The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement-NE Auburn Robertson Properties Special Area Plan■ o eas u u rn o e so n ro e ~ es ec~a rea an u urn as in on 1-~ _ ~ - ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ , . Ju i~ " ' y . ~ i ~ ~ s ~ _ } ti :f, t., ~ ~ _ ,4 .tea - t _ ~i r - ~ ~ ' ~ - ