Way SE is not the correct environment in which to introduce speed bumps, due to the volume of traffic and the noise they would create in a residential neighborhood. Other, less intrusive treatments to visually narrow the road to drivers and induce speed reduction will be considered. This is envisioned to work in conjunction with speed enforcement emphasis in the neighborhood when Evergreen Way opens to general traffic. 36 Jonie Brooke 37 �s FITY np WASHINGTON 4po, KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) F1191 The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments may address such issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be required for the project. Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to: Sean Martin 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Comments must be received in writing and arrive at City Hall by 5 pm on Monday August 16, 2004. Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Please print clearly. Name _ Address t' . "rr . L �ome Brooke 3'O Box 3i2 y' wA 9sa�Z KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Jonie Brooke Comment Sheet August 13, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 5.1 The City has plans to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Kersey Way and Oravetz Rd. at City expense in 2005. It is listed as project C 205A in the City's 2005 -2010 Transportation Improvement Program. Patrice Murphy 39 A City of Auburn Planning Dept. 25 W Main Auburn Wa 98002 To whom it may concern: July 30, 2004 Patrice Murphy 20911 Edwards Rd Ea Sumner, Wa. 98390 In regards to the Kersey 11 project for Kersey Way Auburn. I am a 27 year resident of the area and travel through Auburn and up the almost daily. I have been disappointed at the growth of Auburn and the direction it has taken. There have been some good projects with the train station and the parks. This in my opinion is a big mistake for the area. To mow down all the trees to build 700 homes would mean a huge loss in animal habitat, as well as such huge traffic congestion. I will not shop in Auburn any longer and possibly will move from the area if this goes through. Lakeland hills has already done enough building to destroy the small town atmosphere I moved here for. Also the water concerns for the people on wells that have been drying up. Lake Tapps is so crowded already that you cannot access the park on the weekends and there are so many boats that it is dangerous. I would hope some better planning would make you reconsider this project. Thank you for your consideration. I would like to be updated on the progress of this situation. Sincerely, Patrice Murphy AUG 1 0 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Patrice Murphy Letter July 30, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 6.1 The DEIS acknowledges the potential unavoidable adverse impacts of the alternatives on wildlife habitat. Please see page 60 of the DEIS, Section 3.34. Mitigation measures are identified in Section 3.3.3 on Page 87, however, acknowledging that unavoidable impacts will occur even with the implementation of these measures. The use of wells would only occur under the No Action Alternative, which is a low - density alternative that assumes utilities would not be extended to serve the 34 five -acre lots. The extension of utilities, particularly water, would utilize water from the existing Valley service area, which is served by existing city wells. No new wells would be needed. Development under either Alternative 481 or 700 would not affect wells on individual lots in proximity to the project. As outlined in detail in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS, the forested vegetation of the Kersey III site provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species (see also Table B.1 of Appendix C for a list of observed and expected species for the site and vicinity). As outlined in Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 6.0 of Appendix C and Section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIS, development of the site under Alternatives 481 and 700 would cause unavoidable loss of native vegetation and wildlife habitat, resulting in reductions in local populations of most wildlife species. Some species may be eliminated from the site, while others more adapted to urban environments may increase in numbers. Nevertheless, both Alternatives 481 and 700 include retention of native forest habitat encompassing steep slopes, wetlands, and streams, and their buffers to provide some habitat for native wildlife species. These open space areas would be contiguous with adjacent forest habitats off site. Table 11, on page 41 in Appendix F of the Kersey III DEIS shows the forecast incremental impact on corridor level of service with this development in place. Page 49 in Appendix F of the Kersey III DEIS shows that with the proposed mitigation in place, the Evergreen corridor is forecast to operate at level of service B Under Alternatives 481 and 700, water will be supplied by an existing purveyor (Valley Water System) and will not be supplied by on -site sources. The No Action Alternative would likely include the installation of on -site wells to supply approximately 34 households. Based on a typical household usage of 300 gallons per day (GPD), the No Action Alternative would extract approximately 10,200 GPD, or 11 acre -feet per year (AFY) of groundwater from the site. IN The site is located within the Puyallup -White watershed, where authorized groundwater rights are greater than 112,000 AFY (Ecology, et al, 1995). Alternatives 481 and 700 are estimated to require about 160 and 240 AFY, respectively (from an off -site source), based on a typical usage of 300 GPD per household. The estimated water usage rates for each of the three alternatives are very small (less than 0.3 percent) with respect to existing groundwater rights from the Puyallup -White watershed. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. Since the Kersey III developments will be required to bring their own water supply to the Lakeland Hills Service Area there should be no impact on the existing private and community wells in the area. The additional supply will also reduce or eliminate the need for water curtailment within the Lakeland Hills Service area supplied water by the City. The traffic congestion impacts in the proposed development's year of completion 2008 were studied in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. The report found that recommended improvements such as a roundabout to be constructed by the developer at Evergreen Way and Lakeland Hills Way as well as a new traffic signal at 53rd Street SE and Kersey Way will actually improve the level of service for certain traffic movements at those intersections over the pre - development condition. In 2008 the same analysis revealed that arterial levels of service on all surrounding corridors impacted by the project will continue to meet the City's adopted level of service standards. 41 Mike Bykonen 42 7.1 7.2 August 15, 2004 City Of Auburn Planning Commission 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 -4998 Attention: Sean - Martin Reference- Kersey III Preliminary Plat EIS Comment Dear Mr. Martin, RECEIVED AUG 1 6 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT I would like to first thank you for listening to the homeowners at the meeting July 28th at Lakeland Community Center. We all own very nice homes in the area and have preserved most of the land and forest. My family and neighbors in the area have had to deal with allot of changes to the landscape surrounding our Homeowners association. Lakeland Hills has eliminated much of the wetlands and forest that did border the Homeowners Association here at Lake Tapps Heights. Much of the wildlife has been lost and dispersed into areas like ours. The huge green belts we have left and the watershed that borders Kersey Way is home to the wildlife that uses Kersey Three property to escape predators and man. The steep hillsides traverse elevations and heavily forested property help protect the hillside from fierce pacific rainstorms in the winter that hammer us with flooding and extreme runoff due to these storms. Kersey Way has been sand bagged repeatedly by Auburn public works to control washout of the road during storms like we had in 1992 and 1996. In 1998 Lakeland Company has routed storm waterlines from detention ponds at Lakeland that across our road and drain directly northeast into this property. Any logging or clear cutting on this hillside above the road could be disastrous to Kersey way, possibly damaging the highway or a landslide of some type washing the hillside into the ravine and down into Bowman Creek. Kersey Way is a heavily traveled two -lane road that has a least twenty thousand vehicles traveling it in one day. Traffic in the area is at and all time high and increasing every day. People travel it to avoid Lakeland hills and the new Parkway into Eight Street and to highway 167. If this road were closed or washed out many people would have to use the alternate route to get down into Auburn. During winter snowstorms and even in good weather Kersey Way is the route of choice. The Lake Tapps Parkway is dangerous and steep causing numerous accidents because people cannot get stopped in time on snow and ice. Kersey Way is extremely hard to negotiate coming down from 182"d into Auburn. This proposed traffic signal at Fifty3rd Street and new proposed highway crossing Kersey Way would be dangerous to traffic coming down the hill towards the proposed traffic signal. Vehicles would not be able to get stopped in time in these types of winter driving conditions. Kersey Way should be a four -lane road from the bottom of Auburn at Orvetz all the way to the top of Pierce County line. Taking all the curves out of Kersey Way and straitening the road would create a safer road for all. Right now Kersey Way is in terrible shape due to neglect by the city and putting more cars on this road and two thousand new residents is not the answer. We have a hard time making a left turn off 182nd onto 2nd street East. Vehicle speeds coming up the hill are very hard to judge many vehicles travel at a high rate of speed making it unsafe to turn against traffic. We also sit and wait for five minutes to pull out to make a left turn from 2nd Street East onto 182nd because vehicles travel at very high rate of speed and the blind curve makes it difficult to judge or predict what vehicles are coming and how fast. Vehicle accidents and traffic fatalities have increased on Kersey Way most involving alcohol and the people that come up to the County Park at Lake Tapps and drink and drive. Kersey Way is a very busy and dangerous road 7. 7.3 IF, • Page 2 August 16, 2004 to travel during peak hours of the morning and late afternoon adding more cars to it will only make it worse. Wildlife in the area has suffered due to the loss of habitat and encroachment by allowing projects like Lakeland Hills. The Band tailed Pigeon has lost allot of habitat in the area. The DEIS prepared by the developer has not covered this bird, it nests in allot of our homeowners properties. Resident populations on the Kersey area have been seen and we wonder how this was left out of the DEIS. The loss of more habitats will certainly hurt the bird's chances for survival in the area. The Band tailed Pigeon is a migratory bird that spends its summer and fall in our area and winters in California and Arizona deserts and returns in early spring. Washington State populations have dropped since the early•eighties and the bird has not fared well in our area due to loss of native forest. The chokecherry, huckleberries and elderberry trees are important food source for this bird many are located on the Kersey three properties. Audubon Society has listed this bird as endangered, Washington Department Of Fish and Wildlife has closed the hunting season and populations are at and all time low. The DEIS has also missed the Elk that frequent the area in late January and February we have a herd that does come dawn and follows the power line down from the Cascades during heavy snows. A herd Bull with a magnificent rack was spotted on the property last year and stayed for several weeks during heavy snow fall in the Cascades. Audubon Society walked the property during a surrey in 2000 and counted over two hundred scat piles of Black tailed deer droppings and numerous Buck rubs or scrapes in alder from deer and elk that are on the property. Cougar, Coyote and Black Bear are also in the area the deer have the fawns near the homes so they are safe from predators. The Pileated Woodpecker is a frequent visitor, I have seen over a dozen sightings on 2`4 Street and 17e Ave East in the past week. i hear them and they fly and land all around here they are very loud and wonderful to watch when sighted. I know we have the Red Shafted race Flicker that nest all around here. i have also seen the Red Breasted Sapsucker and Hairy Woodpecker the Downy Woodpecker and one spotting of a Three Toed Woodpecker last summer. We feed the birds all winter and have done so for the last 26 years. Lakeland Hills project has decimated many of the native birds, I really have noticed many of the birds populations drop off the charts here since Lakeland was born. Another project like Lakeland would ravage the existing populations of bird life left here and decimate more nesting and habitat that is wiped out already. DEIS Prepared by the developer is not worth the paper it was written on it fails to recognize many of the species of animals and native birds that exist on the property. I would like also to talk about some issues on the White River and Puyallup Watershed, and what effects a project like this one will do to Bowman Creek and important tributary to the White River. Salmon are important and Chinook Salmon are listed now on the Endangered Species Act {ESA }. The White River is listed very high on the Washington State Recovery Inventory Project. A very high -risk priority.order of all the rivers in our state it is listed at numbers twenty on the list. On the WRIA it is a number teri by the Washington Department of Fish And Wildlife Water Resources Inventory Act or WRIA. Steelhead trout are soon to be listed and are critical in the White River. Coho are depressed and Cutthroat was considered by the {WDFW}. The Bull Trout is listed on and ESA with the USFWS. Bowman Creek is important to salmon they are affected by anything that happens above the creek. Infiltration by this project will create a tremendous amount of water through the soil surface and into the soil. Kersey Three contains many riparian areas that are important to fish and wildlife. Woodlands and vegetation above and adjacent to Bowman Creek should be protected and not disturbed. Clearcutting and destroying riparian vegetation like springs and wetlands will ruin areas where young salmon shelter in Bowman Creek. Instantaneous flows will be increased to the creek and White River because logging and loss of vegetation will occur. Runoff, washout, water pollution and water quality will be a detriment to any Salmon or Steelhead that are spawning in Bowman Creek and the White River. Fish depend on clean water any development above the creek is allowed White River Chinook may not recover. DEIS does not list or recognize any of the above issues with salmon or wildlife the developer should be denied and the property should be preserved because of the issues mentioned in this letter. Sincerely, Mike Bykoner t// 7l KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mike Bykonen August 15, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 7.1 As discussed in Section 3.3.1 of the Draft EIS, as well as in Section 3.3 of the Plants and Animals Assessment (Appendix C to the Draft EIS), the Kersey III property and surrounding forested lands provide habitat for a wide variety of native animal species. The DEIS acknowledges potential unavoidable adverse impacts to wildlife. Please see page 60 of the DEIS. As shown on Figures 2 and 3 of the DEIS, Alternatives 481 and 700 would maintain a continuous buffer at the steep slope along Kersey Way (with the exception of the Evergreen Way roadway). The proposed detention ponds will be lined to prevent any stormwater seepage, which could potentially impact slope stability. In addition, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and implemented under Alternatives 481 and 700, as described on pages 46 and 47 of the DEIS. Stormwater runoff from off -site areas to the south of the Kersey III project will be intercepted by the proposed project and conducted to 1) on -site wetland areas in order to maintain hydrology and 2) collected and detained in on -site detention ponds. The on -site storm system is designed to collect, control and contain stormwater and sediments as required by the City of Auburn Stormwater Manual. The design of the on -site detention system is to prevent increase in the rate of runoff from the site and protect downstream areas. The on -site system would provide mitigation for stormwater affecting Kersey III but would not address stormwater from Lakeland, which might affect the 2nd Ave. /176' Street area. 7.2 The proposed traffic signal at the intersection 53rd Street SE and Kersey Way SE will be designed to meet city standards. Advanced signal warning signage will be placed appropriately along Kersey Way to ensure driver awareness of the upcoming signal. With the signal in place at the intersection of 53rd Street SE and Kersey Way SE, opportunities to turn left onto and off of Kersey Way at 2nd Street East will be created as southbound vehicles are required to stop at the intersection of 53rd Street SE and Kersey Way SE when approaching a red light. Kersey Way currently handles an average of 10,000 vehicles per day and roughly 1,000 vehicles in the PM peak hour. Lake Tapps Parkway is a principal arterial built to City, County and national standards and guidelines which provides a primary access to the 43 Lakeland area and is shortly expected to provide a direct means of access to SR 167. At locations, Lake Tapps Parkway handles a relatively equal amount of traffic to Kersey Way. It is opened to public travel in all but the worst of weather conditions. City streets crews work very hard to ensure the road is as safe as it can be in inclement weather. The safety of the proposed traffic signal at 53rd St SE and Kersey Way has been further evaluated in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. Advance warning signage has been recommended for northbound traffic on Kersey Way and advance warning signage and a flashing warning light has been recommended to be installed for southbound traffic. This signal is also expected to improve safety and level of service for the existing residents accessing Kersey Way from 53rd Street SE. 7.3 As discussed in the Plants and Animals Assessment (Appendix C of the Draft EIS, Sections 3.1 and 3.5), the Kersey III site is located in an area that includes some urban residential development (e.g., Lakeland Hills subdivision to the west), rural residential development, as well as arterial roads, a powerline corridor, and a gravel mine farther to the east. Consequently, native forest habitats have been impacted by past development and other human activities. As discussed in Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 6.0 of Appendix C, as well as Section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIS, development of the Kersey III site would result in additional, unavoidable loss of native forest habitat. As noted in Section 3.3.2 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS, the band - tailed pigeon is expected to occur on site, although none were observed during field surveys by Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff. The band - tailed pigeon is not listed as an Endangered Species by either the State of Washington (WDFW 1999) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2002). Rather, it is designated as a State Priority Game species, which means it is a priority for management as game. Priority habitats for this species include mineral springs, none of which have been mapped for the area or are known to occur (WDFW 2003a, 2003b). As discussed in Section 3.3.3 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS, Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff searched specifically for elk or their sign (browse, pellets, tracks, and trails), because of the proximity of the site to the White River, portions of which are known movement corridors for migrating herds. No observations of elk or their sign were observed during field surveys. While individual elk may occasionally cross the site, the property is not considered prime habitat for elk, as it is surrounded on three sides by development, roads, and a gravel quarry. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps for the site and vicinity show no documented use areas by elk for the Kersey III site (WDFW 2003a, 2003b). As also discussed in the Plants and Animals Assessment (Section 3.3.3), Raedeke Associates, Inc. did note sign of use by black - tailed deer (pellets and tracks) along the old logging roads and in the mixed forest. However, no "regular" or "regular large" concentrations, as defined by WDFW (1999), are known for the site or vicinity (WDFW 2003a, 2003b). It is acknowledged that a number of mammal species, including .. carnivores (coyote, black bear, and cougar) are likely to inhabit or use the property as part of their home ranges. Appendix C (Section 3.3.2) also discusses use of the site by a variety of bird species, including as many as 5 species of woodpeckers (pileated, hairy, and downy woodpeckers, red - breasted sapsucker, and northern flicker), three of which (or their sign) were detected during field surveys. Although three -toed woodpeckers may occasionally be found in forested habitats of the Puget Sound lowlands, such as the Kersey III site, they are typical of high - elevation conifer forests in the Cascades, on either side of the crest (Smith et. al. 1997). Consequently, it is unlikely this species would breed or occur regularly on the project site. As discussed in Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 6.0 of Appendix C, as well as Section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIS, development of the Kersey III site would result in additional, unavoidable loss of native forest habitat and reductions in populations of most native wildlife species on site. Nevertheless, both urban development alternatives would retain tracts of native forest, including site wetlands and streams that are contiguous with remaining forested habitats on adjacent properties to the north. These areas would thus retain some habitat for native wildlife species. Actual traffic volumes and calculated future level of service for Kersey Way in 2008 with the proposed project do not support Kersey Way as a four lane road. Actual volume to capacity ratios and arterial corridor level of service (LOS B) reveal that there is typically adequate capacity on the road. As for the design and condition of Kersey Way south of 53rd, the road is indeed rated in poor condition and is designed to rural standards. The proposed development will contribute no more than approximately 4 percent of the total traffic to this facility, which is primarily a regional road serving a majority of users who neither work nor live in Auburn. Hence there is little or no nexus between the development and the road's condition. The installation of a traffic signal at 53rd and Kersey by this development will create new gaps in the traffic stream that will actually improve access opportunities at 182nd and 2nd Street E. 7.4 As discussed in Section 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS, development of the site would cause an increase in stormwater runoff from the site. If unmitigated, this could cause downstream channel and bank erosion in the unnamed Tributary 0043 and Bowman Creek. However, with the proposed stormwater management facilities to collect and detain runoff, no significant adverse changes to downstream channels are expected. Consequently, no significant adverse impacts to potential fish habitat are expected. It should be noted that although listed fish species (Chinook salmon and bull trout) occur in the White River, neither are documented within Bowman Creek (WDFW 2003a). The forested corridor between Kersey Way and Bowman Creek would not be affected by the proposed development of the Kersey III site. In addition, no salmonid fish are known to occur in the Tributary 0043, and forested buffers would be retained along the upper portions of this tributary on site, as well as along the on -site wetlands. Although it is '. acknowledged that development within the watershed can affect downstream waters and habitat, the project site represents a very small portion of the overall basin contributing to Bowman Creek, on -site wetland and stream habitat would generally be retained and buffered, and proposed stormwater management would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the channel conditions within Tributary 0043. M Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) 47 ,C3? ST�rg 0 AFL JR 1;v STATE OF WASHINGTON Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106.Olympla, Washington 98501 (Mailing Address) PO Box 48343 •Olympia, Washington 98504 -8343 (360) 586 -3065 Fax Number (360) 586 -3067 uuoi August 12, 2004 Mr. Paul Krauss, Director Oity of Auburn Planning-Department 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 101600 -10 -KI Re: SEP00 -0040 Kersey III Preliminary Plat DEIS Dear Mr. Krauss: Thank you for providing a copy of the cultural resources survey and the DEIS for the above referenced property. The mitigation measure recommends that five areas (shown on page 137, Figure 42 of the DEIS) should be monitored during construction by a professional archaeologist. We concur but would add an additional area to be monitored. The area of 8.1 the recorded archaeological site, 45KI549 (the Williams Farmstead Site), should be monitored during grading and other ground disturbing actions to insure no features are disturbed that may contribute to the site's significance. Though the site is recommend "Not Significant"' at this time, if cultural features such as privies or dumps were uncovered, the significance of the site could change. 'Therefore, we reeomniend a sixth monitoring area be added to the mitigation measure. It would be appropriate for the archaeologist who is monitoring to have a copy of this letter. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on the behalf of the State Historic 8.2 Preservation Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. In the event that significant archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity should be discontinued, the area secured, and this office notified. 17hank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Step, ' "e Kramer Assistant State .Archaeologist (360) 586 -3083 StenhenieK rl,cted wa.gov cc: Donna Iiogerhuis D$M Consulting Engineers ADMINISTERED BY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE 8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) August 12, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 8.1 The final report for the Kersey III Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment dated December 8, 2004, replaces the assessment found in Appendix J of Technical Appendices, Volume II, dated July 2004. The final report has been modified to concur with the recommendation of OAHP to monitor a 6 t area, the William Farmstead site, during construction. 8.2 Comment noted. .• Robert J. Murrey .• � 9.1 • N1R �I W A KERSEY III PRELI �'t'�•I, G �� / � DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS )oQq"� COMMENT IQUW T �F21 The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments may address such issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvaIs that ma be required for the project. Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to- Sean Sean Martin 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Comments must be received in writing and arrive at City Hall by 5 pm on IbIonday August �� � r.<-r• -.mac -� ¢ � 16 , 2004. r- - ' C f-Ld .0 Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: %-� Please print clearly. Name Address �T KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Robert J. Murrey Comment Sheet August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 9.1 Your concerns are noted. Excessive speeding along residential roadways is addressed by the City of Auburn's Police Department when identified. This existing problem is not expected to increase with this development in place. Once the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE isimproved with a roundabout, the Evergreen Way SE/ Lakeland Hills Way route will remain a more desirable through route than that of Olive Avenue SE/ 62nd Street Way SE and it is expected to be the main route in which traffic volumes associated with this development will travel to and from the southwest of the development. The trip assignments shown on Figures 4A, 413, 4C, 6A, 6B and 6C of Appendix F to the Draft EIS show the anticipated preferred travel routes to and from this proposed development. A speed study conducted last spring by the City of Auburn on Olive Ave. at the location in question revealed that the average speed of drivers was 20 mph and the 85th percentile speed was 27 mph. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. That finding does not substantiate that there is a speeding problem that warrants the installation of infrastructure. The Kersey 3 development would contribute very little traffic to the street mentioned. 50 Bruce and Janet Koch 51 CITY OF *` WASHINGTON KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) COMMENT SHEET The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments may address such issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be required for the project. Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to: RECENED Sean Martin 25 West Main Street AUG 1 6 2004 Auburn, WA 98001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Comments must be received in writing and arrive at City Hall by 5 pm on Monday August lb, 2004. Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Please print clearly. Name 2 L& C- IJ n A) G7 Address 8 t S- - 0 �7 R- (A- u �1,� WA 9Boq- _. Mr. Sean Martin, AICP Development Services Coordinator City of Auburn Planning & Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 -4998 REF: Kersey III Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Mr. Martin: Thanks for the opportunity to meet with you and the other project persons associated with the Kersey III project. Collectively, you answered many of our questions. Our concerns and comments are as follows A. Preliminary Project Issues, 1. How will the intersection of Kersey Way, 53rd Street SE, and the Kersey III East Access, be designed? Our property runs along the North side of 53`d Street; near the current intersection of Kersey Way and 53rd Streets. At present, traffic backs up Easterly on 53rd Street at rush hour, blocking our driveway. 2. How will site water run -off and soil erosion be controlled? 3. How will traffic on Kersey Way be managed efficiently? At present, the traffic on Kersey Way from the Southern Auburn City limits to the White River is heavy and v frequently disrupted by auto accidents. It would seem that the addition of Kersey III traffic to an already over -used corridor; will not lead to a positive result. B. Project Construction Issues 1. How will noise and air pollution be controlled during construction? 2. Who will monitor noise and air pollution levels during construction? 3. Will construction cease at dusk? 4. Will heavy trucks enter the site from Kersey or Evergreen access? Please accept and respond to our concerns and comments as soon as possible. Keep us informed of the Kersey III Project Status during its evolution. We trust that you and your project team will be managing the project in the best interest of the City and residents of Auburn. Best Regards, Bruce & Janet koch Bruce & Janet Koch 2815 53`d Street SE Auburn, WA 98092 -8311 (253) 735 -0537 -H RECEIVED AUG Z 6 2004 IIANNING DEPARTMENT KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Bruce and Janet Koch Letter August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comment on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 10.1 A -1 & A -3 With the intersection of 53rd Street SE and Kersey Way SE signalized, vehicle queue lengths at the westbound approach are forecasted to be significantly reduced during traffic volume peak hours. Existing 95th percentile queues were found to be over four vehicles during the AM peak hour at the westbound approach of this intersection. With both the signal at this intersection and this development in place, average vehicle queues at this approach are forecast to be decreased to an average of two vehicles. This analysis has been included in the Final EIS. A -2 Refer to Response 1.2 and page 50 of the DEIS. Also see Section 3.2.1 — Surface Water. Also see the Storm Water section on page 22 of the DEIS, which gives a detailed review of the existing drainage system and how proposed stormwater runoff would be handled. In summary, a portion of on -site stormwater and roof runoff will be directed to the existing wetland complex on -site in order to maintain the hydrology of the wetlands. Stormwater from roads will be collected and directed to stormwater detention ponds, which include water quality facilities to filter out oils, greases, fertilizers and sediments. The detention ponds are designed to hold stormwater and discharge it at rates outlined by the City of Auburn Design and Construction Standards. These standards are designed to protect downstream waters by controlling the discharge rate in order to match the pre - developed rates. 10.2 B -1, 2 & 3 Noise from construction will be a temporary impact as a result of the operation of earth moving and other construction vehicles on the site. Primary mitigation for construction impacts is the observance of construction hours approved by the City of Auburn. Hours of construction are usually placed as a condition on the Preliminary Plat. Air quality impacts and mitigation are reviewed in Section 3.10 — Air Quality of the DEIS, including methods to mitigate potential impacts. 52 Monitoring is generally carried out by the on -site contractor, partially with regard to watering down haul routes, stockpiles and grading areas. Drier, windier conditions will require additional mitigation action, as opposed to wet weather conditions. Typical mitigation resources that also relate to control of sedimentation impacts are the use of quarry spall, construction entrances, the watering of work areas and haul roads, and cleaning off -site paved roads in proximity to the construction site. B -4. The City of Auburn will approve a haul route for the project, which will most likely require the use of Kersey Way. This route will require a temporary signal at the Kersey Way /53rd St. SE intersection, as well as advance warning. 53 Bob and Lisa Atkins 54 August 16, 2004 Mr. Sean Martin Department of Planning and Community Development City of Auburn 25 West Main Street e Auburn, WA 98001 RE: Kersey III Development Dear Mr. Martin: RECEIVES} AUG 1. 6 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT We would like to express our observations and concerns upon reading the Kersey III DEIS. We live adjacent to the property, and will be impacted by whatever is done there. The density of the overall project seems inappropriate for the area (both the "481" and "700" alternatives). Kersey III is a project oriented toward Kersey Way, with existing 5 acre parcels to the south and similar large lot homes to the north of it and to the east of it. It only backs up to Lakeland. The "No Action" alternative is the preferred one, being consistent with current zoning, having the least impacts, and being more in keeping with the neighborhood. The use of multifamily is objectionable. This is a single family neighborhood, and multifamily does not belong here. If any is approved, it should be out on Kersey 112> Way, not buried in the back northwest corner of the plat,beyond and behind single family homes. Are the multifamily units proposed to be apartments with transient renters (and those impacts), or condos with vested homeowners? 11.E Also, if small single family lots are allowed (shown on the DEIS plans), they should be out by Kersey Way too, and not in the back west end of the plat. The positioning of lots tight to the northwest corner should not be allowed. This 11.4 impacts wildlife by preventing them from passing around that corner between the Kersey III open space areas, and traps them or forces them offsite where they may or may not be able to get around. How thorough was the wildlife study? We are not aware of the consultants contacting local residents, who could offer more details about the animals that are in the area than was discussed in the DEIS. Kersey III DEIS, 8116/04, page 2 We are concerned about the parks in Kersey III, since they are apparently not discussed or shown in any detail in the DEIS. There needs to be a full set of 11.6 parks and totlots in the Kersey III development, so that the Lakeland parks are not seen as closer or more fully developed than the Kersey III parks. Kersey III residents should be attracted to the convenience and amenities of their own parks, to avoid impacts on those in Lakeland. The traffic study is based on the assumption that Kersey III will be fully built out and occupied by next year. It would seem like that process will take more like 5 years to accomplish, and the traffic study should be redone. Also, is the Evergreen Way connection into Lakeland really necessary (especially with the "No Action" alternative? It will draw not only the Kersey III traffic through Lakeland, but also many of the cars using Kersey Way as they seek shortcuts 11.7 through town. Won't the Evergreen /Lakeland Hills Way intersection need a signal? Also, there will be more traffic passing through northern Lakeland via Evergreen to get to and from "A" Street than the traffic study allocates — that is the pattern now, and what it will be when Kersey III is done and Kersey Way is connected through to Lakeland. There will not be improvements to 167 or surface streets to change that pattern — it will only get worse. Please take a closer look and re -study that more carefully within and around Lakeland. Sincerely, Bob and Lisa Atkins 4802 Quincy Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Bruce and Lisa Atkins Letter August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 11.1 The Kersey III PUD is located within an area designated primarily as "Single Family Residential" by the City's comprehensive plan and is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. Comprehensive Plan policy LU -14 states that densities of 4 -6 units per acre are suitable within these areas. Neither Alternative 481 or Alternative 700 exceed these density limitations. 11.2 The provisions of Auburn's PUD code (AMC 18.69) allow an intermix of housing types within a Planned Unit Development. 11.3 Comment noted; this is an appropriate issue to raise at the time of public hearing. 11.4 Under either urban development alternative, retained open space areas encompassing steep slopes along the western property boundary would be contiguous with existing habitats off -site to the south. In addition, the open space habitats encompassing steep slopes, wetlands, and streams would be contiguous to adjacent habitats to the north and east. Impacts to wildlife movements are discussed in Section 4.1.2 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS, and proposed and other potential mitigation measures to enhance wildlife movement patterns under the development alternatives outlined in Section 3.3.3 of the Draft EIS (see also Figure 18) and Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of Appendix C (see also Figure 6 of this appendix). 11.5 The wildlife study methodology is outlined in Sections 2.1 through 2.3 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2004a). As discussed therein, wildlife use of the site was investigated through direct field observations, through compilation of information about the site from previous field investigations (DBM 2000a, 2000b), and as provided by local agencies and published sources. Information about the project area was also extrapolated from available information on species- habitat relationships on similar sites in the vicinity, and from our research and management experience in the Puget Sound lowlands. In preparation for the current investigation of the project area, staff from Raedeke Associates, Inc., examined information gathered from surveys previously conducted by DBM (2000a and 2000b) and J.S. Jones and Associates (2000). Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff reviewed and updated wetlands and assessed stream conditions previously described by DBM (2000a) on the Kersey III project site during four field visits in May, July and September 2002. During these field visits, wildlife use of the site were recorded and habitat conditions described. In addition, Raedeke Associates, Inc. personnel investigated the project area on additional dates in May and 55 June, 2002, to describe the existing upland cover types and record additional observations and signs of wildlife use at the Kersey III site. Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff also contacted the Washington Natural Heritage Program in 2001 and 2003 for any documented information on the likelihood of occurrence of endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species on the property or vicinity (see Appendix C of the Plants and Animals Assessment for correspondence). The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and Natural Heritage Wildlife (HRTG) database kept by the WDFW from 2003 were consulted for documented information on the likelihood of occurrence of such species and habitats on the project site and vicinity. In addition, lists maintained by the USFWS (2002) and the WDFW (1999; also Rodrick and Milner 1991) were consulted for information on the occurrence and habitat relationships of wildlife or fish species of special concern that might use the site during at least some part of the year. During field surveys, Raedeke and Associates, Inc. staff searched for the presence of these species, or signs thereof that may be likely to occur on the site. 11.6 Comment Noted. Please see discussion of impacts and mitigation measures on pages 115, 121 and 122 of the DEIS, which identifies the requested acreage of 6 acres and 10.6 acres, respectively, for Alternatives 481 and 700. The timing and level of improvements will be part of the PUD and Plat Conditions of Approval. 11.7 Your concern is noted. 2008 future conditions analysis are included in the Final EIS. By providing an additional connection to Kersey Way, a more evenly distributed traffic pattern is expected in and around the neighborhoods of Lakeland. The signalization of the Evergreen Way SE at Lakeland Hills Way SE has been included as part of the recommended mitigation for this project. Please refer to the third paragraph of Section 4.2.8 on page 49 of Appendix F to the DEIS. The traffic congestion impacts for the proposed development's likely year of completion (now 2008) were re- evaluated in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. All corridors were found to meet city standards for Level of Service. The Evergreen Way connection is being required by the City of Auburn. This future collector road connection has been in the City's comprehensive plan since at least 1997. The road will give Lakeland residents, as well as emergency vehicles, another way into and out of Lakeland, shortening emergency response times. The likelihood of Evergreen Way SE being used as a cut through route was studied in the traffic model for this EIS. Because of the number of controlled intersections and the lower posted speed limit, travel times via Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way are expected to be considerably longer than travel times using Kersey Way. The presence of Lake Tapps Parkway also helps to lessen regional cut - through traffic on Evergreen Way SE. The new neighborhood traffic will impact Evergreen Way. A roundabout is to be required to be constructed by the developer at Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. 56 Todd and Tina Covey 57 Todd & Tina Covey 4904 Quincy Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 August 13, 2004 Mr. Sean Martin Development Services Coordinator Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Auburn 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001 RE: Kersey III DEIS Dear Mr. Martin: ED ptiPP1��MEN� As Lakeland residents who adjoin the proposed Kersey III plat property, we are writing to express our concern about certain elements of the Kersey III project that we see in the DEIS: 1) The use of multi- family units in a single family neighborhood. Ours is a neighborhood of-single family homes, and it is zoned as such (and 5- 12.1 acre parcels are south of Kersey III). There should be no multi - family units mixed in. Apartments will result in more impacts overall than single family homes (traffic, noise, etc.), and a degradation of the quality of life for all current and future residents of single family homes in the area. 2) Multi - family units in the northwest area of the Kersey IIl niat. If multi- family units are approved, they should not be located in the "back" of the Kersey III plat. They should be located at the front of the plat, right along Kersey Way. The multi- family location is in conflict with the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, as noted on page 80 of the DEIS. It is also objectionable to 12.2 have them located alongside our homes in Lakeland — the impacts of apartments will be greater than single family homes. We will be subject to more noise, and - - there is a likelihood of intrusions into the Lakeland open space (and possibly our back yards) from children and pets who will use it as a play area. It is possible that Lakeland would have to fence off the property line to keep those intrusions out. How will the Kersey III open spaces be secured from such intrusions? im 12.5 3) PUD; and higher density housing in the west area of the Kersey III plat. It will take a PUD to get the higher density of Alternative 700, and we object to that. There will be enough traffic and noise impact from Alternative 481, and there appears to be no public or neighborhood benefit other than a little more open space for the addition of 219 more homes beyond what is currently zoned. The plat shows houses on smaller lots alongside the Lakeland property. Our objections are similar to those in #2 above (traffic, noise, Comp Plan). Smaller lots should be over by Kersey Way, and the larger lots that are more in keeping with the Lakeland community should be on the west side of the plat by Lakeland. 4) Positioning of units tight to the northwest corner of the plat. The Kersey III open space should carry around the northwest corner of the plat. There should not be units that go tight into the northwest corner property lines, as that will force the wildlife onto the adjoining properties to get around to the other portions of the Kersey III plat. It is not appropriate for the Kersey plat do put its responsibility off to another property owner, or to impact or limit a neighboring property in such a way. Furthermore, some of that property line is already fenced, and the balance may well be in the future, so going offsite is not a true "wildlife corridor". Kersey III's wildlife corridors should be on Kersey 111's property. 5) Is the Plants and Animals Assessment really comprehensive? The Plants and Animals Assessment (Appendix C) does riot feel corm — it glosses over such things as the cougar that lives up here. How thorough was the walkthrough of the property (more than once ?, by how many people ?, with what specialties /qualifications ?)? Were any of the residents of the area contacted and consulted? A number of the neighbors have lived here for many years and can speak to the animals they have personally seen — they should be contacted. 6) Traffic study flaws The traffic study is flawed. First, 2005 is an unrealistic completion date for the project — there is no way that the EIS process, plat hearing(s), PUD( ?), engineering drawings, permits, sitework and all 481/700 houses built, sold and fully occupied will be completed less than a year from now. Second, the trip assignments do not reflect the reality of actual commuter traffic in the area. Too much emphasis is placed on Lake Tapps Parkway, which is actually underused because: 1) The congestion on Highway 167 that exists from Highway 18 and on southward forces commuters off onto surface streets, 2) the 8ffi Street corridor through Pacific is a problem because it has not been widened, and 3) it's too far south for Kersey III anyway. The reality is that commuters go off of Highway 167 on or above Highway 18, and use "C" Street and/or "A" Street to go to and from the neighborhood and beyond. The traffic study also places too much traffic on Kersey Way. Cutting through Auburn on "R" or "M" streets is not a convenient option for commuters, so most commuters from Kersey III and those now using Kersey Way will cut through Lakeland using the proposed Evergreen Way access and go north through Lakeland to get to and from "A" and "C" Streets. It cannot be expected that the state will fix the 167/18 mess in the next few years, so the situation in/around Lakeland will only worsen. The traffic study should be revised to reflect these realities. Why is the improvement to the 12.6 Evergreen Way/Lakeland Hills Way intersection not a part of the proposed project? Lastly, is the Evergreen connection for Kersey III really necessary at all? 7) Impacts to Lakeland from new neighbors There are a number of impacts besides traffic that Lakeland will have to deal with. Of primary concern is use of the Lakeland Park on Evergreen Way just west of the Kersey III plat. This park was planned for and is used by Lakeland residents. What is Kersey III doing to provide its own park facilities? The City -should not take a fee -in- lieu -of park payment. Kersey III park facilities should be sized, located and designed to sufficiently serve Kersey III residents so that they have no incentive or need to go to Lakeland's parks. This should include a totlot in each of the three Kersey III divisions, extra amenities in any multi- family area, 12.7 and an attractive major park with amenities that is located centrally within Kersey III (not on the east edge away from Lakeland). Additional traffic and usage of public parks within Lakeland will result in more wear and tear of the Lakeland street landscaping (also paid for by the Lakeland residents through the Association) and probably security issues as well that could be paid for by Lakeland's Association. Somehow Kersey III needs to be accountable for its impacts on Lakeland's quality of life and expenses. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed Kersey III project. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Si , Todd Covey KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Todd and Tim Covey August 13, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 12.1 The Kersey III PUD is located within an area designated primarily as "Single Family Residential" by the City's comprehensive plan and is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. Comprehensive Plan policy LU -14 states that densities of 4 -6 units per acre are suitable within these areas. Neither Alternative 481 or Alternative 700 exceed these density limitations. Therefore, the anticipated traffic impacts associated with this development are within the parameters assumed in Auburn's Transportation Plan. 12.2 The location of the proposed multifamily units is an appropriate issue to raise at the time of public hearing. 12.3 Comment noted. Final design of the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) will be between the proponents and the City of Auburn. The DEIS notes in the Land Use Element Policies section, on pages 78 -80, that the use of the PUD would be consistent with the City's policies regarding the use of the PUD and allowable densities. The DEIS also notes that the use of the PUD in compliance with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance leaves much of the steep slope area along the westerly portion of the site (adjacent to Lakeland) as open space. 12.4 See response to Comment 11 -4. As discussed in Appendix C to the Draft EIS, wildlife movement patterns on and through the Kersey III site are already limited by rural and urban development and roads on at least three sides, some of which includes fencing. Proposed and other potential mitigation measures are outlined in Section 3.3.3 of the Draft EIS and Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of Appendix C. 12.5 See response to Comment 11 -5. Staff that investigated the site all have Bachelors, Masters, or Ph.D. degrees in natural sciences, and those that focused on wildlife all have degrees in wildlife biology or management. Although no residents were contacted during initial investigations, staff have consulted with area habitat biologists from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding priority species, and have reviewed previous investigations by other consultants. More recently, we have contacted local residents regarding sightings of raptors (e.g., hawk, eagle). With respect to large carnivores such as cougars, Appendix C acknowledges that they may occur on the site and vicinity. However, their home ranges typically encompass many square miles, so their activities would not be limited to the Kersey III site. In western Washington, these species are found more typically in the Cascades and foothills, where there are larger blocks of contiguous habitat. The continued suitability of the project site for carnivores, especially the larger species, has probably been diminished by development of the existing residential communities in the vicinity. 12.6 Traffic conditions have been analyzed under 2008 conditions and the findings of this analysis have been included in the FEIS. Trip assignments used for analysis in the Kersey III DEIS are derived directly from the City's traffic model. The signalization of the Evergreen Way SE at Lakeland Hills Way SE has been included as part of the recommended mitigation for this project. Please refer to the third paragraph of section 4.2.8 on page 49 of Appendix F of the DEIS. By providing a connection to Kersey Way, a more evenly distributed traffic pattern is expected adjacent to the Kersey III development. The most reliable and unbiased traffic assignment tool available for this study was a traffic model which primarily uses travel time as the means of determining future traffic patterns. The traffic model was particularly important to use in this case because Evergreen Way represents a completely new arterial road link and other improvements that were planned to be constructed by the time the development opened (such as traffic signals) were not yet in place. So there was no other way to tell how traffic would function at some important locations. On locations where there was an existing arterial road link, the model was calibrated against actual traffic volumes. A traffic improvement (roundabout) is likely to be required to be constructed by the development at Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way. The Evergreen Way connection was required by the City of Auburn. The future collector road connection has been in the City's Comprehensive Plan since at least 1997. The road will give Lakeland residents as well as emergency vehicles another way into and out of Lakeland, shortening emergency response times. The likelihood of Evergreen Way SE being used as a cut - through route was studied in the traffic model for this EIS. Because of the number of controlled intersections and the lower posted speed limit, travel times via Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way are expected to be considerably longer than travel times using Kersey Way. 12.7 Please see Response to Comment 11.6. 59 Harold and Duanna Richards •1 August 13, 2005 Planning Department Attn: Sean Martin City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn WA 98001 Dear Sean: RECEIVED AUG l 6 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT We are writing io_response to the Draft EIS issued by the City for the proposed Kersey IiI housing development adjacent to Lakeland Hills. We have several concerns about the development as proposed, which are as follows: 13.1 13.2 We are very disturbed that the higher density housing, including multifamily, condominiums and homes on very small lots, are located in northwest comer of the proposed development —the area closest to the existing Lakeland Hills neighborhood the project abuts. The City's own Comprehensive Plan indicates that higher density housing belongs closest to the main entry to the development as a way of limiting the amount of traffic driving through the entire development. This proposal appears to place the most desirable housing closest to a busy road and the least desirable housing on the lots with the potential for the best views, etc. —it doesn't make sense. 2. We also feel the proposed number of units is way too many for this environmentally sensitive location and would bring too much traffic, too many people in close proximity to an already large development and disruption to the wildlife inhabiting this area. We feel the best way to accomplish a reduction in the number of total units is by limiting how far the project can extend into the northwest corner of the development and increasing the size of the lots behind Lakeland Hills so the lot sizes are more in keeping with those of the Lakeland Hills homes above them. 3. We urge you to require a large buffer of land between the existing Lakeland Hills development and the Kersey III proposal. This is particularly important in order to 13.3 maintain a wildlife corridor that will allow the wildlife to continue to move from one area to another. The proposal as presented would completely block off this passageway for the wildlife in our area. 4. We are also asking that the land between the Kersey IIi development and Lakeland Hills be kept forested so as to create a natural buffer between the two neighborhoods, which 13.4 would help limit the intrusion of noise and the visual impact of the new homes. It would also help limit the amount of erosion that could otherwise occur on the sleep slopes. Thank you for taking our concerns into consideration. Sincerely, Harold and Duanna Ric ar s 5016 Quincy Avenue SE Auburn WA 98092 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Harold and Duanna Richards letter August 13, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 13.1 The location of the proposed multifamily units is an appropriate issue to raise at the time of public hearing. 13.2 The Kersey III PUD is located within an area designated primarily as "Single Family Residential" by the City's comprehensive plan and is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. Comprehensive Plan policy LU -14 states that densities of 4 -6 units per acre are suitable within these areas. Neither Alternative 481 or Alternative 700 exceed these density limitations. Specific issues regarding the overall layout of the project are appropriate to raise at the time of public hearing. 13.3 See responses to Comments 11 -4 and 12 -4. Native open space encompassing steep slopes along the western boundary would be contiguous with off -site habitats to the south. Mitigation measures are outlined in the Draft EIS and Appendix C as noted in responses to Comments 11 -4 and 12 -4. Also see response to Comment 12.3. Final design of the Preliminary Plat and PUD will be subject to City of Auburn approval. 13.4 As shown on Figures 2 and 3 of the DEIS, Alternatives 481 and 700 would maintain a continuous buffer at the steep slope along the western site boundary (with the exception of the Evergreen Way roadway). In addition, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and implemented under Alternatives 481 and 700, as described on pages 46 and 47 of the DEIS. 61 Stu Collins 62 - WASHINGTON A KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT p UG 16 2DD4 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT S'T'ATEMENT (DE's ?3N/NG pEP ARtNjJ COM�I\i7[' STET Thd City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, may address such and other approvals that may be required for the project. Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to: Sean Martin. 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Camments must be received in writing and arrive City at Hall by 5 pm on Monday August 1b 2004. f �....we.�f" oh o �► �crf; I Z. atotf .9D�.r. ...,/ ._ . , y ei �r � _ 0►7- 1t��1Li � .v Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Please print.clearly. Name J7`u Gy ( bk Address 6ao / D /.'ue KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Stu Collins Comment Sheet August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 14.1 The FEIS includes a safety analysis of the Evergreen Way SE corridor, including the proposed signalized intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE. See Kersey III TIA Addendum for the Final Environmental Impact Statement dated January 11, 2005. The Evergreen Way connection was required by the City of Auburn. The future collector road connection has been in the City's Comprehensive Plan since at least 1997. The road will give Lakeland residents as well as emergency vehicles another way into and out of Lakeland, shortening emergency response times. The existing road and the future road will be designed to city standards for a collector road. The traffic study and its addendums evaluated the impacts of traffic on Evergreen Way SE from the development and concluded that the development should construct a traffic improvement such as a roundabout at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE as well as making pedestrian related improvements at the intersection of Evergreen Way and Olive Ave. 63 Perry and Trina Peters Me RECEIVED AUG 1 6 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 11, 2004 5' To: City of Auburn and Environmental Impact Study From: Perry and Trina Peters Subject: Proposed housing development west of Kersey Way in Auburn To whom this should concern, My name is Perry Peters and I have lived in Auburn at or near 3010 53rd St. SE for most of my life. I have watched as development all over the city has cut down on the open spaces we have enjoyed and that contribute to our quality of life. It saddens me to see that our leadership here in Auburn cannot or will not see the long term effects of over - development and the negative aspects of wall to wall homes and apartments. Why must we go the way of Tukwila, Renton, Kent, Federal Way, and other cities that choose to over populate their communities and strain the environment more and more? Must we build everywhere? Must we take all open space and pave it or cover it with dwellings? Why don't our leaders make choices that stop the decline of our quality of life? Is the traffic nice to sit in? Are the streets bumpy enough? Do you like overcrowded parks? Is the traffic noise pleasant? What is the point of it all? Can you picture the hillsides around our valley completely covered with homes? They will be if we continue on the road we are going. The following are reasons that must be considered and acted upon to maintain and insure that people in our community will have a better quality of life. These reasons, if heeded, will insure that our community will be a place where better people will come to live and raise better children. Isn't that what we should be concerned about? 1. Health. Too many people in one place is not healthy physically or 15.1 mentally. There are many studies and obvious facts to prove this. Take a look at what is called the Calhoun study. 2. Road Condition. Our roads here in Auburn are already beat up enough from over use. The roads cannot handle the number of cars - _- in a safe and timely manner. Kersey Way is backed up enough at 15.2 times. R Street gets congested and 17th backs up 20 -40 cars often. It is only the kind people on Auburn Way coming down from Enumclaw that allow the traffic in at 17''. At the end of the day Auburn Way traffic is backed up from the M street intersection beyond Pizza Hut. Most Lakeland Hills residents do not use the new 15,2 expensive access to 167 as 167 has not been widened so why should we build and add more people to the mess? 3. Natural Habitat. There are numerous animals in the area of 53rd and Kersey way. From there towards the newest Lakeland development there is much habitat that deer, elk, birds, mtn. beaver, owls, bats, falcons, and other animals live in. Where will the family of owls go when the trees are cut down? They live in the trees on the back of our property and in the trees across the road where much of this planned development will be. Where will the falcons go? Once in awhile an Eagle can be seen. There used to be many hawks around. Now there are fewer. What about the stream that cuts and makes its way from Lake Tapps through our area and down to the White river? 15.3 This supposively is a salmon bearing stream. There are numerous trout all the way along the steam. The Fastbind family was forced to put a squash pipe type culvert in because the department of fish and game told them there were salmon in the creek. Kind of strange how salmon get up a 15' waterfall but that is beside the point. The point is they had to protect fish habitat but will the big development ensure a clean fish sustaining stream? Where will all these animals go? Nature is something we should live in all the time. Living in more of a natural setting will enhance the quality of life in our community. Must we always drive to it to experience it? 4. Water Quality and Quantity. Good quality water is important as well. Currently in July the communities of Lakeland and Sumner are being asked to conserve water. Water levels in wells are low and continuing to drop. The city is having to make deals with other cities to tap into their water sources. Thirteen or more wells went dry in the summer of 2003 along 53rd St. SE. Was this because of 15.4 an overtaxed aquifer or drought, as some city officials claimed, or was it because one of Auburn's biggest revenue generating businesses, the Icon gravel pit, cut into the aquifer for the second time in 25 years. Yeah, the pit has wells but the data is there to see how much water is flowing from our aquifer out of the hillside. Either way we are seeing water shortages. Just as important is that much of the water that is being pulled out of the ground would normally flow out through natural springs into the 15.5 15.7 streams and into the rivers all of which are important to wildlife and especially fish. 5. Permeable Surfaces. There is not enough currently in the plan. After roads, driveways, sidewalks, homes, and patios there is not much left. Sure the plan is to retain some of the water in retention ponds. It cannot be diverted into our Salmon bearing streams and rivers. Streams need to be clean. That means water that normally comes from springs. Spring water has been filtered by the soil and secTiments above it. That is why it is so pure and desirable. Streams and rivers filled with impermeable service run off water don't allow for sustainable habitat for fish. The balance of the fresh clean water from the springs fed by permeable surfaces has been upset since the proper amount of water cannot get into the soil. The ponds don't look nice anyway and what a potential hazard. How much water do they really let back into the ground? After a time the bottoms of these retention ponds seal up and let less and less water through. They then become mosquito breeding ponds until the water in them evaporates anyway. Open space would have let the water through but now we have potential disease carrying mosquitoes where they never would have been if we'd left more space and not made retention ponds. 6. Visual Aesthetics. How about how all those dwellings look? Take a drive up to Lakeland. Wow! What nice frills they have here with the flags and nature type names of each section of the development. Oh, look at all the deciduous trees they have planted where they clear -cut all the evergreens. What do you think they will do to sidewalks and roads in a few more years? Perhaps if we spread things out more we could have left some natural stands and had some room to not worry about cracked sidewalks and streets. I hear the City is considering making people get a permit to cut down a tree because they are concerned about the visual aesthetics of our community. Strange how the city allows wall to wall building and cutting down everything on the hillside but then is concerned about some private landowner's tree. 15.$ 7. Crowding. Those houses are sure close to each other. Do you think they can enjoy a quite evening without hearing some radio, loud 1 -5.9 15.10 conversation, or television going? Ah, who cares? Just close the windows. 8. Heat islands. What about the heat island effect that we hear about? Cities and suburbs actually generate and retain heat that changes weather and climate patterns. Maybe if we cluster them close enough the people will stay warm in the winter. I'm not sure about the summer months though. The homes are so close they'll really be warm and have to use more electricity to keep cool. All that power generation is tough on rivers and fish habitat again. Maybe we can build a reactor nearby! Auburn may be a nice place since the zoning is so good and the permit process has been streamlined? 9. Police and Fire The roads are getting so crowded at times it is difficult for emergency vehicles to move. If we keep building we are surpassing the capacities of our roads at times making it impossible to access an emergency address. It is'important that our voices be heard. Our form of government is supposed to listen to the people and follow what they have asked. Laws are supposed to be based on their needs not the needs of special interest groups that lobby and petition judges and officials. We want what is best for us and our community not what special interests want. Surely the differences can be seen and acted on appropriately. Sincerely, ;�;7;a4 Perry Peters Trina Peters KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Perry and Trina Peters August 11, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 15.1 Comment noted. General health, safety and welfare issues are addressed by the City Zoning Code, which determines allowable density and lot sizes. 15.2 The traffic congestion impacts in 2008 (the proposed development's year of completion) were studied in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. In 2008, the analysis revealed that arterial levels of service on all surrounding corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. The traffic model and traffic study for Kersey 3 used the existing capacity of SR 167 (2 lanes north bound, 2 lanes southbound) in the vicinity of Lakeland in order not to overstate the capacity or attractiveness of SR 167. Lake Tapps Parkway could (and will) be used by more people - it currently handles about 10,000 vehicle per day at certain locations, providing much needed relief. Much of the physical road impact on arterials such as Kersey Way near this site are not due to local traffic but rather to regional traffic exiting and entering Auburn from other jurisdictions. These impacts are very difficult to assess to a specific, local development and are best addressed with city funds and very limited other funding opportunities. 15.3 As outlined in detail in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS, the forested vegetation of the Kersey III site provides habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species (see also Table B.1 of Appendix C for a list of observed and expected species for the site and vicinity). As outlined in Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 6.0 of Appendix C and Section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIS, development of the site under Alternatives 481 and 700 would cause unavoidable loss of native vegetation and wildlife habitat, resulting in reductions in local populations of most wildlife species. Some species may be eliminated from the site, while others more adapted to urban environments may increase in numbers. In addition, both Alternatives 481 and 700 include retention of native forest habitat encompassing steep slopes, wetlands, and streams, and their buffers to provide some habitat for native wildlife species. These open space areas would be contiguous with adjacent forest habitats off site. With respect to listed species, the bald eagle was not observed during field studies by Raedeke Associates, Inc., or during previous studies of the site(DBM 2000b, J.S. Jones and Associates 2000). The nearest known nest is more than 2.5 miles northeast of the site e along the Green River, and another is over 5 miles southeast of the site east of Lake Tapps (WFW 2003a, 2003b; Ms. Julie Stofel, WDFW, pers. comm. November 9, 2004). Occasional sightings of bald eagles in the vicinity would be expected because of the proximity of large river and lake foraging areas and scattered waterfowl concentration areas. No nests are known to occur on the Kersey III property, nor would any be expected, because of a lack of suitable nesting sites (i.e., large snags of suitable condition or species, or old- growth trees) or foraging habitat (i.e., fish- bearing waters or waterfowl concentrations). No potential nest trees were observed during our field visits. Eagles can range several miles during foraging flights, and could occasionally use the project sites for perching. No other threatened or endangered species, such as peregrine falcons, are documented for the site or vicinity (WDFW 2003a, 2003b), nor were any observed during field surveys. The peregrine falcon, classified as a Federal species of Concern and a State Sensitive species (WDFW 2004), would not be expected to occur on site due to the lack of nesting (e.g., cliffs) habitat or prey species (e.g., shorebirds and waterfowl). Bowman Creek, which is located off site east of Kersey Way and flows to the White River, would not be directly affected by the proposed development of Kersey III. As noted in the response to Comment 7.4, the project site represents a very small portion of the overall basin contributing to Bowman Creek, on -site wetland and stream habitat would generally be retained and buffered, and proposed stormwater management would minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the channel conditions within Tributary 0043. See the response to Comment 7.4 for further discussion. The traffic congestion impacts in 2008 (the proposed development's year of completion) were studied in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. The analysis revealed that in 2008, arterial levels of service on all surrounding corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. 15.4 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. Since the Kersey III developments will be required to bring their own water supply to the Lakeland Hills Service Area there should be no impact on the existing private and community wells in the area. The additional supply will also reduce or eliminate the need for water curtailment within the Lakeland Hills Service area supplied water by the City. .. 15.5 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. Since the Kersey III developments will be required to bring their own water supply to the Lakeland Hills Service Area there should be no impact on the existing private and community wells in the area. The additional supply will also reduce or eliminate the need for water curtailment within the Lakeland Hills Service area supplied water by the City. 15.6 See response to Comments 1.3. Generally, the detention (retention) ponds proposed for Alternatives 481 and 700 (shown on Figures 2 and 3 of the DEIS) are not designed to infiltrate any water — they will be lined to prevent infiltration. Stormwater runoff from roofs in selected areas will be infiltrated through trenches to mitigate shallow groundwater conditions at on -site wetlands, as described on pages 67 and 73 of the DEIS. Runoff from roofs is not expected to contain a significant amount of sediment that would clog the trenches. If necessary, the trenches will be maintained or replaced if clogging becomes a problem. 15.7 Comment noted. 15.8 The adopted Zoning Code for the City of Auburn establishes the allowable minimum setbacks between structures. These setbacks have been deemed to provide for the general health, safety and welfare regarding separation of units. The proposed project will be required to comply with these setbacks. Likewise, the zoning code establishes maximum densities allowed under certain zoning classifications. The project is in compliance with the density maximum. 15.9 Comment noted. 15.10 Police or Fire impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Section 3.7, Public Services. Impacts and mitigation measures regarding traffic are addressed in Section 3.6, Transportation. Mitigation measures as required by the City of Auburn will be designed to minimize the impacts of the proposed project and maintain emergency vehicle access and response. 67 Glenn L. Wood .: CITY OF.. t' WASHINGTON RECEIVED AUG 1 6 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) COMMENT SHEET The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments may address such issues as: the project alternatives, probable significant impacts, potential mitigation measures and other approvals that may be required for the project. Please return your comments to the City of Auburn Planning Department by 5 p.m. on Monday, August 16, 2004. P5 A- S 6 o f Avy C- T f L' 10Uw1IV r 4 dpi ilJ'v�laary 'UtrN L �6 i FRI C rf fu Um aW'A ( (;aC&T E41, V7 6- J ?� 0ut2 4 i�1 U T4 (C —Alf VC410- 44ufk Or Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list Please print clearly. Name (9 IAO Address _ �} j �, p U�i ticS ,� V 5E Od its' zq a Questions about this project can be directed to Sean Martin, 253-804-3111; smartin@ci.aubum.wa.us. You may also print and fax the form to 253- 804 -3114 or mail to 25 West Main Street; Auburn, WA 98001. �1 eo-1 J9 a t qS�6 U lit �{1 - • '11/V1 7vt S't.nJ r42T%vA © (%i ✓r-c A/7,, K�rrt�c inov -r 1< S s f 16.1 A), 0).) u�r- -AA rm K1Qu ZJ;I Zr stn % 'tc�r/r S G r✓� �-tv j46 svi"wt qez i j�,W5, KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Glen L. Wood Comment Sheet August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 16.1 The intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE is expected to be improved with a roundabout. The Evergreen Way SE/ Lakeland Hills Way route will thus be a more desirable through route than that of Olive Avenue SE/ 62nd Street Way SE and is expected to be the main route in which traffic volumes associated with this development will travel to and from the southwest of the development. The trip assignments shown on Figures 4A, 413, 4C, 6A, 6B and 6C of Appendix F to the Draft EIS show the anticipated preferred travel routes to and from this proposed development. A speed study conducted last spring by the City on Olive Ave in the vicinity of Evergreen Loop and 59th Street SE revealed that the average speed of drivers was 20 mph and the 85th percentile speed was 27 mph. The speed limit was 25 mph. The Kersey 3 development would contribute very little traffic to Olive Ave. The City will investigate concerns regarding speeding on Olive Ave north of Evergreen Way SE. Pedestrian safety improvements at the intersection of Olive Ave. and Evergreen Way SE have been identified as being required to be installed by the developer. .• Mickey Fassbind 70 s C I TY Q j' a RECENED AUG 1 6 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) COMMENT SHEET The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments may address such issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be required for the project. Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to: Sean Martin 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Comments must be received in writing and arrive at City Hail by 5 pm on Monday August 16, 2004. Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Name Address Please print clearly. RK 17 .2 �2�0� Dear Mr. Sean Martin, Seeing as the corner of 53rd and Kersey Way is directly in front of my house and driveway I would like to request that I be included in any and all decisions and designs regarding the intersection. I have a lot of concerns as far as the alteration to the front of my property go. Namely how will this affect my mail delivery, my sons bus stop and the access to our property? I also worry about the increase in an already heavy traffic flow, as well as noise and air pollution, and a Severe lack of privacy. Also I am interested in the possible plus side of all of this. The King County Journal stated that you need to bring in sewer and water lines, will I be able to connect to these lines and will the developer pay for it? Another curiosity is for the benefit of my families privacy, will there be landscaping done at the entrance and will there be any work done to the area in front of my house to keep my yard and house at least a little out of the public eye? Lastly as this will be drastically effecting my property value, would the developer be willing to buy my property for $900,000? Thank you for your time. Mickey Fassbind 5220 Kersey Way SE Auburn Wa 98092 (253) 833 -1946 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mickey Fassbind August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 17.1 Comment noted. Please see the DEIS, which addresses a number of issues, including traffic and air quality. 17.2 Once the sewer and water lines are constructed, they will be public utilities that can be utilized by adjacent property owners. There could be cost savings to have connections constructed at the time the mains are installed. This would need to be coordinated with the City and the project proponents. Off -site landscaping could be required by the City of Auburn or done in coordination with the project proponents. The developers of the Kersey III projects will be required to extend water and sewer along their frontage on Kersey Way. Your parcel that fronts on Kersey Way would be allowed to connect after the water and sewer facilities have been accepted by the city, the proper permits were obtained and the appropriate fees were paid. It is likely that there would be payback agreements executed for these facilities with the developer that your parcel would be required to pay prior to connection. 17.3 Comment noted. DEIS documents and the State Environmental Policy Act do not address property values. 71 Margaret and Gary Staples 72 WA51JINGTON KEERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) COMMENT SHEET The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments may address such issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be required for the project. Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to: Sean Martin RECEIVED 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 AUG 16 2004 Comments must be received in writing and arrive at City Hall by 5 pm oTOW ROW, 1004. Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Name Address Please print clearly. 1 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Margaret and Gary Staples Comment Sheet August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 18.1 Please see Section 3.6 — Transportation for a review of the traffic report and mitigation measures. The traffic congestion impacts in 2008 (the proposed development's year of completion) were studied in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. The analysis revealed that in 2008, arterial levels of service on all surrounding corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. Concern about the eastbound intersection approach to Kersey Way are duly noted. The revised intersection of 53rd and Kersey Way will be constructed to city standards which require a level landing grade for a certain distance approaching arterial intersections. 18.2 The proposed project does not propose moving of 11 wetlands. The project proposes to preserve on -site wetlands and provide hydrology to maintain them. Please see Section 3.4 — Wetland and Stream Corridors of the DEIS. 18.3 The proposed traffic signal at the intersection 53rd Street SE and Kersey Way SE will be designed to meet City Standards. Advanced signal warning signage will be placed appropriately along Kersey Way to ensure driver awareness of the upcoming signal. 73 Margaret Staples 74 19.'1 I U. l ` 19.2 f RECENED AUG 16 2004 ._ r,rnArJTRfir-MT KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Margaret Staples Letter August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 19.1 Comment noted. 19.2 Comment noted. A pedestrian safety analysis of the Evergreen Way SE corridor has been conducted and is included in the Kersey III Final EIS as part of the Kersey III TIA Addendum for the Final Environmental Impact Statement dated January 11, 2005, by TSI, Inc. Corridor level of service analysis for future with and without this project under 2008 conditions will be included in the Final EIS. Please refer to them for the forecasted incremental impact on these corridors attributable to this development. 75 Frank and Nancy Parsons 76 August 15, 2004 Sean Martin City of Auburn 25 West Main St. Auburn, WA 98001 -4998 RE: Kersey III Preliminary Plat EIS Comment Dear Mr. Martin, Sox We strongly oppose approval of the Environmental Impact Statement as offered by the developers of Kersey III for the following reasons: 20.2 Kersey Way is a two -lane road which connects the Lake Tapps area to Highway 18, Highway 167 and Interstate 5 by way of the City of Auburn. Efforts to shift traffic from the Lakeland Hills development to Highway 167 by way of Lake Tapps Parkway, instead of down Kersey Way and through Auburn, has failed miserably. (As you recall, on July 28"' at the Open House for the Kersey III project, you admitted that people were in fact not using Lake Tapps Parkway as expected, and you blamed that on the congestion on Highway 167- adding that 167 needs to be fixed first). Adding 700 units (and several hundred cars) per day to an already crowded two -lane road would significantly and negatively impact the quality of life for everyone in the Auburn/Lake Tapps area. And as You stated, the situation won't change until upgrades are made to Highway 167. In 2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes; the drafters of this EIS state "existing traffic conditions were not assessed for this project due to a number of factors." The EIS states that extending Evergreen Way SE from east of Olive Avenue SE to 53rd will result in an alternate route between East Valley Highway and Kersey Way - which will significantly change the traffic patterns in the area. If existing traffic patterns were not considered, and you personally admit that people are generally not using Lake Tapps Parkway, then the traffic study included in the EIS is not accurate. Under 3.2 Future - Background Traffic Volumes in the EIS: "No- Action" alternative numbers were used for peak hour intersection level of service. However, for "Future Conditions" the EIS used numbers from the "481 unit Alternative ". Additionally, the EIS used the City of Auburn Transportation Model for determining the numbers. Since the City of Auburn model does not factor in trip_generation numbers from Pierce County, and the study does not list any "real time" traffic counts in the area of consideration, how does the traffic study fisted 20.2 pertain to the project at hand? Also, there is a significant difference between evaluating for 481 units and 700+ units. The EIS also states "As mentioned in Section 3.3, the City of Auburn used corridor level of service to measure impacts.... One directional Corridor is forecasted to operate worse than presented for the No- Action Alternative. Thus, this corridor can be considered impacted by the project. This corridor is Evergreen Way SE, between Lakeland Hills Way SE and Kersey Way SE in the westbound direction. The low average travel speed is caused by delay forecasted at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE at Lakeland Hills Way SE." 20.3 The EIS claims that the corridor can be improved to LOS -B b p y installing a signal at Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE. Documentation in the EIS states that on the "No -Action Alternative", this intersection is rated LOS -F. Again, since there has been no "real -time" traffic counts regarding this area, the drafters of the EIS do not have the documentation to prove an improvement of LOS -F to B. It would be purely a guess. 3.1 Planned Street Improvements list three changes or additions to improve traffic. • A traffic signal at Oravetz Road and Kersey Way SE • Lake Tapps Parkway East Extension • A turn lane at Cross Street SE and A Street SE and signal timing improvements The sheer volume of people already trying to get to the major highways through Auburn has already stretched the patience of people living in this area. Adding hundreds of cars to an already congested area does not make sense when the only 20.4 alternatives essentially are more traffic lights. "The Growth Management Act requires that all jurisdictions within the state ensure that transportation facilities have adequate capacity to meet current and future traffic demands. Consequently before any future development is approved by a jurisdiction, it must be shown that adequate capacity exists or capacity improvements will be in place to serve traffic generated by the development prior to its construction and occupation." For the City of Auburn to cite a LOS acceptability of "D" is ridiculous and unacceptable. It seems to us that planners should be planning for the benefit of the people who live in the community, not for the benefit of developers who only care about making money. 2. There have been many articles written this summer regarding water shortages in 24.5 this and surrounding areas (attached). If the infrastructure is not there, or cannot be guaranteed to current or future residence- do not approve any more 20.5 developments! We should not have to ration our water because of poor planning on the part of our "city planners ". 3. Many items regarding wildlife concerns have been completely ignored in this EIS report. On our property we regularly have seen two different types of deer, elk, raccoons, opossums, two different types of squirrels, owls, bats, Steller's Jay, Western Scrub Jay, Doves, hawks, eagles, two different types of woodpeckers, and we have documented over 20 different types of birds at our feeders. To completely ignore this concentration of wildlife is unacceptable. Lakeland hills has taken away virtually all of the remaining open space for transient species and completely decimated the nesting areas for our native birds. Just because two years ago, you walked through part of the project area and did not see a particular species, doesn't mean it didn't exist on the property. To our knowledge, none of the residence of Lake Tapps Heights, or any other area, has been contacted as to the wildlife in the area. I guess you just see what you want to see and that's it. It is for these and many other reasons that we object to the Kersey III project going forward. The City of Auburn has not given adequate consideration to the views and wishes of the people affected by this project. We have complained about the EIS notification process and sign postings, and been given the brush -off by city officials during the Open House. We are hoping the city is not making the decision based on mitigation and other types of fees alone. Once the open space and wildlife are gone, they are gone for good. We urge you to reconsider approval of this project and help protect the quality of life for our family. Sincerely, Frank I. Parsons 112 —176' Av. E. Sumner, WA 98390 (253) 862 -0115 N cy A. Pa 'sons *We are also property owners within the city of Auburn. KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Frank and Nancy Parsons August 15, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 20.1 The most current and best information available for surrounding traffic volumes is the City's model. The Kersey III traffic study was based on model outputs. Model outputs are based on existing traffic patterns which are then manipulated to forecast future traffic. The traffic model and traffic study for Kersey 3 used the existing capacity of SR 167 (2 lanes north bound, 2 lanes southbound) in the vicinity of Lakeland in order not to overstate the capacity or attractiveness of SR 167. Lake Tapps Parkway could (and will) be used by more people; it currently handles about 10,000 vehicles per day at certain locations, providing much needed relief. The traffic study found that levels of service on all surrounding arterial corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. The current traffic study did analyze a "no action" (existing conditions ) alternative. Improvements created by this development include signalizing 53rd and Kersey Way as well as a proposed roundabout at Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. These are expected to improve Level of Service at those locations. 20.2 The traffic model used was calibrated using King County , Pierce County and State traffic counts as well as actualtraffic counts in Auburn. The traffic study addendum analyzed the impacts of a 481 unit alternative and 700 unit alternative adding that traffic to background traffic for 2008 to correctly show the total volume impacts of the development. 20.3 The traffic model used was calibrated by comparing its findings for an existing road configuration to actual traffic counts for the baseline "no action" condition. The traffic study was based on a traffic model to enable the consideration of the future demand that would result from the development being constructed and Evergreen being opened as a through road. There is no more accurate way to analyze the impacts of a future road link and a future development than to use a traffic model. 20.4 The result of the traffic study addendum (see FEIS Appendix A) studying the year 2008 condition with the maximum level of development at Kersey 3 was a finding that arterial levels of service on all surrounding arterial corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. Level of Service in the City is measured by speed or travel time over a corridor. 77 20.5 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. Since the Kersey III developments will be required to bring their own water supply to the Lakeland Hills Service Area there should be no impact on the existing private and community wells in the area. The additional supply will also reduce or eliminate the need for water curtailment within the Lakeland Hills Service area supplied water by the City. 20.6 Contrary to this comment, wildlife habitat has not been ignored in the EIS document. The Plants and Animals Assessment (Appendix C to the Draft EIS) contains extensive discussion of the existing vegetation (Section 3.1 and 3.2) and wildlife (Sections 3.3 and 3.4, Table B.1) on the site and vicinity, including the species noted. Numerous species of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles have been documented on site during field investigations by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (2004a, 2004b) and DBM, Inc. (2000a, 2000b). See responses to Comments 11 -5 and 12 -5 for additional discussion. William K. Rerrick 79 WASHINGTON AUG 16 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT KERSEY III PRELIMINARY:PLAT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) COMMENT SHEET The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments may address such issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be required for the project. Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to: Sean Martin 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 _Comments must be received in writing and arrive at City Hail by 5 pm on Monday August 16, 2044. it — t,%- /V Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Please print clearly. ` 1 K Name s L k— Address D KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS William K. Rerrick August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 21.1 Comment noted. a Bridget Ave. S.E. Residents, et. al. HI uo l 22.1 I J� Sean Martin, AICP August 16, 2004 RECEIVED Auburn Planning and Community Development 25 West Main Street AUG 1 6 2004 Auburn, WA 980014998 Dear Mr. Martin: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Kersey III project should not move ahead. Serious issues of breakdown in traffic flow, water availability, and pedestrian safety have not been answered. Your DEIS report that the existing traffic flow has not been assessed, (Appendix R- Traffic, 2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes), blatantly ignores the breakdown in traffic flow that is recorded in your document, (Appendix F Traffic, 3.3 Level of Service table). The delay at the intersection of 21" Street and R Street has an LOS rating of F, which reflects a breakdown in traffic flow. This current breakdown in traffic flow is already inhibiting the commute home for local residents. Further development without addressing this current traffic problem will exacerbate an already difficult situation. In addition the SPIS values of Ellingson and A Streets have among the highest accident ratings in the city, over 48. While 21 st and 29' and R Streets both have an accident rating of over 30. Increasing the flow of traffic through these intersections will only increase the number and severity of accidents. To move ahead with no assessment of this already difficult situation, to not include any Public Transportation alternatives (Appendix F 2.5), for this new community, so that people must rely on private vehicles, will be to create a traffic gridlock. If the private road, which runs along White River, should become public, some of the traffic stress on the R Street Neighborhood would be relieved. This community is also very concerned about the draining of our existing wells. Last summer many of our neighbors experienced their wells going dry. A development y built on the ttside of Kersey, would require a new well deep enough to supply water to a 700 homes. We are concerned about the aquifer being drained, and existing wells going �,2" dry. Our wells are at a variety of levels, ranging from 100 feet deep to many hundred feet deep. What will happen when a deeper well is dug in this neighborhood, drawing out vast quantities of water? Many more existing wells could go dry. The City has not addressed this concern adequately. No bike paths are planned in the development of Kersey way due to the steep I(A grade (Appendix I, Page 5). This ignores the fact that people do walk and take bikes on ` v - Kersey. The lovely paths along the White River, Game Farm Park, and the presence of 3 high school nearby, with students needing to commute, all attract pedestrians and bikers Paths were included in the design of Lake Tapps Parkway, regardless of the steep grade. These have enhanced their community and made it a safer place for everyone. With' 100's more children moving into this community we need to put plans for their safety into development of the roadways. '\,- Safety for our children, adequate water, and traffic gridlock are concerns which .,.,IC) � need to be answered before beginning a project to build 700 new homes. 4 ' ",:J LVU C Sincerely Yours, 1� KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Bridget Ave. S.E. Residents, et. al. August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 22.1 Please see the Kersey III TIA Addendum to the Final EIS for additional information. Regarding existing traffic flows, please note that in Appendix F of the Draft EIS, Section 3.3, Table 4, the forecasted future LOS without development is shown, not the existing LOS. Regarding the Level of Service, please note that the City of Auburn uses corridor LOS, not intersection LOS, to evaluate overall road conditions. Please refer to Table 11 on page 41 of Appendix F to the Draft EIS for a comparison of future corridor conditions with and without this development. Comments are noted regarding public transportation alternatives and the private road that runs along the White River. The traffic congestion impacts in 2008 (the proposed development's year of completion) were studied in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. The analysis revealed that in 2008, arterial levels of service on all surrounding corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. The intersection of A Street SE and 41st St. SE (Ellingson Rd) is ranked 7th in the SPIS (Safety Priority Index System). Unfortunately, there is no avoidable pattern of accidents at the location that can be solved with a specific improvement. Recent capacity improvements to the intersection are expected to improve level of service and may potentially reduce the number of accidents. There is no direct nexus between this development and the safety issues at the intersection. 21st and R St. S.E. and 29th and R St. S.E. intersections ranked 62nd and 64th respectively in the SPIS, significantly below the average as safety concerns. They are not scheduled for any immediate improvement. 22.2 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. Since the Kersey III developments will be required to bring their own water supply to the Lakeland Hills Service Area there should be no impact on the existing private and community wells in the area. The additional supply will also reduce or eliminate the need for water curtailment within the Lakeland Hills Service area supplied water by the City. 22.3 The City of Auburn may require bike paths as a condition of approval for the preliminary plat and /or PUD. La Pianta LLC ., 23.'1 f MM P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, Washington 98138 -2028 Telephone: (206) 575 -2000 Facsimile: (206) 575 -1837 August 16, 2004 Mr. Sean Martin Development Services Coordinator Department of Planning & Community Development City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 RE: Proposed Kersey III Project DEIS Dear Mr. Martin, Having read the DEIS for the proposed Kersey III project, we offer our comments as noted below. We are property owners adjacent to and near the proposed Kersey III project, and are concerned about the impacts of the proposed development. A. The two proposed alternatives, with 481 and 700 units each, are too extreme for the neighborhood. The project is physically separated downslope from Lakeland, in the Kersey Way neighborhood, where it is surrounded by 5 acre parcels to the south, and even larger lots to the north and east. The proposed use of multifamily units and small home lots simply exacerbates the impact, and changes the nature of the neighborhood. This is not the place for it. The "No Action" alternative, which is to follow current zoning, is what is appropriate for the site and for the neighborhood. B 23.2 Kersey III is literally across the street from a very large active gravel mine and processing facility, that will continue for many years to come. Given the potential for perceived noise and visual impacts of the mine by residents, and that it will share Kersey Way with automobiles of the future residents, the State - mandated notice provision for plats in close proximity to mines should be expanded to include the entire Kersey III project (especially if the higher densities are permitted). This topic should be addressed in the EIS, and Potential Mitigation Measures. 23.3 C. Since Kersey III stormwater is piped directly from the streets to the ponds, without benefit of bioswales, we are concerned about the quality of water leaving the site into Bowman Creek, and also of the potential for high water quantity due to pond overflow in major storm events. The most conservative of designs is needed to resolve both of these issues — this should be required specifically in the Potential Mitigation Measures. There is also a question about the design of the ponds themselves, as it relates to their location. There needs to be more study of their location in steep slope areas and in proximity to landslide hazard areas, and of their structural design — they may actually exceed the 25' cuts /fills that the EIS says will be typical. What could their impacts be on the steep slopes, and of potential impacts of pond failures or overflows, both on the creek and on Kersey Way itself? D. Is Appendix F the entire traffic study? (e.g. is there a stamped and signed copy? Does it 23,4 contain more information ?) E. The traffic analysis is based on a 2005 completion date for the project — this is unrealistic. In - reality, a 2009 date is much more probable, by the time the plat works its way through the 23.5 approval process, is built out, and the homes are all built and sold. The traffic study should be revised accordingly. Also, is it realistic to expect completion of the traffic improvements called out for completion by 2005? F. There is no existing turning movement information on the critical 53rd St/Kersey and Evergreen/Lakeland Hills Way intersections (citing future changed conditions). This 23.6 information should be gathered so a better analysis can be done of those intersections and their changes (they are critical close -in intersections impacting both the existing neighborhood and future site access, and need to be studied in more detail than the remote intersections). Also, the information that is provided indicates that a signal will be warranted at Evergreen Way and Lakeland Hills Way, so why is it not included in the project? 23.7 G. The trip distribution identified in the Traffic Analysis at the Evergreen/Olive intersection does not appear to be consistent with the existing no- action pattern (figures 3c vs. 4c). - I H. The DEIS states that if the project installed a temporary sewer pump station on an interim basis, "The development would still have a requirement to participate in the extension of �3'$ " sewer in Kersey Way consistent with the Comprehensive Sewer Plan." (page 82). How would this be accomplished once all the homes are sold? I. The DEIS on page 132 refers to the "interim use of the East Valley Highway system for water 23.9 to supply the project." What would the plan be for a more permanent water supply, and will the plat be required to participate in that also as in "H" above? Thank you for your consideration of the above. Sincer y, U � Mark Hancock KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS La Pianta LLC August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 23.1 The Kersey III PUD is located within an area designated primarily as "Single Family Residential" by the City's comprehensive plan and is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. Comprehensive Plan policy LU -14 states that densities of 4 -6 units per acre are suitable within these areas. Neither Alternative 481 or Alternative 700 exceed these density limitations. 23.2 The City of Auburn will require compliance with the notice requirements of RCW 36.70A.060 as a condition of final plat approval for this project. 23.3 Comparisons of the site plans for Alternatives 481 and 700 (Figures 2 and 3 of the DEIS) with Figure 13 indicate that the proposed detention pond locations are not in or adjacent to Class I landslide hazard areas. Note that the site - specific landslide hazard areas (shaded) on Figure 13 cover a significantly smaller area than the stippled "reference" landslide hazard areas, and that the site - specific areas supersede the "reference" areas (refer to the first paragraph of Response CA. 1). The proposed detention ponds will be lined to prevent any stormwater seepage, which could potentially impact slope stability. Cuts /fills in the vicinity of the ponds would be constructed at appropriate slope angles and are not expected to exceed 25 feet. The design of the ponds includes the analyses of several storm sizes, including the 100 -year storm event. As designed, the proposed detention ponds incorporate wet pond features that are used to settle out sediments, oils and greases prior to detention, and discharge to the downstream. The proposed ponds are located outside of wetland buffers. Water from rooftops from a portion of the site will be collected and conducted to the wetlands to maintain hydrology. The ponds are developed to accommodate a 100 -year design storm, as required by the City of Auburn stormwater design criteria. 23.4 Appendix F is the entire traffic study, all calculations relevant to LOS are filed with the City and are available for public review. This study does not require a Professional Engineer's stamp, however all work related with the Kersey III Traffic Impact Analysis was either conducted by a Professional Engineer or conducted under the close supervision of a Professional Engineer. M, 23.5 Analysis of traffic under year 2008 conditions are included in the Final EIS as part of the Kersey III TIA Addendum to the Final EIS dated January 11, 2005. 23.6 Thank you for your comment. The intersection of 53rd and Kersey was studied in detail using actual traffic counts in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. The development will be required to complete a roundabout at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and Evergreen Way SE. Existing turning movement count information has been collected at the intersection of Kersey Way SE at 53rd Street SE. Both existing and future condition analyses of this intersection based on this data are included in the Final EIS. See Addendum TIA. The signalization of the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE has been included as part of the mitigation for this project. Please refer to the third paragraph of section 4.2.8 on page 49 of Appendix F of the DEIS. 23.7 There was a typo on Figure 4C of Appendix F to the DEIS displaying the volumes at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE at Olive Avenue SE under the 2005, 481 -unit alternative. The volumes for each movement should have read as follows: eastbound - left: 9 vehicles per hour (vph), eastbound -thru: 187 vph, westbound -thru: 147 vph, westbound - right: 15 vph, southbound -left: 34 vph, and southbound -right: 6 vph. These correct volumes were used in the analysis. We were unable to substantiate the figure numbers referenced in the comment, but we did review figures 26 compared to figures 32 and figures 38. The opening of Evergeen Way to the east will change traffic patterns and the traffic study addendum dated January 11th, 2005 has recommended safety improvements for pedestrians at Olive Ave. and Evergreen Way. Traffic volume impacts and changes will not degrade the Level of service below city standards. 23.8 If it is determined that the temporary pump station will be allowed it is likely that the City will establish a special connection charge to be collected as the homes apply for their sewer permits to pay a proportional share of the future sewer extension down Kersey Way to connect to the Lakeland Hills pump station 23.9 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. :. The 2001 Comprehensive Water Plan shows both projects above as being constructed to serve the Lakeland Hills water service area. The current reliability problem in this service area can be met by either of the two projects with the ultimate solution to the service area including both projects. If the East Valley Highway supply is selected the developers will be required to complete install piping along their Kersey Way frontage and have no further water supply obligation. Roger Gillette August 12, 2004 City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 4998 Reference: Kersey 111 Preliminary Plat Application, July 2004 Subject: Comments On Draft EIS Dear Sirs: RECEIVED AUG 16 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT We are the owners of two 5 acre parcels which are adjacent to the proposed development (tax lots #322105- 9040 -05 and #322105 - 9041 -04). The preliminary plat drawings to date do not show street or utility access to our property. We respectfully ask that street and utility access be provided in the final plat drawings and specifications. The reasons for our request are as follows: 1) Access from our property to Kersey Way via 49th St SE will likely be unacceptable to the city for reasons of traffic safety and visibility. Adding another access street to Kersey Way is not consistent with the EIS traffic impact studies. 2) The most logical development plan for our property would be to connect to the proposed arterial running from Evergreen Way SE to Kersey Way. This could be done along the south border of our property. 3) Streets and utilities on our property should develop in-a manner that is consistent with the surrounding proposed development. If you have any questions about our comments and suggestions feel free to call me at 253 -833 -6826 or 253- 740 -9360 (cell). Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely A7ZU4 Roger Gillette 30527 120 Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Roger Gillette Letter August 12, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 24.1 The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, Policy TR13.13.2, states that "where possible, streets will be planned, designed and constructed to connect to future development." As part of the preliminary plat design, the City will review the need for connection to adjacent property. The current design of the plat shown in the DEIS shows Evergreen Way located immediately adjacent to the southerly boundary of the property providing for a possible connection opportunity. As a part of the final design and construction of the developments, utilities will be stubbed to the adjacent parcels to the extent that it is physically possible to do so. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. .. Roger Gillette .c August 12, 2004 City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 980014998 Reference: _Kersey III Preliminary Plat Application, July 2004 Dear Sirs: RECEIVED AUG 16 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT We are the owners of two 5 acre parcels which are adjacent to the proposed development (tax lots #322105- 9040 -05 and #322105- 9041 -04), and have submitted comments on the 25.1 draft EIS under separate cover. Since the proposed plat will greatly impact the development of our property, we ask to be included on the distribution list of any future drawing releases. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely /Y Q, Roger Gillette 30527 120 Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Roger Gillette Letter August 12, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 25.1 Comment noted. 91 Linda Howard 92 26.1 CITY OF _` ..�.. RECEIVED -� WAS FfINGTON AUG 16 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) COMMENT SHEET The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments may address such issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be required for the project. Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to: Sean Martin 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Comments must be received in writing and arrive at City Hall by 5 pm on Monday August 16, 2004. IIM- Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Please print clearly. Name Address KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Linda Howard Comment Sheet August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 26.1 With the proposed mitigating improvements in place, the planned two access locations provide adequate capacity. Please refer to Appendix F of the Kersey III Draft EIS, available on -line at the City of Auburn's website (auburnwa.gov) for the comparison of future traffic conditions with and without this development in place. The number of entrances and exits to the development meet city standards. The new entrance /exit on 53rd St SE will improve emergency access and response times to the new neighborhood as well as the rest of Lakeland as well by virtue of completing the connection. 93 S.I. and D. Cock& .. WASHINGTON RECEIVED AUG 16 2004 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY:PLAT PLANNING DEPARTMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) COMMENT SHEET The City of Auburn welcomes your comments on the DEIS for this project. Your comments may address such issues as: alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be required for the project. Please hand the sheet to staff at the meeting, or return the form to: Sean Martin 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Comments must be received in writing and arrive at City Hall by 5 pm on Monday August 16, 2004. S S -L Cc /+ -� a- y h d Q 5 e s 6-\4 -TGg- 5 i C- c a rr r fut _T"+ -ter i L i % �r c� 1�j- rxc.� hc( .11� ---:>fb r, 8r- Cx-a e, z-'t ' " t' Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Please print clearly, Name Address f 5 Ile zs•��� �• MAI _✓ �� IN hc( .11� ---:>fb r, 8r- Cx-a e, z-'t ' " t' Please fill out the information below and your name added to the mailing list to receive project updates: Please print clearly, Name Address f 5 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS S.I. and D. Cock& August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 27.1 1. Please refer to Table 11, on page 41 in Appendix F of the Kersey III DEIS, which shows the forecast incremental impact on corridor level of service with this development in place. 2. Refer to Response to Comments 1.2. Note that runoff from the site discharges to Bowman Creek, which discharges into the White River approximately 0.7 mile north of the site. 3 & 5. As discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIS and Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 6.0 of Appendix C, development of the Kersey III site would result in additional, unavoidable loss of native forest habitat and reductions in populations of most native wildlife species on site. Nevertheless, both urban development alternatives would retain tracts of native forest, including site wetlands and streams that are contiguous with remaining forest habitats on adjacent properties to the north. These areas would thus retain some habitat for native wildlife species. 4. Please see Section 3.7 of the DEIS for discussion of impacts and mitigation on Police Services. 6. Temporary noise from construction activities is expected, and will be mitigated by limits on hours of construction. Typical residential noise levels would exist once the project is constructed. 7. Comment noted. 8. Comment noted. T Mr. & Mrs. John Shoemaker 0 Sean Martin From: Please Do Not Click cum] Sant: Monday, August 02, 2004 3:10 PM /o: onnankn@c|aubunn.wo.uo Subject: Kersey III Draft EIS Comment Form (form) has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a super form. Soper Form: Kersey III Draft 8I3 Comment Form Site ORL: www.oi.auburo.wa.on ------------------------------------------------- Comments: Overbuilt, Over Populated. A mass of cars/pets and people. Not^ the quiet urban setting we opted for 10 years ago' The wildlife and forests have been greatly stressed and-what once was-, will never ba' are strongly opposed to further development. The aoorage at Lauklaod Hills keeps being cut and graded. When will it stop? Who will provide power/water and ooIioe? It in og T00 FAST to azoomndate any more residential building of any kind. Name: @z & Mrs John A Shoemaker Address: 1617 56bt Court SE �City, State, Zip: Auburn WA 98092 Do Not Click,Reply - This e-mail has been generated from a super form. 1 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mr. & Mrs. John Shoemaker E -mail August 2, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 28.1 As noted in responses to Comments 7.3, 15.3, and 27.3 and 5, both the Draft EIS (Section 3.3.2) and Appendix C (Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 6.0) discuss impacts to plants and animals under the development alternatives. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 3.3.3 of the Draft EIS and Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of Appendix C. Please also see Sections 3.7 and 3.8 — Public Services, and Utilities, respectively, regarding water and sewer, and police impacts and mitigation measures. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. 97 Heidi Shoemaker .• Page 1 of 1 Sean Martin From: Hashoemake @aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:49 AM To: smartin @ci.auburn.wa.us Subject: Fwd: Kersey development near Lakeland Hills Hills Sean, Thanks for your comments. Is the EIS a public document that we can see and review? I'd be interested in what finding were / will be made, and what impact they may have to the project. 29- Also is the EIS before the closing or after? We wrote a letter almost 2+ years ago about this project, I hand delivered it. We never got a response back, so I want to so as much as possible about this project to voice my -- - -- concerns and protect our intersts. Thanks, Heidi Shoemaker 1617 56th Court SE Auburn WA 98092 253- 735 -0997 8/16/2004 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Heidi Shoemaker E -mail August 5, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 29.1 Comment noted. .. Mr. & Mrs. John Shoemaker 100 Page 1 of 1 Sean Martin From: Hashoemake@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 3:12 PM To: smartin @ci.auburn.wa.us Subject: Kersey Development near Lakeland Hills Hills Sean, What is the current status on this potential development? Has the EIS been approved? Is there potential 30.1 `cutting and grading planned? Our House backs up to this potential sudivision and we would like some info please. Thank you, Mr. & Mrs John A. Shoemaker 1617 56th Court SE Auburn WA 98092 8/16/2004 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mr. & Mrs. John Shoemaker E -mail August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 30.1 Comment noted. 101 Mark and Dee Lunde 102 Page 1 of I Sean Martin From: Mark & Dee Lunde [madlunde @hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:55 PM To: smartin @ci.auburnma.us Subject: Kersey III DEIS MR. Martin, I am currentley a home owner that lives at 5216 Quincy Ave SE in the Lakeland commilnity and our back yard backs the woods in the Kersey III plot. We have had several years of the Deer visiting our _- yard and there is a family of Owls that also reside in the heavely wooded area right behind our home you 31 A can hear them at night in the fall, and can only imagine what would happen to those creatures if all the woods were destroyed. It is fine to develope the project, but leave some woods for the creatures. And not to mention trees also help clean the air and act as a natural barrier for the privacy of people. They also help stop curosin of the land and would protect the hillside from washing away. please take all this into consideration when you decide what to do. Sincerley, Dee Lunde On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to yet there! 8/16/2004 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mark and Dee Lunde E -mail August 12, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 31.1 As discussed in Section 3.3.2 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS, several species of owls could inhabit the site. As discussed in Section 3.3.3, deer and their sign have been observed on site during field investigations. See response to Comment 27.3 and 5 regarding anticipated impacts from the development alternatives. In addition, it should also be noted that both urban development alternatives would retain tracts of native forest, including steep slopes, wetlands, streams and their buffers that are contiguous with remaining forested habitats on adjacent properties to the north. These areas would thus retain some habitat for native wildlife species. As outlined in the response to Comment 11.5, wildlife studies of the site include thorough surveys by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (2004a) and DBM (2000b). See Sections 2.1 through 2.3 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS for further discussion of study methods. As shown on Figures 2 and 3 of the DEIS, Alternatives 481 and 700 would maintain a continuous 100- to 250 -foot wide buffer at the steep slopes along the western site boundary and along Kersey Way (with the exception of the Evergreen Way roadway). In addition, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be developed and implemented under Alternatives 481 and 700, as described on pages 46 and 47 of the DEIS. 103 Mark and Dee Lunde 104 Sean Martin From: Mark -n -Dee [markndeeiunde.wa @netzero.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 7:14 AM To: smartin @ci.auburn.wa.us Subject: Kersey III DEIS Mr. Martin, Planning for the city needs to include leaving some trees and room for wild animals to live. All the new developments in Lakeland have completely removed all original plants, Z.�trees and other natural grow. During your planning you need to include leaving some plantation to maintain some natural beaut and allow the Deer, Owls and other wildlife to wonder. It is also good for the other animals, humans. City Planning should include every living thing. In addition, more attention should be given to the animals. Per the current plan it stated that animals would not be effected. That is just a lie!. I understand growth and change, but there still needs to be some room for other living creatures. Condos are always better than Apt because the HOA's keep the grounds up and owners keep things nicer. 32.2 The Apt and Condo's should be closer to Kersey Way to reduce the local traffic and so that the homes don't get as much road noise. Please consider these items during your planning activities. 1 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mark and Dee Lunde E -mail August 17, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 32.1 As noted in responses to Comments 27.3 and 5 and 31.1, some native forest habitat would be retained on site, encompassing steep slopes, wetlands, streams, and their buffers, which would provide some habitat for native wildlife species contiguous with off -site habitats. Nevertheless, the Draft EIS and Appendix C do not state that site development would not adversely affect native vegetation and wildlife. As noted in responses to Comments 7.3, 15.3, 27.3 and 5, and 28. 1, both the Draft EIS (Section 3.3.2) and Appendix C (Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 6.0) discuss impacts to plants and animals under the development alternatives. Development of the site under either Alternatives 481 or 700 would result in unavoidable loss of native forest habitat, which would result in reductions in local populations of many wildlife species. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 3.3.3 of the Draft EIS and Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of Appendix C. 32.2 Comment noted. 105 Lois Davis 106 Sean Martin From: Lois Davis flois.davis @hodzonair.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 2:34 PM To: smartin @ci.auburn.wa.us Subject: Kersey III DEIS Dear Mr. Martin, As a resident of Lakeland, I have some very serious concerns regarding the Kersey III development that I certainly hope the final plans take into account: Judging by the current plans I have seen, it appears there is only 1 central 2 lane access road (extension of Evergreen way) in and out of the entire possible 700 -unit development... This is just not acceptable. Please consider the two issues below: 1) Compromised safety in event of emergencies, fires etc. - It would be an impossible nightmare for residents in such a densely populated community to *� quickly exit. Just imagine trying to get out of the apartment /condo area and 33.� having to navigate over nothing but narrow, slow- traffic neighbor hood roads all the way to Kersey or A street. 2) Commute Traffic Congestion - Unless you live in Lakeland now, you cannot appreciate the impact this new development will have if Evergreen is the main access in and out. Evergreen was not created to be a main traffic artery, it is a neighborhood access street only with one lane in each direction. This street cannot handle hundreds of additional cars daily on a regular basis. It will be a bottle -neck mess, not to mention the negative impact on child safety in the �`� area. In addition, adjoining Quincy Avenue, which is a quiet residential street with lots of young children, will also become a main traffic artery by default for drivers trying to reach Millpond and the high school and grade school. Just the impact of the above two issues alone will destroy the intended livable conditions that the residents of the adjacent Lakeland Hills neighborhoods should be able to enjoy.. Solutions Please consider the following: 1) Develop additional access roads from Kersey into the new development. 2) Widen Evergreen into a 4 lane through artery from Kersey to Lakeland Hills 33.3 Blvd. to handle the additional traffic. 3) Widen Lakeland Hills Blvd to a 4 lane, since even now, it does not allow for an acceptable flow of through traffic at peak times for current residents and "through commuters" coming from Lake Tapps. Please, let's keep Lakeland "an enjoyable place to live"!!! Thank you for your time. Respectfully. Lois Davis 5109 Quincy Ave. S.E. Auburn (Lakeland) This inbound e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by AAG MailScan 1 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Lois Davis E -mail August 13, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 33.1 All internal roadways within the planned development will be designed to meet City of Auburn road standards. The new entrance /exit on 53rd St SE will actually improve emergency access and response times to the new neighborhood as well as the rest of Lakeland as well by virtue of completing the connection. 33.2 Your concern is noted. The City of Auburn's 1997 Comprehensive Transportation Plan had already identified Evergreen Way as a future residential collector arterial, with or without this project. As part of the FEIS process, the surrounding corridors have been evaluated for 2008 conditions with and without this development with all mitigating improvements in place (FEIS Appendix A). This evaluation shows that with the proposed improvements in place along the Evergreen Way SE corridor, the arterial routes through this area will be the preferred choice for through traffic as opposed to neighboring residential streets. The Evergreen Way connection was required by the City of Auburn. The future collector road connection has been in the City's Comprehensive Plan since at least 1997. Evergreen Way is currently designed to standards for a collector road with no direct driveway access. The road will give Lakeland residents as well as emergency vehicles another way into and out of Lakeland. The traffic congestion impacts in 2008 (the proposed development's year of completion) were studied in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. The analysis revealed that in 2008, arterial levels of service on all surrounding corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. 33.3 Please refer to Table 11, on page 41 in Appendix F of the Kersey III DEIS, which shows the forecast incremental impact on the Evergreen Way SE corridor level of service with this development in place. Again, please refer to Table 11, on page 41 in Appendix F of the Kersey III DEIS, which shows that the Evergreen Way corridor is forecast to operate sufficiently as a two -lane arterial. 107 With the proposed signalization of Evergreen Way SE at Lakeland Hills Way SE in place, the Lakeland Hills Way SE corridor is expected to operate at LOS A in the northbound direction and LOS B in the southbound direction under 2008 with project conditions. This analysis is in Final EIS. See Kersey III Addendum TIA for the Final EIS, dated January 11, 2005, by TSI, Inc. Evergreen Way is planned to become a three lane road design per standards. The future level of service of the road (LOS B) does not point to the need to create a 4 lane road. Four lane roads also create unique challenges to pedestrian access, one of the concerns which this development will address with pedestrian improvements at Olive Ave and Evergreen Way. 1' Brad J. Mosler 109 Sean Martin From: Please Do Not Click Reply (support @govoffice.comj Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 9:18 AM To: smartin @ci.auburn.wa.us Subject: Kersey III Draft EIS Comment Form (form) has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a super form. Super Form: Kersey III Draft EIS Comment Form Site URL: www.ci.auburn.wa.us ------------------------------------ Comments: hello, I know I can's stop progress in the development of Lakeland but I would like to express my concerns about the unity between neighborhoods. The homes that this pro -ject is adjacent.to are all like size and on lots of like size but it frustating to see new homes squeezed together in an unatractive manner in order for a developer to make as 34.1 much money as he or she can. Please design a community that flows seamlessly from one development to another because the developer is just there for a few years we have to live and look at it for a lifetime. Name: Brad j Moser Address: 5304 Quincy Ave SE City, State, Zip: Auburn IRA 98092 Do Not Click Reply - This e -mail has been generated from a super form. 1 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Brad J. Mosler E -mail August 13, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 34.1 Lot sizes and density will need to meet the zoning requirements of the City of Auburn. Open space and slope separations between projects are provided through the PUD design and critical area ordinance requirements. 110 Randall Hoffert 111 Sean Martin From: Please Do Not Click Reply [support@govoffice.com] Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 9:50 PM To: smartin @ci.aubum.wa.us Subject: Kersey ill Draft EIS Comment Form (form) has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a super form. Super Form: Kersey III Draft EIS Comment Form Site URL: www.ci.auburn.wa.us ------------------------------------------------- Comments: I would like to make comments on the proposed Kersy III plat. We are against the pgsitioning of multi - family apartments, condos, and /or smaller house lots to the existing homes on Quincy Ave in Lakeland. it would seem to make much more sense to border these existing homes with similiar size lots and single family dwellings. In addition to "changing" the neighborhood by adding multi - family apartments, condos, and /or lower end housing through smaller lots, the traffic flow will be pushed to the 35.' limit by putting these high density dwellings where the access is very limited to one road and a dead end one at that. It seems to make much more sense to utilize this dead end cul de sac for larger lot, single family homes causing less traffic on this limited access area of the development. The multi- family, condos, and /or smaller homes holding more population seem to make more sense closer to Kersy way where the road access is much more readily available. Respectfully submitted, Randall Hoffert Name: Randall R Hoffert Address: 5106 Quincy Ave SE City, State, Zip: Auburn WA 98092 Do Not Click Reply - This e -mail has been generated from a super form. 1 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Randall Hoffert E -mail August 14, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 35.1 Please see the Land Use Element in Section 3.5.3 of the DEIS, which highlights the potential conflict of the multi - family location with Objective 7.5 and Land Use Policies LU31 -35 and LU 39d. The location of the proposed multifamily units is an appropriate issue to raise at the time of public hearing. Final design of the preliminary plat and PUD is subject to City of Auburn approval. 112 David T. Nehren 113 36.1 1 Sean Martin From: Please Do Not Click Reply [support @govoffice.comj Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 1:43 PM To: smartin @ci. auburn. wa. us Subject: Kersey III Draft EIS Comment Form (form) has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a super form. Super Form: Kersey III Draft EIS Comment Form Site URL: www.ci.auburn.wa.us ------------------------------------------------- Comments: We live just off Evergreen Way in Lakeland and are concerned about the increased traffic due to the high density of houses in the Kersey Development and the increased danger it poses to our small children on the only road to go in and out of the development. We are also concerned about the arrangement of types of housing in the development with apartments /condos and smaller homes closest to the Lakeland development. Name: David T. Nehren Address: 5405 Quincy Ave SE City, State, Zip: Auburn WA 98092 Do Not Click Reply - This e -mail has been generated from a super form. 1 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS David T. Nehren E -mail August 14, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 36.1 Please refer to Appendix F of the Kersey III Draft EIS, available on -line at the City of Auburn's website for the comparison of forecasted traffic conditions with and without this development in place. Also, as part of the Final EIS process, a pedestrian safety analysis is included in the Final EIS, as well as analysis of the surrounding corridors under 2008 conditions with and without the development. The additional analysis is found in the Kersey III TIA Addendum to the Final EIS dated January 11, 2005, by TSI, Inc. Please also see Section 3.5.3, City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan — Goals, Objectives and Places for a review of the applicable land use policies and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. An addendum traffic study for the EIS was submitted January 11, 2005 in response to public comments. The primary new traffic impact to the neighborhood immediately west of the proposed development will occur on Evergreen Way SE. The addendum study recommended specific safety improvements to Evergreen Way SE which will improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow. Bulb out, curb designs to narrow the existing pedestrian crossing at Evergreen Way SE and Olive Ave in conjunction with an enhanced crosswalk were recommended to accommodate pedestrians. The traffic congestion impacts in 2008 (the proposed development's year of completion) were studied in an addendum dated January 11, 2005. The analysis revealed that in 2008, arterial levels of service on all surrounding corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. 114 William Hedrick 115 37.1 August 15, 2004 Sean Martin From: WILLIAM HEDRICK (WHEDRICK@peoplepc.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 11:49 AM To: smartin@ci.auburn.wa.us Subject: Kersey III comments August 15, 2004 -City of Auburn 7 1 Planning and Community Development Department 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Re: KERSEY III DEIS Page I of 5 We are writing regarding the impact of the Kersey III development upon not only our individual household, but our neighborhood and rural south Auburn community. Our family has lived at 5015 Heather Avenue S. E., which is located just east of Kersey Way, for 15 years. We built our home on 1+ acre of land within the limits of the city of Auburn. Zoning restrictions in this area encouraged less housing density; this was an effort to retain the "rural" attributes of Auburn as well as recognize the limited resources (such as water) of this area. In fact, many of our neighbors reside on 5 acre parcels. Over the past decade, we have watched the dense housing development directly to the west of our home (i.e. "Lakeland"). We have observed the removal of large stands of trees and native habitat, only to be replaced by small ornamental trees and large expanses of roadways, driveways, and residences. Now the city is evaluating a 700 unit plat, a 481 unit plat, or a no action alternative which allows for development on a more limited basis. Our desire is to leave this remaining wooded land (which sits alongside hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of housing units) available for the wildlife that remains after the extensive development already allowed in this area. This remaining undeveloped area could be used for resident enjoyment and recreation as well. On our 1+ acre site we have seen an elk, deer, squirrels, a variety of birds, rabbits, and coyotes. These animals still need undeveloped or minimally developed land to live on, regardless of whether wetlands and streams are on that plat of land. It is unfortunate that these creatures are not considered "endangered, threatened or sensitive animal species" because the loss of land 8/16/2004 August 15, 2004 Page 2 of due to development, and the resulting loss of animal inhabitants, is ultimately a loss to our community. A comprehensive study of the impact upon all wildlife in the Kersey III plat should be completed before the development decision is 37.1 made. That study should be made after all current development and construction in the Lakeland area is completed, as we assume wildlife will by necessity be relocating to this remaining area of undeveloped land. Even without the planned development of Kersey 111, water and soil runs down the eastern hillside onto the roadway of Kersey Way. The land has already -suffered the consequences of development, where trees, shrubs and undergrowth that-secure the soil have been removed. In addition, this certainly 37.2 must be impacting the nearby stream. Drainage systems previously allowed in the Lakeland area by the city of Auburn have apparently been insufficient--or we would not see the water and soil running down Kersey Way. The drainage discharge system implemented in Kersey III area must be far superior to what has been allowed in the Lakeland development thus far. 37.4 Should the "no action alternative" not be selected, we are disappointed that the only alternatives offered to the Auburn community are for either 481 or 700 units. We would support a development plan that thoughtfully transitions between high density and rural development. Should this land be developed, we ask Auburn planners to consider reducing the density of housing per acre as development moves eastward toward Kersey Way. Rather than permitting a consistent number of housing units for each and every acre, we would like city staff to envision housing density that drastically reduces as it moves toward the more rural settings along Kersey Way. Not only would a transition in density assist in retaining. Auburn's rural roots, it would also help reduce the impact of development upon resources. Last summer the city, county and state agencies became aware of an emergency in our neighborhood—private and community wells went dry. Water limitations in the Lakeland area, as well as the neighboring Bonney Lake and Lake Tapps communities, were in effect. We understand that the city of Auburn is drilling an additional well to serve the Lakeland area. However, we are concerned because drilling a new well does not mean more water—if our community continues to - multiply. Water is a limited resource, impacted by such variables as drought, the mining operation located directly south of the White River, reduced snowpack, and the number of households accessing the limited resource. For the simple fact that planners cannot pre-determine the extent of these variables, additional housing development in south Auburn should be approached on a cautious, minimal-not-maximum housing density basis. August 15, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Traffic congestion has already been a problem for residents who reside along 53rd Street S.E. Many mornings it is difficult to exit from our driveway onto 5314 Street, as vehicles wishing to turn south onto Kersey Way back up at the west- 37.5 facing stop sign. Kersey Way cannot be expanded beyond two-lane traffic. Current plans call for a stoplight to be placed at the intersection of 53rd Street and Kersey Way. We envision cars backing up from the planned stop light along 53rd Street, making it even more difficult to exit from our home. 37.6 I The large interchange which was built at considerable expense south of -Lakeland to divert traffic west toward the East and West Valley Highways appears to have minimally impacted traffic in our area, as drivers continue to choose to utilize Kersey Way as they travel to points north. In fact, city of Auburn staff agreed that drivers are avoiding the Parkway because they encounter traffic problems on Highway 167. Regional traffic problems, such as Highway 167, need to be addressed before adding more traffic from developments of 481 or 700 additional housing units. If Evergreen Way S.E. is connected to Kersey Way, additional drivers will utilize two-lane Kersey Way rather than Highway 167 to exit the south Auburn area. A decision regarding Kersey III development must take into account Pierce and King County traffic, current and anticipated, utilizing Kersey Way as it is evident that the Parkway is utilized less than anticipated. City staff is already aware of the commuting back-ups which occur several times a day at other intersections impacted by housing development in the Lakeland area. The commute to and from south Auburn at its current housing level is 37.7 1 difficult; we cringe to think of the addition of hundreds of more "Kersey III" commuters. Traveling south on C Street or A Street in the afternoon is a chore to be avoided; often you sit through several cycles of the stop light at Ellingson before continuing southward travel. It is our understanding that this "bottleneck" situation has already been examined and that an expensive change will result in a limited number of additional vehicles moving through the intersections. While planners estimate the number of cars that will travel each road at each hour, they do not take into ' account the impact traffic (and waiting in traffic) has upon Auburn residents. Increasing traffic traveling on already poor quality 37.8 roadways leads to discontented residents and a decrease in the quality of Auburn life. This is not only an issue in Kersey III alone; it is an issue which requires those in elected and public office to re-examine both the obvious and more difficult to ascertain effects of residential growth. We do not believe the road systems of C Street, A Street and Ellingson can effectively handle the increase in traffic brought with extensive Kersey III development. ! 1 1 37.4 Having mentioned the quality of the roads and volume of traffic in Auburn, we 8/16/2004 August 15, 2004 Page 4 of j reiterate that Kersey Way is a winding, two -way road built when most of the Auburn area was rural. It is already heavily traveled by residential traffic, as well 37.9 as trucks from the Ikon mining operation. Kersey Way roadway cannot be easily maintained; we recall only one major road maintenance project in 15 years. Regardless of how many housing units are allowed in Kersey 111, we request that Kersey Way not be used as access /egress for vehicles involved in land preparation, construction, etc. to minimize the impact on the Kersey Way road surface, the nearby stream, and adjacent neighbors. 37.10 Because of our concern for the quality of education received by Auburn citizens, we must - question a comment heard during the July Open House. That comment was that the Auburn School District did not request planning for another school in Lakeland area to serve these additional households of Kersey ill. We know that an elementary school is planned south of the Lakeland Hills Community Center. However, until said school is completed --and assuming that it is of sufficient size to adequately house the ever - increasing number of students residing in that boundary area -- adjoining schools are severely impacted. Ilalko Elementary School will have 5 fourth grade classes this school year; Gildo Rey Elementary students who are learning to speak English are moving to a converted shower room for classes. Both schools already have portable buildings to relieve pressure on the main educational buildings. These are just a few examples of school facility over- crowding and certainly many more exist. The issue of providing quality education to future citizens (such as development planners, engineers, teachers, council members and mayors) is imperative. it is not sufficient that money be funneled into the school district budget based on the number of housing units built. We would like to see adequate school buildings planned for prior to the addition of more households in this area. At a minimum, the elementary school planned for Lakeland should be. constructed prior to the addition of more residents in that school service area. We are proud to call ourselves residents of Auburn. We treasure the way of life we have developed and the city where we work, serve, worship, and have raised our family. While our community east of Lakeland Hills is willing to work with city, county, and state governments, we are equally as willing to take steps if our 37.11 voice is not heard and our rights and way of life are not protected. Most recently, in the summer of 2003, our residents worked as a community to enforce our - - rights regarding the serious groundwater situation. We were successful in reaching a settlement, which protected our rights, with Ikon Materials and landowner Mario Segale. Likewise many years ago, neighbors combined their personal effort and financial resources to protect the rural zoning and resources we continue to enjoy today. 37.12 We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Kersey III development. It was 8116/2004 37.12 August 15, 2004 Page 5 of 5 fortunate we became aware of the development through contact with concerned citizens; the city's "Proposed Land Use" sign along a winding section of Kersey Way could not be read (due to extreme traffic conditions and no safe pull -over area near the posting). We would like the city of allow more time for comments from the community because this single posting in our area was not safely accessible to residents and therefore limits the communication with effected citizens. Concerning Kersey III, we hope Auburn planners and decision makers examine not only maps and statistics, but also have a vision for the quality of life that others will enjoy in the future because of the choices made today. Bill Hedrick Stephanie Hedrick 5015 Heather Avenue S. E. Auburn, WA 98092 253.939.9186 8/16/2004 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS William Hedrick Letter August 15, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 37.1 As noted in responses to Comments 27.3 and 5, 31.1, and 32. 1, some native forest habitat would be retained on site encompassing steep slopes, wetlands, streams, and their buffers, which would provide some habitat for native wildlife species contiguous with off -site habitats. As noted in the response to Comment 20.6, the Plants and Animals Assessment (Appendix C to the Draft EIS) contains extensive discussion of the existing vegetation (Section 3.1 and 3.2) and wildlife (Sections 3.3 and 3.4, Table B.1) on the site and vicinity, including the species noted. Numerous species of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles have been documented on site during field investigations by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (2004a, 2004b) and DBM, Inc. (2000a, 2000b). As noted in responses to Comments 7.3, 15.3, 27.3 and 5, 28.1, and 32.1, both the Draft EIS (Section 3.3.2) and Appendix C (Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 6.0) discuss impacts to plants and animals under the development alternatives. Development of the site under either Alternatives 481 or 700 would result in unavoidable loss of native forest habitat, which would result in reductions in local populations of many wildlife species. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 3.3.3 of the Draft EIS and Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of Appendix C. As outlined in the response to Comment 11.5, wildlife studies of the site include thorough surveys by Raedeke Associates, Inc. (2004a) and DBM (2000b). See Sections 2.1 through 2.3 of Appendix C to the Draft EIS for further discussion of study methods. 37.2 The existing ditch system in Kersey Way is the existing drainage system for Kersey Way and development in the vicinity. The Kersey III development will utilize an overall program of Best Management Practices to control runoff during construction, including sediment control ponds. The proposed storm drainage system for the project will detain stormwater and also provide water quality measures. Both measures are designed to control surface water runoff for the protection of Bowman Creek (see Comment 1.3). It is also proposed to mitigate an existing erosion feature along Kersey Way (see Comment 39.6). Runoff control measures are also proposed during the construction of water and sewer utilities in Kersey Way, also to protect Bowman Creek. 116 37.3 The Kersey III PUD is located within an area designated primarily as "Single Family Residential" by the City's comprehensive plan and is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. Comprehensive Plan policy LU -14 states that densities of 4 -6 units per acre are suitable within these areas. Neither Alternative 481 or Alternative 700 exceed these density limitations. Concerns regarding the layout of the project are appropriate to address at the time of public hearing. 37.4 The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. 37.5 With the planned signalization of Kersey Way SE at 53rd Street SE in place, more opportunities for vehicles to enter Kersey Way SE from 53rd Street SE are expected, therefore significantly decreasing the back -up (vehicle queuing) at the westbound approach of this intersection. Analysis of this intersection to be included in the Final EIS shows that existing average queuing at the westbound approach of this intersection during peak periods to be over four vehicles, with the signal and Kersey III in place this queuing is expected to an average of two vehicles during peak periods. The traffic signal provided by the development will reduce the delay for traffic entering Kersey from 53rd and will also reduce the queue length waiting to access Kersey Way. LOS will improve from LOS E to LOS C. 37.6 The traffic model used was calibrated using King County , Pierce County and State traffic counts as well as real time traffic counts in Auburn . The traffic study addendum analyzed the impacts of a 481 unit alternative and 700 unit alternative adding that traffic to background traffic for 2008 to correctly show the total volume impacts of the development. The traffic model and traffic study for Kersey 3 used the existing capacity of SR 167 (2 lanes north bound, 2 lanes southbound) in the vicinity of Lakeland in order not to overstate the capacity or attractiveness of SR 167. Lake Tapps Parkway could (and will) be used by more people - it currently handles about 10,000 vehicle per day at certain locations, providing much needed relief. The result of the traffic study was a finding that arterial levels of service on all surrounding arterial corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. Level of Service in the City is measured by speed or travel time over a corridor, not delay a specific intersection. The traffic model did distribute additional traffic to Kersey Way, but the traffic analysis revealed that level of service on Kersey way would meet city standards. 117 37.7 Recent improvements to the intersection of 41st and A Streets SE will marginally improve the level of service to the intersection. The area is a choke point, but the City measures Level of Service as travel time/ speed over a corridor, not through one intersection. The traffic model used was calibrated using King County , Pierce County and State traffic counts as well as real time traffic counts in Auburn . The traffic study addendum analyzed the impacts of a 481 unit alternative and 700 unit alternative adding that traffic to background traffic for 2008 to correctly show the total volume impacts of the development. 37.8 The result of the traffic study was a finding that arterial levels of service on all surrounding arterial corridors impacted by the project will meet the City's adopted level of service standards. Level of Service in the City is measured by speed or travel time over a corridor, not delay a specific intersection. 37.9 Construction activity will occur at the intersection of the Evergreen Way extension to Kersey Way. In addition, the extension of sewer and water along Kersey Way to the site will also entail construction impacts and mitigation measures on Kersey Way. The City of Auburn has authority for approving truck haul routes for the project. 37.10 Please see Section 3.7, Public Services, in the Draft EIS, which discusses impacts and mitigation measures related to schools. The City of Auburn and the Auburn School District have an adopted mitigation fee to address the immediate impacts of new homes and new student population. The Auburn School District has not commented on addition measures needed in association with the proposed project. 37.11 Since the Kersey III developments will be required to bring their own water supply to the Lakeland Hills Service Area there should be no impact on the existing private and community wells in the area. The additional supply will also reduce or eliminate the need for water curtailment within the Lakeland Hills Service area supplied water by the City. 37.12 The City will direct the project proponent to place the notification signs in locations that are both more visible and accessible when this project is ready to proceed to public hearing on the preliminary plat /PUD, at which time individuals will have an additional opportunity to comment. 118 Kathy Holch 119 Sean Martin From: Please Do Not Click Reply [support @govoffice.comj Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 12:26 PM To: smartin@ci.aubum.wa.us Subject: Kersey 111 Draft EIS Comment Form (form) has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a super form. Super Form: Kersey III Draft EIS Comment Form Site URL: www.ci.auburn.wa.us ------------------------------------------------- Comments: My concern is the increased concentration of traffic that would be caused by changing the area west of Lakeland Hills (which is currently designated single family) into multi - family (apts and townhomes). I am not opposed to developing this area, I just want to see it remain single family. There are two entrances into the Kersey III area, one off of Kersey by way of 53rd st SE and the other by way of Evergreen which would cause most of the traffic to be directed through Lakeland Hills and by the park. This is definitely a pedestrian area (it is a park). As you come up the hill by the park it is a blind curve. Do we really need another area in Lakeland that requires police patrol for 38. speeding) ? I only ask that you consider the increased traffic that would be caused by changing the zoning to multi family from single family. The homeowners of Lakeland 'dills bought in this area because it is a safe place to raise children. After all, didn't Maslow rate safety as the second most important need for people! Name: Kathy Holck Address: 5220 Quincy Ave SE City, State, Zip: Auburn WA 98092 Do Not Click Reply - This e -mail has been generated from a super form. 1 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Kathy Holch E -mail August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 38.1 A pedestrian safety analysis is included as part of the Final EIS, which includes recommendations to mitigate identified future safety impacts along the Evergreen Way SE corridor. The analysis is found in the Kersey III TIA Addendum to the Final EIS dated January 11, 2005 by TSI, Inc. The PUD ordinance allows for a mix of residential products within a proposed PUD development. The proposed multi - family product consists of 18 4 -plex units, for a total of 72 units. Please see Section 3.5, Land Use, and Section 3.6, Transportation in the DEIS for further discussion of the PUD and traffic impacts and mitigation measures. Also see Response to Comment 35.1 regarding the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan related to the multi - family use. An addendum traffic study for the EIS was submitted January 11, 2005 in response to public comments. The primary new traffic impact to the neighborhood immediately west of the proposed development will occur on Evergreen Way SE. The addendum study recommended specific safety improvements to Evergreen Way SE which will improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow. Bulb out, curb designs to narrow the existing pedestrian crossing at Evergreen Way SE and Olive Ave in conjunction with an enhanced crosswalk were recommended to accommodate pedestrians. Additionally, traffic improvements are identified as being required for the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way . This will likely be a roundabout. 120 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 121 08/16/2004 15:14 FAX, 253 931 0752 blUCKLESH00T FISHERIES IN01 /005 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE FISHERIES DIVISION 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE + Aubum, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 876 -3122 • Fax: (253) 931 -0752 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER TO: -- - FROM w Paul Kraus, Karen Walter COMPANY: DATE: City of Auburn, Planning 8/16/2004 FAX NUMBER TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 253 804 -3114 5 PHONE NUMBER 253 931 -3090 RE' Kersey III Preliminary Plat DEIS NOTES /COMMENTS: Paul, Enclosed are comments to the Draft EIS for the Kersey III Preliminary Plat. If you have any questions, please contact me at 253 876 -3116. Thank you. Statement of Confidentiality RECENED MG 1 6 7004 pLANN1NG :EPAR'MEN' 'Chic transmittal is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this notice is not the intended recipient, you arc hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmittal is prohibited. If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the documents via first calls mail to the address below. 08/16/2004 15:14 FAX 253 931 0752 HUCKLESHOOT FISHERIES Q 002/0Q5 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092 -9763 Phone: (253) 939 -3311 a Fax: (253) 931 -0752 August 16, 2004 Paul Krauss, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001 RE: Kersey III Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Krauss: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Kersey III Preliminary Plat The following comments are in the interest of protecting and/or restoring the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's fisheries resources. The Tribe's Cultural Resources and Wildlife Divisions may also send comments under separate correspondences. The DEIS references a stream assessment completed by DBM Engineers in 2000. Since this study was not included in the DEIS and its appendices, nor sent directly to the Tribe's Fisheries Division, we were unable to review it Our enclosed specific comments related to the streams on site and potential impacts to Bowman Creek may be incomplete based on any additional information found in the stream assessment report. We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. If you have any questions about these comments, or would like to set up a meeting to discuss these comments, please contact me at (253) 876-3116. Sincerely�VA-�L- Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader cc: Travis Nielson, WDFW Alice Kelly, WDOE 08/16/2004 15:14 FAX 253 931 0752 MUCKLESHOOT FISHERIES 003/00 39.1 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division DE1S Comments to the Kersey III preliminary plat August 16, 2004 page 2 General Comments throughout the document and not however, it is scattered throng act of water In general, the DEIS contains quit5eacbrafinformation; e maple, the summary table fails to consider the imp oundwater sources• The DEIS only considers impervious surfaces as a Potential fully summarized in the summary withdrawals affecting surface and gr ground water resources. All three alternatives groundwater quantity water withdrawals may also area wells or the impact to gr an increase in withdrawals from existing will have some impact -dn groundwater sources through creation of new wells under the No- Action Alternative, potential impacts to Bowman acts to streams on site and p P Similarly, the summary section fails to fully discuss imp table also lacks any discussion of saimonid resources within them. The summary Creek and the white River and the impacts to fish. Finally, the sensitive acreage numbers for all alternativesll need to onosite, Bowman Creek, because and the Whiten buffers will need to be increased to avoid adverse im. 1 River. please see the specific comments under the stream section. Specific Comments 2. Descri tions of Alternatives otential stream crossings for roads constructed for the 3 alternatives. On page 22, the DEIS fails to discuss any p w road crossings of streams should be via bridges that ultimat ultimately to stream the WhitenRiver�ecaUSe they are tier 39.2 Any ne suited to pass wood, water, and sediment to Bowman Creek 3. AffectedEnvironmen Si ficant Im acts and Miti ation Measures 3.2 Water Resources project are causing adverse impacts (i.e. blockages and erasion) as noted on page The existing culverts on or near the pro) 39,3 ' 4s. A condition of plat approval should be a requirement t� ian urC k structure �allow pa� usage where ere are blockages and to stop the erosion processes affecting Bowman coons on water quality and quantity are too limited. There should be detailed discussion about the existing The se affected. While Bowman Creek is not currently on Ecology's conditions of the surface waterbodies that may be problems. It typically means that no one has list, it should not be assumed that there are no water quality p list for Washington State is 303(d) t, n, and other water temperature, dissolved oxygen, sampled these streams. The DEIS fails �t to ��a� e Clean temp Section 303 {) � 39.4 rehensive and there may be s not comp d list is an initial source to determine imp quality . problems that are not documented. The 303 O sediment discussion on page 50 is confusing' The sediment that should purpose the st ru a ponds in The sedun is to aquatic life. The Pure acts. The likely be fine sediment, which can cause adverse in crease erosive processes in the stream and cause fine sediment to settle out so it is not released into downstream waters, causing adverse imp part is to allow ponds will not in Sediment reduction that will occur S result ent starva on applies to more coarse sediments and is not a function of the 39.5 the stream to be sediment starved• erasion downstream. Since Bowman Creek is demonstrating erosion ponds. The concern should be whether or not the ponds are adequately sized and managed so as to not increase the flows that increase instream sedimentation processes problems without additional stormwater from and development, so that sitdoes not should cause newipt problems in the receiving and the remaining stormwater should be treated waterbodies, including Bowman Creek. 08/16/2004 15:14 FAX 253 931 0752 MUCKLESHOOT F'ISHEITIES j004/ Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division August 16, 2004 Comments to the Kersey III Preliminary Plat DEIS Page 3 A supplemental evaluation of stream conditions is needed as suggested on page 50. However, the proposal to complete stream channel and .bank protection may have adverse impacts of its own that will need to be mitigated. A 39.6 better approach would be to use natural materials (i.e. wood) of appropriate size and frequency to address the concerns in addition to any energy dissipaters required at the stormwater outfalls. This section fails to discuss the adverse impacts associated with creating stormwater ponds designed to reduce the peak flows to 50% of the 2 -year event under existing conditions. This design standard will not mitigate for impacts 39.7 that will occur to the receiving waterbodies. A better standard would be to match the duration frequencies under existing conditions. Another issue not considered is the fact that Bowman Creek and the unnamed tributaries on site have likely been _ _ affected by past land uses practices and will still be adversely affected by stormwater generated by the impervious surfaces created at the site. In particular, these streams likely do not have the amount, size, and frequency of wood 39.8 and other habitat features that can dissipate stream flows and velocities. As a result, any salmonid in Bowman Creek will be exposed to increases in water velocities as a result of stormwater generated from the site without mitigation. We recommend that the mitigation plan include an increase in the stormwater detention standard so that stormwater is released to match the flow durations for all streamflows compared to the existing condition. In addition, we 39.9 recommend that the plat be conditioned to require that wood and/ or other salmonid refugia habitat elements be added to Bowman Creek to address the increases in water velocities that will occur as a result of the stormwater discharges. 3.3.1- Affected Environment 9. 0 This section should break out aquatic life from terrestrial life so that the affected environments, species, and potential impacts upon them can be tracked. -- Also, on page 55, the DEIS fails to consider that the unnamed tributaries on -site provide wood and sediment to 39.11 Bowman Creek and the White River, in addition to water. Also, it should be noted that there is no direct fish access to Tributary WRIA 10.0043 site because of the blocking culvert at Kersey Way noted in the DEIS. 3.3.2 Significant Impacts On page 57, the DEIS fails to note that stormwater causes impacts to water resources beyond erosion of stream 39.12 channels. Changes in stream flow and velocities can also adversely affect aquatic resources, as a result of stormwater releases. These impacts can occur even if there is no stream channel erosion causing pools to fill in. The potential Ioss of lower velocity areas in streams are the concern because they provide coho and other saimonids with places to overwinter. 39.13 In addition to stormwater impacts, the riparian buffers need to be adequate to provide wood and sediment to downstream areas. Vegetation clearing could result in the removal of trees that would otherwise fall into streams and wetlands in the project area and provide habitat. A full riparian survey should be conducted that identifies trees in the corridor, their species, height, and diameters to assess impacts. In addition, the DEIS fails to discuss how a minimum 50 foot buffer will affect riparian functions that provide 39.14 mstrearn habitat to the intermittent streams, Bowman Creek and the White River (page 71). In particular, the DEIS and its technical appendices fail to consider the importance of riparian areas to provide wood that creates in- stream habitat, even from intermittent streams. Trees are the source of instrearn wood and can be a variety of sizes and frequencies to provide instream habitat that come from streams that support salmonids directly and indirectly. 39.15 1 The proposed 50 foot buffers discussed in the DEIS are too narrow to provide wood to the affected waterbodies and U8/16/2004 15:14 FAX 253 931 0752 MUCKLESH00T FISHERIES 16005, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division August l6, 2404 Comments to the Kersey III Preliminary Plat DIMS Page 4 will result in an adverse impact that could be avoided if the buffers were increased to a distance based on the tree height potential of the dominant tree species that can grow on site. The author is encouraged to obtain information 39.15 from the Washington Department of Natural Resources regarding site potential. In addition, there are numerous scientific papers that discuss wood, its importance, recruitment processes, including some papers that discuss the importance of intermittent streams to provide wood and sediment to downstream areas. The discussion on water quality on page 70 is limited. There should be further discussion about existing water 39 quality conditions in th-"eceiving waterbodies and the potential for the project to adversely affect water quality. In addition, the mitigation should include the requirement to monitor stormwater generated from the site to ensure that it is not causing adverse impacts to water quality. Also, a new sewer line is proposed to service the area, which appears will be located on an existing bridge that crosses the White River. The DEIS should discuss this in more detail and should identify any potential adverse impacts to aquatic resources should this line break. KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Letter August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 39.1 Under Alternatives 481 and 700, water will be supplied by an existing purveyor (Valley Water System) and will not be supplied by on -site sources. The No Action Alternative would likely include the installation of on -site wells to supply approximately 34 households. Based on a typical household usage of 300 gallons per day (GPD), the No Action Alternative would extract approximately 10,200 GPD, or 11 acre -feet per year (AFY) of groundwater from the site. The site is located within the Puyallup -White watershed, where authorized groundwater rights are greater than 112,00 AFY (Ecology, et al, 1995). Alternatives 481 and 700 are estimated to require about 160 and 240 AFY, respectively (from an off -site source), based on a typical usage of 300 GPD per household. The estimated water usage rats for each of the three alternatives are very small (less than 0.3 percent) with respect to existing groundwater rights from the Puyallup -White watershed. 39.2 Current site plans for Alternatives 481 and 700 do not include any proposed road crossings of on -site streams. All on -site portions of Tributary 0043 would be retained within native open space tracts that include buffers. 39.3 As shown on Figure 15 of the DEIS, stream station 0 +00 of Bowman Creek is located upstream of any discharge points from the subject site. In addition, given the stream channel gradient near station 0 +00 and its distance from the nearest discharge point from the subject site, no significant back -water effects are expected. No significant impacts to erosion and sedimentation of Bowman Creek are expected in this area under any of the three alternatives (Alternative 481, Alternative 700 or the No Action Alternative). Under Alternatives 481 and 700, the mitigation of erosion observed near station 14 +00 of Bowman Creek (described on page 48 of the DEIS) will include the installation of an energy dissipater. Potential mitigation structures may include the installation of a catch basin along the north side of Kersey Way. The catch basin would receive stormwater from the existing culvert beneath Kersey Way and dissipate the energy from the existing 7.5 -foot vertical drop before discharging toward Bowman Creek. The proposed mitigation at the erosional feature on page 48 of the DEIS does not include provisions for fish passage. There is no direct fish access to the site under current conditions, as stated on page 55 of the DEIS. Refer to Response 1.3 of this letter regarding erosion and sedimentation control measures to protect Bowman Creek. 122 39.4 Additional discussions regarding surface water are presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the DEIS. The 303(4)- listed water quality parameters for the White River in the site vicinity are instream flow, pH and temperature. Bowman Creek may be expected to have similar parameters of concern because it is a tributary of the White River. In addition, both Bowman Creek and the White River (in the site vicinity) have the same surface water body classification (Class A), as stated on page 48 of the DEIS. Alternatives 481 and 700 are expected to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity of Bowman Creek by complying with the City of Auburn's Storm Drainage Manual. Mitigation measures will include those discussed in Response 1.3 of this letter. 39.5 The discussion of sediment - starved conditions may have been conservatively over - stated on page 50 of the DEIS. Field observations of on -site areas located upstream of the proposed detention ponds indicate that little or no stream erosion is occurring under existing conditions. This would indicate a low existing sediment load in areas upstream of the proposed detention ponds, which will not be significantly changed by the installation of the detention ponds. As discussed in Response 1.3 of this letter, Alternatives 481 and 700 will include partial infiltration of stormwater runoff, controlled release rates from the detention ponds, and an energy dissipater near Bowman Creek station 14 +00 to mitigate existing erosive conditions. 39.6 Under Alternatives 481 and 700, an energy dissipater will be installed at the area of concern (erosional feature near station 14 +00 of Bowman Creek), as described in Response CA.2. The actual configuration and dimensions of the proposed energy dissipater will be determined during the Final Design of the project (i.e. after the EIS process). The use of natural materials like wood is not considered to be critical at this location because the erosional feature is located next to Kersey Way, and not within or adjacent to Bowman Creek. This path of intermittent surface water flow is currently not a useable fish habitat. The erosional feature is an area that is not passable by fish, as evidenced by its 7.5 -foot vertical drop of Bowman Creek. 39.7 The proposed stormwater management facilities will be designed to the adopted City of Auburn stormwater design criteria. These design criteria are considered by the City as best management practices for protection of downstream areas. Refer to Response 1.3 of this letter. 39.8 Unmitigated discharge of stormwater from either of the three alternatives would likely cause an increase in downstream channel and bank erosion within unnamed tributary 0043 and Bowman Creek. These impacts could adversely impact stream habitat and usage by cutthroat trout and Coho salmon, which currently use portions of Bowman Creek (page 57 of the DEIS). However, as stated on page 50 of the DEIS, surface water discharge from the proposed stormwater detention ponds under Alternatives 481 and 700 will be designed to match 50 percent of the existing peak flow rate for the 2 -year storm event under existing conditions. Discharge will also be designed to match the peak flow rates for the 10 -, 25- 123 and 100 -year storm events. Historic forested land use will be assumed for the pre - developed condition. These restricted discharge rates will reduce the potential for increased stream channel erosion. Partial infiltration of stormwater will also reduce some of the increased runoff caused by impervious surfaces. In addition, both of the existing stormwater discharge routes from the site to Bowman Creek are impassable to fish. The culvert under Kersey Way near station 14 +00 of Bowman Creek (refer to Figure 15 of the DEIS) discharges through a 7.5 -foot vertical drop before entering Bowman Creek. Unnamed tributary 0043 flows through a culvert under Kersey Way and then discharges through a 3 -foot vertical cascade just before its confluence with Bowman Creek. There is no direct fish access to the site or unnamed tributary 0043 under current conditions. The proposed mitigation for the on -site stream and wetlands includes preservation of wetlands and buffer preservation to preserve the wetland features and function. With the combination of stormwater pond design and wetland and stream preservation, the DEIS concludes there would not be a significant adverse impact on the downstream, including Bowman Creek. See also Response to Comment 39.11. 39.9 See Response to Comment 39.8. 39.10 Comment noted. 39.11 Although the minimum buffers proposed for on -site portions of Tributary 0043 is shown as 50 feet, additional native forest buffer beyond the minimum would be provided in the associated wetlands and their buffers, as well as additional open space area, retained under either Alternative 481 or 700. Consequently, actual buffers on the stream would likely range from 50 feet to over 300 feet. This area is adequate to retain existing trees that could serve as recruitment for downed woody debris. Consequently a more detailed riparian survey does not seem warranted. See Appendix D to the Draft EIS for further discussion of impacts to streams and riparian habitat. 39.12 See response to Comment 39.11. Both Alternatives 481 and 700 would retain more than 50 -foot native vegetation along on -site portions of Tributary 0043. In addition, most of this tributary lies off -site between the north property boundary and Kersey Way. Bowman Creek is located off -site on the east side of Kersey Way. The proposed development of the Kersey III site would not affect such off -site riparian habitats. See Appendix D to the Draft EIS for further discussion of impacts to streams and riparian habitat. 39.13 See Response to Comments 39.11 and 39.12. 39.14 See Response to Comments 39.11 and 39.12. 39.15 See Response to Comments 39.11 and 39.12. 124 39.16 The proposed project, under either Alternative 481 or 700, proposes the use of Best Management Practices for stormwater management and water quality control. Wet pond features will be developed on each detention facility to provide water quality treatment. Discharge will include dispersion over natural forested areas, providing additional water quality treatment. The combination of mitigation measures will mitigate potential impacts to the on -site wetlands or stream. The DEIS identifies that with these measures in place, the proposed project would not have a water quality impact on Bowman Creek. 39.17 The proposed sewer line will be located in Kersey Way and Oravetz Road and connect to an existing pump station on the north side of the White River. The proposed sewer line will not cross the bridge. See 3.8.1, Sewer in the DEIS, specifically Figures 39 and 40. 125 Tara and Chris Schaefer 126 Page 1 of 4 Sean Martin From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [tseehafer @atttbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:32 PM To: Sean Martin Subject: Re: Kersey III Proposed Plat Sean: Thank you. Below is my attempt to reconstruct the portion of the e -mail that got cut off. Tarah Seehafer To whom it may concern: We are in disagreement with several aspects of the proposed Kersey III project. Our home is located on the greenbelt with the back of our house facing the proposed development site. While we anticipated that there would eventually be development in back of the greenbelt, we have serious concerns about any development that would reduce the greenbelt in any way or create any type of risk regarding the stability of our home given the steep slope of the land behind our home. We are not comfortable with the EIS in that we feel it did not provide us 40.1 with a level of comfort that there would be no impacts to the greenbelt or the stability of our house /lot. The EIS is a very detailed document that is difficult for a layperson to interpret but seemed to indicate that there was a great deal involved in preparing the site for building and many concerns, including erosion and other impacts due to the steep slope. I believe those potentially impacted by the site preparation and building, including impacts during the construction itself, should receive information in a format that is understanding and assurances by the city and developer /builder that any potential impacts to our homes will be the responsibility of the party causing such impact. Even more concerning than the site preparation and building is the traffic plan. We are ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to any traffic flowing through Lakeland Hills to the Kersey III area. We do not understand why it is necessary to increase the traffic flow through a residential area right in front of the site where an elementary school is planned and a city park is located. While we anticipated the building of homes behind our house, we did not anticipate the punching through of Evergreen Way SE, which is four houses away from us. My children will have to cross a very busy street to get to school and to friends and family that live on. the other side of Evergreen. We are especially upset with the decision to flow traffic through Lakeland Hills to access a development that is not part of the Lakeland master community. I'm not sure that the impact of the current flow of traffic, plus increased traffic with the new Lakeland development has been fully considered, especially in terms of safety. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE reconsider this plan. We would not have moved into our house four years ago if we had known Evergreen Way SE might be anything other than a dead end. There are access points on Kersey Road that will not require driving through a residential community that already gets its share of traffic. In addition to the increased traffic, we are concerned about other infrastructure constraints such as the water supply and schools. While the EIC outlined a couple of different options for water supply, our concern is the cost 40.3 and feasibility as well as making sure the water plan is in place prior to any building. The last couple of summers have resulted in water restrictions in the Lakeland Hills area and we think the solution needs to be in place before construction is allowed. Finally, with respect to schools, we are concerned that the local elementary schools (Ilako and Gildo Ray) as well - as Mt. Baker Middle School do not have the capacity for so many additional children, especially with the continued building in the Lakeland Hills community. While there is land reserved for an elementary school in 40.4 Lakeland Hills, there is no funding to build the school. As such, it could be years before a new elementary school is available during which time Ilako and Gildo Ray will certainly be filled to capacity. it is unclear what schools the children in the development would attend but I think the school situation in Auburn is constrained. 40v5JWe hope that the city will fully consider whether this new community can be supported by the current infrastructure offered by the City of Auburn without a significant negative impact to the residents that consider Auburn home. We ask that the City of Auburn consider not using Evergreen Way SE to as a way to access this 8/17/2004 Page 2 of 4 ------ -- new development. Finally, we ask that the City of Auburn and the developer /builder be prepared to compensate for any possible impacts during or after construction related to noise, vibration, erosion etc. There is a great deal 40.5 of concern and uncertainty related to the Kersey III project in Lakeland Hills and we ask that you please consider the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods like Lakeland. Thank you for your consideration_ Tarah and Chris Seehafer 5402 Quincy Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 (253) 735 -8068 ---- Original Message --- From: Sean Martin To: 'Chris and Tarah Seehafer' Sent Monday, August 16, 2004 4:37 PM Subject: RE: Kersey Ili Proposed Plat I'll give you until 8 :00 tomorrow morning. Because you made a good faith effort to comment and had complications through no deliberate fault of your own, you are "credited" and I want to make sure all your comments arrive so if that time presents a problem, give me a call in the morning. Sean Martin, AICP Development Services Coordinator Planning & Community Development 253 -804 -3111 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [maiito:tseehafer @atttbi.comj Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:34 PM To: Sean Martin Subject: Re: Kersey III Proposed Plat Just my luck that I found the limit:) I didn't think it was that long but it apparently was. I have to run to-an appointment at 5:00. Would you be willing to give me until later tonight to recreate the comments? Otherwise, in general I had some conerns about the water the and schools and in general intrastructure supporting this additional development. Thanks, fim -- Original Message — From: Sean Martin To: 'Chris and Tarah Seehafer' Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:30 PM Subject: RE: Kersey ill Proposed Plat 8/17/2004 Page 3 of 4 If you wanted to work on recreating them, I'll honor those comments if they come in tonight. I was not aware that we had set a limit to the input. Sean Martin, AICP Development Services Coordinator Planning & Community Development 253 -804 -3111 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [mailto:tseehafer @atttbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:27 PM To:-Sean Martin Subject: Re: Kersey III Proposed Plat Yes, but it looks like it got cut off. It was longer than that and I had my contact info at the bottom. I did not save all my comments as I just typed them in as I went along. Tarah ----- Original Message - - -- From: Sean Martin To: 'Chris and Tarah Seehafer' Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:14 PM Subject: RE: Kersey III Proposed Plat Thanks for your comment. Just before this email I did receive one from the website, but without any contact information. Can you confirm if it originated from you? Sean Martin, AICP Development Services Coordinator Planning & Community Development 253 -804 -3111 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [mailto:tseehafer @atttbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:11 PM To: smartin @ci.auburn.wa.us Subject: Kersey III Proposed Plat Sean: We just submitted comments via the Auburn Web Site "comments" area regarding the Kersey III proposed plat. We have many concerns regarding the project, including site development, traffic flow, water and schools. I have spoke with many neighbors that are equally concerned about various aspects but I am not sure if they are all aware of the deadline for comments. Summer is such a busy time where people aren't inside on their computers as much and many of those not impacted directly regarding the site development like us (living on the greenbelt) are not awareof the proposal to push Evergreen Way 8/17/2004 Page 3 of 4 If you wanted to work on recreating them, I'll honor those comments if they come in tonight. I was not aware that we had set a limit to the input. Sean Martin, AICP Development Services Coordinator Planning & Community Development 253 -804 -3111 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [mailto:tseehafer @atttbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:27 PM To:-Sean Martin Subject: Re: Kersey III Proposed Plat Yes, but it looks like it got cut off. It was longer than that and I had my contact info at the bottom. I did not save all my comments as I just typed them in as I went along. Tarah ----- Original Message - - -- From: Sean Martin To: 'Chris and Tarah Seehafer' Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:14 PM Subject: RE: Kersey III Proposed Plat Thanks for your comment. Just before this email I did receive one from the website, but without any contact information. Can you confirm if it originated from you? Sean Martin, AICP Development Services Coordinator Planning & Community Development 253 -804 -3111 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [mailto:tseehafer @atttbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:11 PM To: smartin @ci.auburn.wa.us Subject: Kersey III Proposed Plat Sean: We just submitted comments via the Auburn Web Site "comments" area regarding the Kersey III proposed plat. We have many concerns regarding the project, including site development, traffic flow, water and schools. I have spoke with many neighbors that are equally concerned about various aspects but I am not sure if they are all aware of the deadline for comments. Summer is such a busy time where people aren't inside on their computers as much and many of those not impacted directly regarding the site development like us (living on the greenbelt) are not awareof the proposal to push Evergreen Way 8/17/2004 SE through to this new development. Thanks for you consideration. Tarah and Chris Seehafer 5402 Quincy Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 (253) 735 -8068 8/17/2004 Page 4 of 4 Page I of 3 Sean Martin From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [teehafer @atttbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:44 PM To: Sean Martin Subject: Re: Kersey ill Proposed Plat Thank you. I have to run but I should be able to attempt a recreation this evening after the kids are in bed (I composed the first e -mail while they were napping). I appreciate your flexibility. I didn't intend to wait until the last minute but I am in between jobs (I think they call it vacation) and it has been crazy leaving one job and getting ready to start another in addition to do some remodeling around the house. ..-Thanks again. _. Tarah --- Original Message ---- From: Sean Martin To: 'Chris and Tarah Seehafer' Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4 :37 PM Subject: RE: Kersey III Proposed Plat I'll give you until 8 :00 tomorrow morning. Because you made a good faith effort to comment and had complications through no deliberate fault of your own, you are "credited" and I want to make sure all your comments arrive so if that time presents a problem, give me a call in the morning. Sean Martin, AICP Development Services Coordinator Planning & Community Development 253 -804 -3111 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [mailto:tseehafer @atttbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4 :34 PM To: Sean Martin Subject: Re: Kersey III Proposed Plat Just my luck that I found the limit :) I didn't think it was that long but it apparently was. I have to run to an appointment at 5:00. Would you be willing to give me until later tonight to recreate the comments? Otherwise, in general I had some conerns about the water the and schools and in general intrastructure supporting this additional development. Thanks, Tarah ----- Original Message --- From: Sean Martin To: 'Chris and Tarah Seehafer' Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:30 PM Subject: RE: Kersey Ili Proposed Plat 8/16/2004 Page 1 of 2 Sean Martin From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [teehafer @atttbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 16,2004 4 :34 PM To: Sean Martin Subject: Re: Kersey III Proposed Plat Just my luck that I found the limit :) I didn't think it was that long but it apparently was. I have to run to an appointment at 5 :00. Would you be willing to give me until later tonight to recreate the comments? Otherwise, in general I had some conerns about the water the and schools and in general intrastructure supporting this additional development. Thanks, Tarah — Original Message --- -- From: Sean Martin To: 'Chris and Tarah Seehafer' Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:30 PM Subject: RE: Kersey Ili Proposed Plat If you wanted to work on recreating them, I'll honor those comments if they come in tonight. I was not aware that we had set a limit to the input. Sean Martin, AICP Development Services Coordinator Planning & Community Development 253 -804 -3111 ----- Original Message---- - From: Chris and Tarah Seehafer [mailto:tseehafer @atttbi.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:27 PM To: Sean Martin Subject: rte: Kersey III Proposed Plat Yes, but it looks like It got cut off. It was longer than that and I had my contact info at the bottom. I did not save all my comments as I just typed them in as I went along. Tarah ---- Original Message From: Sean Martin To: 'Chris and Tarah Seehafer Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:14 PM Subject: RE: Kersey III Proposed Plat Thanks for your comment. Just before this email I did receive one from the website, but without any contact information. Can you confirm if it originated from you? Sean Martin, AICP 8/16/2004 KERSEY III PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Tara and Chris Schaefer Letter August 16, 2004 Thank you for your comments on the Kersey III Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 40.1 See Response to Comment 13.4. 40.2 The Evergreen Way connection was required by the City of Auburn. This future collector road connection has been in the City's Comprehensive Plan since at least 1997. The road will give Lakeland residents as well as emergency vehicles another way into and out of Lakeland, shortening emergency response times and improving access to other areas of southeast Auburn. 40.3 An addendum traffic study for the EIS was submitted January 11, 2005 in response to public comments. The primary new traffic impact to the neighborhood immediately west of the proposed development will occur on Evergreen Way SE. The addendum study recommended specific safety improvements to Evergreen Way SE which will improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow. Bulb out, curb designs to narrow the existing pedestrian crossing at Evergreen Way SE and Olive Ave in conjunction with an enhanced crosswalk were recommended to accommodate pedestrians. 40.4 See Response to Comment 37.10. 40.5 The DEIS identifies that with the proposed mitigation measures in place, including improvements to City infrastructures such as the creation of new roads, off -site traffic mitigation, and the extension of water and sewer facilities, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the infrastructure of the City. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has identified two possible options for supplying water for the Kersey III developments, Kersey Way Connection or East Valley Connection (Kersey III Preliminary Plat Technical Appendix "G" Volume 2 - Water Alternative Analysis). Each option requires the installation on a 16 -inch transmission water main and booster pump station to bring the total water supply for the developments as well as providing system reliability to the Lakeland Hills Service Area. With either water supply option, the water to serve the Kersey III developments would come from the Valley Service Area. There is sufficient water supply in the Valley Service Area to provide for these developments. 127 The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element indicates the need and requirement for the connection of Evergreen Way to Kersey Way to provide for additional circulation and access to the Lakeland Hills area. Review of overall impacts from construction of the Kersey III project has identified mitigation measures that, as proposed, would mitigate significant adverse impacts for the project. The mitigation measures proposed in the DEIS and required by the City of Auburn will require a significant investment of resources to implement the measures and avoid impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and areas. NOTE: Email indicates comments were submitted via the Auburn Web Site - Kersey III "comments" 1/27225 /docs- rpts /BIS_jdm012105 128 APPENDIX A ADDENDUM T.I.A. FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DATED JANUARY 11, 2005 129 January 11, 2005 Subject: Kersey III TIA Addendum for the Final Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Welsh: As a result of public comment on the Kersey III FEIS, the City of Auburn identified the need for supplemental analyses. This letter addresses the following issues: • Safety along Kersey Way SE in the vicinity of the site • Safety along Evergreen Way in the vicinity of the site • Analysis of 53' Street SE in the vicinity of the site • Corridor analysis under 2008 conditions rather than 2005 conditions • Roundabout analysis of Evergreen Way and Lakeland Hills Way The project site is located within the City of Auburn just north of the King County / Pierce County line. More specifically, the site lies on the west side of Kersey Way SE at approximately 53rd Street SE. The Kersey III Residential Subdivision development entails the subdivision and improvement of seven parcels of land into single - family housing lots. The seven parcels are currently undeveloped and total approximately 170 acres in area. In addition to the No -Action Alternative, two action alternatives are being considered, which differ primarily by the number of lots. The 481 -Unit Alternative represents conditions based on the development of 481 homes on site; the 700 -Unit Alternative represents conditions based on the development of 700 homes on site. SAFETY - KERsEY WAY Concerns were raised regarding the visibility of the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Kersey Way SE and 53' Street SE. Active traffic signal warning Transportation Solutions, Inc. 8250 -165th Avenue NE Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052.6628 T 425.883.4134 F 425. 867.0898 www.tsinw.com Mr. Joe Welsh Transportation Planner City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 January 11, 2005 Subject: Kersey III TIA Addendum for the Final Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Welsh: As a result of public comment on the Kersey III FEIS, the City of Auburn identified the need for supplemental analyses. This letter addresses the following issues: • Safety along Kersey Way SE in the vicinity of the site • Safety along Evergreen Way in the vicinity of the site • Analysis of 53' Street SE in the vicinity of the site • Corridor analysis under 2008 conditions rather than 2005 conditions • Roundabout analysis of Evergreen Way and Lakeland Hills Way The project site is located within the City of Auburn just north of the King County / Pierce County line. More specifically, the site lies on the west side of Kersey Way SE at approximately 53rd Street SE. The Kersey III Residential Subdivision development entails the subdivision and improvement of seven parcels of land into single - family housing lots. The seven parcels are currently undeveloped and total approximately 170 acres in area. In addition to the No -Action Alternative, two action alternatives are being considered, which differ primarily by the number of lots. The 481 -Unit Alternative represents conditions based on the development of 481 homes on site; the 700 -Unit Alternative represents conditions based on the development of 700 homes on site. SAFETY - KERsEY WAY Concerns were raised regarding the visibility of the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Kersey Way SE and 53' Street SE. Active traffic signal warning Mr. Welsh January 11, 2005 Page 2 of 8 Transportation Solutions, Inc. treatment, such as a `Be Prepared to Stop When Flashing" sign accompanied with a warning beacon linked with the signal timing, is warranted along Kersey Way in the southbound direction, north of the intersection, because of the horizontal curvature present along Kersey Way. Placement of the active traffic signal warning system is to be determined by the design engineer assigned to designing the channelization and signalization of the new signalized intersection. Because of the existing high 85' percentile speed through this corridor in combination with the horizontal curvature, signage such as the MUTCD sign no. W3 -3 would be insufficient for southbound traffic. Signage similar to MUTCD sign no. W3 -3 would be sufficient in the northbound direction, south of the intersection and is recommended due to the horizontal curvature of Kersey Way south of the intersection. This does not appear to present any significant concerns. As stated in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO, 2001), "Provision for deceleration clear of the through- traffic lanes is a desirable objective on arterial roads and streets and should be incorporated into design, whenever practical" (page 718). Considering the relatively high 851i percentile speeds along the Kersey Way corridor within the vicinity of the proposed site, a southbound deceleration lane is recommended along Kersey Way at the intersection with 53' Street SE/Evergreen Way SE. Both northbound and southbound left -turn lanes, as well as an eastbound right -turn lane were assumed as part of the analysis of the signalized intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE. These lanes will need to be incorporated into the design of this intersection. SAFETY — EVERGREEN WAY When Evergreen Way is extended through to Kersey Way as 'part of this development, the volume of traffic along Evergreen Way is expected to increase significantly. This, in combination with the neighborhood park that fronts Evergreen Way SE has raised concerns for the safety of pedestrians crossing Evergreen Way within the vicinity of the park. In order to encourage pedestrians to cross the Evergreen Way corridor, between Kersey Way and Lakeland Hills Way, at a designated, well= marked, well -lit intersection, pedestrian treatments at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Olive Avenue SE should be installed. TSI recommends curb extensions (bulb -outs) at the existing unmarked crosswalk across Evergreen Way at the eastern edge of Olive Avenue SE. Bulb -outs will narrow the existing travel lanes along Evergreen Way, decreasing both the distance and time pedestrians are at possible conflict with vehicles. Bulb -outs will also heighten driver awareness at this location and improve sight lines between motorists and pedestrians. Drainage details of the bulb -outs are to be determined by the design engineer. Mr. Welsh January 11, 2005 Page 3 of 8 Transportation Solutions, Inc. This crosswalk should be painted with crosswalk markings between the bulb -outs. Accompanying signage (MUTCD sign W11 -2) should be placed upstream of the crosswalk in both directions along Evergreen Way SE. Signage should also be placed at the crosswalk (MUTCD sign W11A -2) along with the supplemental black and yellow diagonally downward pointing arrow sign. The existing luminaire in the northwest corner of this intersection should provide sufficient lighting for this crosswalk. TSI believes the above suggested pedestrian treatments should be installed by proponents of the Kersey III development and that these treatments will be sufficient for this location. Once these treatments are in place and the Evergreen Way extension is complete, TSI suggests a six month monitoring period of this crosswalk. If at the end of that period, these suggested pedestrian treatments seem insufficient, the implementation of further treatments should be explored at that time by the City. 53AD STREET SE ANALYSIS With the addition of a signal at the intersection of Kersey Way SE and 53' Street SE, driver awareness is expected to be enhanced by creating the sense of a more controlled environment. Concerned citizens may seek to work with the City of Auburn to ensure additional speed limit signage along the 53' Street SE/ Randal Avenue SE/ 190th Avenue SE corridor, between Kersey Way SE and 9' Street East is put in place. Concerned citizens may also seek additional speed limit controls such as the placement of speed display devices and additional speed enforcement. Existing turning movement counts were collected at the intersection of Kersey Way SE and 53' Street SE during the AM peak hour and the PM peak hour on October 13, 2004. Using this data, level of service (LOS) analyses were conducted. During the existing 2004 AM peak hour, the westbound approach at this intersection experiences LOS -E and an average delay of 40.6 seconds per vehicle. The southbound left - turning movement experiences LOS -B and an average delay of 10.7 seconds per vehicle. During the existing 2004 PM peak hour, the westbound approach at this intersection experiences LOS -B and an average delay of 10.7 seconds per vehicle. The southbound left- turning movement experiences LOS -A and an average delay of 8.1 seconds per vehicle. With the signal in place, under existing volume conditions, the intersection of Kersey Way SE at Evergreen Way SE/ 53' Street SE would be expected to improve to LOS - C, with an average delay of 34.2 seconds per vehicle during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour this intersection would be expected to improve to LOS -A, with an average delay of 3.6 seconds. Mr. Welsh January 11, 2005 Page 4 of 8 Transportation Solutions, Inc. Because of the amount of controlled intersections along the corridor, driveways accessing the corridor, and the lower posted speed limit; travel times through the Evergreen Way SE corridor and continuing north along the Lakeland Hills Way corridor are expected to be considerably longer than travel times along the Kersey Way SE corridor and consequently cut -thru traffic through the Evergreen Way SE corridor to and from 53' Street SE is expected to be minimal. 2008 ANALYsis YEAR Significant public comment questioned the use of the year 2005 for future analysis. Subsequently, several arterial corridors identified for analysis under 2005 conditions in the Kersey III traffic impact analysis were reevaluated under 2008 conditions. The City of Auburn measures concurrency in terms of arterial LOS. Arterial LOS is based on average travel speed and is categorized LOS -A through LOS -F, with LOS - A being considered the best conditions. Table 1 shows the average travel speed range of each LOS category. Table 1: Arterial Level of Service Criteria LOS Category Average Travel Speed (MPH) Arterial Class I Arterial Class 11 Arterial Class III Arterial Class IV A >_ 42 >_ 35 2:30 ? 25 B ?34 >28 ?24 >_19 C 2:27 ?22 ?18 ?13 D ?21 >_17 z14 >9 E >_16 z13 >_10 2!7 F <16 <13 <10 <7 NOTES: Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1997 The 2008 volumes were forecast by adding to the 2005 volumes, which were based on the City of Auburn's forecast model, a background growth rate of 3.7% per year. A traffic volume growth rate of 3.7% annually is the growth rate generally accepted by the City of Auburn for this region of the City. The following table is provided for comparison of the expected 2005 LOS conditions and the expected 2008 LOS conditions. Please refer to Attachments 1 through 3 for the location of all Corridors analyzed under 2008 conditions and the corresponding traffic volumes at the intersections within those arterial corridors. Mr. Welsh January 11, 2005 Page 5 of 8 Transportation Solutions, Inc. Table 2: 2005 and 2008 Corridor LOS Comparison Arterial Corridor Class Dir. of Year 2005 Year 2008 Travel Sneed LOS Speed LOS NB 21.7 D 19.1 D A Street SE / E. Valley Hwy. E. II SB 24.0 C 24.0 C NB 34.9 A 33.5 B 17th St. SE / R St. SE / Kersey Way SE II SB 34.5 A 33.7 B EB 43.0 A 43.3 A Lake Tapps Parkway E. I WB 35.6 A 34.6 B NB 26.6 A 23.5 B Oravetz Road IV SB 27.3 A 26.9 A NB 36.7 A 37.5 A Lakeland Hills Way SE II SB 37A A 31.4 B EB 25.8 B 25.2 A Evergreen Way SE III WB 21.9 C 6.1 F EB 19.2 D 18.5 D Ellingson Road II WB 19.5 D 14.6 E 481-UNIT ALTERNATIVE NB 22.5 C 20.6 D A Street SE / E. Valley Hwy. E. SB 22.5 C 23.0 C NB 34.9 A 33.5 B 17th St. SE / R St. SE / Kersey Way SE II SB 35.9 A 32.3 B EB 43.4 A 42.9 A Lake Tapps Parkway E. I WB 35.1 A 34.1 B NB 26.5 A 252 A Oravetz Road SB 27.1 A 26.5 A NB 35.8 A 3 A Lakeland Hills Way SE II SB 37.4 A 311.8 .8 B EB 25.2 B 25.2 B Evergreen Way SE III WB 29.1 B 28.9 B EB 19.2 D 18.3 D Ellingson Road II WB 18.3 D 14.1 E 111111111AM Of ELM Transportation Solutions, Inc. Mr. Welsh January 11, 2005 Page 6 of 8 Table 2 (Continued): 2005 and 2008 Corridor LOS Comparison Arterial Corridor Class Dir. of Year 2005 Year 2008 Travel Speed LOS Speed LOS A Street SE / E. Valley Hwy. E. II NB 22.3 C 20.7 D SB 23.6 C 23.2 C 17th St. SE / R St. SE / Kersey Way SE II NB 34'8 B 33.1 B SB 35.7 A 33A B Lake Tapps Parkway E. I EB 43.4 A 44.3 A WB 35.0 B 34.0 B Oravetz Road IV NB 27.9 A 25.2 A SB 29.4 A 26.4 A Lakeland Hills Way SE NB 35.7 A 37.8 A SB 37.4 A 32.0 B Evergreen Way SE III EB 25.1 B 24.9 B WB 29.0 B 28.8 B Ellingson Road II EB 19.2 D 18.3 D WB 18.4 D 14.2 E NOTES: An increase in traffic volumes due to trips generated by the project does not necessarily mean an increase in volumes along every corridor evaluated. In fact, due to distribution shifts that would be created by this project, some corridors may experience fewer trips and a greater average travel speed. This table reflects the assumed Signalization of Evergreen Way SE at both Lakeland Hills Way SE and Kersey Way SE under the 481 -unit altemative and 700 -unit alternative conditions, also the signalization of Kersey Way SE at Oravetz Rd. Recent channelization and signal timing improvements to the intersection of Ellingson Road at A Stmt SE are reflected in reported 2008 Ellingson Road Corridor LOS and average travel speed. The above comparison table shows that the expected increase in volume from 2005 to 2008 will add delay to many of the corridors analyzed. All corridors, except for the westbound Ellingson Road corridor, are expected to continue to meet or exceed the corridor LOS minimum threshold set by the City of Auburn, which is LOS -D with the proposed signalization in place. The westbound Ellingson Road corridor is expected to operate at LOS E in the year 2008 with or without traffic related to the Kersey III development. This forecast LOS is attributable to the high volumes and close spacing of signals along this corridor. The westbound Evergreen Way corridor is expected to fail in 2008 under No -Action conditions, which would not include the signalization Evergreen Way SE at Lakeland Hills Way SE. As shown in the previous table, under the 481 -unit and 700 -unit alternatives, which would include signalization of Evergreen Way SE at Lakeland Hills Way SE, the westbound Evergreen Way corridor is expected to operate at LOS - B. EM Transportation Solutions, Inc. Mr. Welsh January 11, 2005 Page 7 of 8 ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS OF EVERGREEN WAY AT LAKELAND HILLS WAY Supplemental analysis was also conducted for the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE to compare operations of this intersection as a signalized intersection as opposed to a roundabout intersection. Under 2008 future with project, 700 -unit, signalized conditions; this intersection is forecast to operate at LOS -B with an average delay of 13.6 seconds per vehicle. Under 2008 future with project, 700 -unit, roundabout conditions this intersections is forecast to operate at LOS -A with an average delay 9.3 seconds per vehicle. Roundabout analysis was conducted using aaSIDRA traffic analysis software, assuming one circulating lane and one -lane approaches at each leg of the intersection. CONCLUSIONS As a result of this additional analysis, the following is additional guidance that should be followed when implementing the suggested mitigation listed in the DEIS for this development under either the 481 -unit and 700 -unit alternatives: • A southbound deceleration lane along Kersey Way SE at the planned intersection of Kersey Way SE at Evergreen Way SE is recommended. Along with the southbound deceleration lane, this intersection was analyzed assuming both northbound and southbound left -turn lanes and an eastbound right -turn lane would also be part of the planned improvements at this intersection. • Active traffic signal warning signage, such as a "Be Prepared to Stop When Flashing" sign accompanied with a warning beacon activated by signal timing, is recommended in the southbound direction for the planned signalized intersection of Kersey Way SE at Evergreen Way SE. • The additions of the proper pedestrian treatments at the existing intersection - crosswalk of Evergreen Way SE at Olive Way SE, as described in the "Safety — Evergreen Way" section of this addendum are suggested. In addition, concerned citizens are encouraged to engage the City of Auburn in the hopes of monitoring any systematic speeding problems along the 53' Street corridor through enforcement or other measures. By comparing actual existing turning movement counts conducted at the intersection of Kersey Way SE at 53' Street SE to the DEIS forecasted 2005 traffic volumes, it Transportation Solutions, Inc. Mr. Welsh January 11, 2005 Page 8 of 8 has been concluded that the cut -thru traffic volumes along the 53' Street SE corridor were sufficiently accounted for by the City's traffic model. The Kersey III development is not expected to trigger any corridor LOS deficiencies in the year 2008. However, the westbound Ellingson Road corridor is expected to operate at LOS E in the year 2008 with or without traffic volumes associated with the Kersey III development. The planned signalization of the Evergreen Way SE at Lakeland Hills Way and the Evergreen Way SE at Kersey Way SE intersections will greatly improve the corridor LOS of Evergreen Way SE. The intersection of Lakeland Hills Way SE and Evergreen Way SE would operate very well as either a signalized intersection or a roundabout - controlled intersection. A roundabout would operate somewhat more efficiently than a signal at this intersection. I trust the above outlined information and analysis provides you with the information needed to move forward with the Final Environmental Impact Statement process. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any aspects of this addendum further, I encourage you to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Transportation Solutions. Inc. Richard J. Hutchinson Transportation Engineer Attachment 1: 2008 Future Volumes with No -Action Alternative Attachment 2: 2008 Future Volumes with 481 -Unit Alternative Attachment 3: 2008 Future Volumes with 700 -Unit Alternative Attachment 4: LOS Worksheets Jl4 �ji. -ji. 14 .jIL. 9-t l-59 451- f-240 38-i 62--? L373 773- s ---465 10-', -69 577. t-57 51 -�r +--36 ,033 t -418 0 11 t-&` 1728 -+ x-934 1249 236-4 0 67-T 1083 4-3,8 4 -i 4-22 r17 t80-4 4-108 ��i fir -qtr °ytr tr *I ir it lag t 15TH ST SW t 17TH ST SE s,• -' j L. ® L3 137 X43 21 T ST SE "v A Y 6 4 M/ ;U a co .ill. n co -4 `C' • 59 -mot 29TH ST SE 385~ 7 t r RW m � a 1$TA E S 33RD SE ��DR `� 1 H ST SE �� �G 1 t s;� 0 X72 -qtr ELLINGSON R 41ST S � Z f-4 M /�� AFL t r o E H g� 53RD ST SE 1 �► -" 11. { 0 f-2° 120— X89 mF , F� i ro...i... ✓. ONO �., `z J4 L m D 27-1 L4 14-► x--13 4—t,o C tNr m �N �N 37 F S PK 4- 16TH ST E 214-J 457-- Ul 13-1 115 1 � NOT TO f- SCALE Kersey III Attachment 1 Tran 0 S611 3, Inc. 2008 Future Volumes with Residential Subdivision No- Action Alternative City of Auburn ;-36 �T� pp SPK ` .1 j L. 16TH ST E � t' zss f r 605-+ .-224 14-3 m" NOT TO SCALE TO om Attachment 2 Kersey III Tganspar Soiudans, Inc. 2008 Future Volumes with residential Subdivision 481 -Unit Alternative City of Auburn 15TH ST SW u; ST SE j ST SE I� .ii%. -jl% .iii, ES �1% A �91 t-60 462- -� t-242 641 t -399 764 —► x--468 571—f 1-67 49—► '-34 70�)T ,� t� 1747 --` +-940 t-265 �6—j 651 1106 -�, 41—i, f -311 10—� X67 1070- r23 193— X107 t 7tr -sir 7tr ELLINGSON R ~qtr 41STSI�, N z mms �'�gi ��° +'o 15TH ST SW u; ST SE j ST SE c 0R ©R vG ST SE N as J& j11 \ .J j 1. 231 t-3 172 —►s� +-13 38—; it_r t-4 NktOV f+ 911 291 t-60 90— x--69 393 r -12 �O1+w A mm� 971� L. �t -11 1—i -3 4--1 ;_6 +t. .! 1. 193—} 0 t— x-4343 9915---b. 4 .j 1L. 691 0 / t—ae s1— r �s r A 101 t-17 255—► x-199 1 L. t r 4-36 s pK 16TH ST E 5626. —12155 16� r-112 rym NOT TO .� t� SCALE TO N+ Attachment 3 Kersey III iransporogon.Soludens, Inc. 2008 Future Volumes with Residential Subdivision 700 -Unit Alternative City of Auburn I� D f 1STA ES M n H ST SE t gF. 40 ELLINGSON R 41STSI�, N z Ew 1 1. O L22 MALI r7 t Q ,33- t--32 0-1 ; 0 r -147 ,itr --------- oN�p (Nm 0 t-38 x--131 tr NA O+ c 0R ©R vG ST SE N as J& j11 \ .J j 1. 231 t-3 172 —►s� +-13 38—; it_r t-4 NktOV f+ 911 291 t-60 90— x--69 393 r -12 �O1+w A mm� 971� L. �t -11 1—i -3 4--1 ;_6 +t. .! 1. 193—} 0 t— x-4343 9915---b. 4 .j 1L. 691 0 / t—ae s1— r �s r A 101 t-17 255—► x-199 1 L. t r 4-36 s pK 16TH ST E 5626. —12155 16� r-112 rym NOT TO .� t� SCALE TO N+ Attachment 3 Kersey III iransporogon.Soludens, Inc. 2008 Future Volumes with Residential Subdivision 700 -Unit Alternative City of Auburn Kersey IN Merlai tAS Sunmary w�M mi0gaaan 20� Ot i W5, 8edcgcourW Page tot 1 '! am if 9 l s P3',...' .eta 'x`.P ::� ..: ""'�.,.:�.'.':- °`°• -s'� icersey to nrtenar cos surnlllatywan ndugaGOn 2008 onoas, atertmava � Page 1 t 1 �i■iri����.�■����i■iis P3',...' .eta 'x`.P ::� ..: ""'�.,.:�.'.':- °`°• -s'� icersey to nrtenar cos surnlllatywan ndugaGOn 2008 onoas, atertmava � Page 1 t 1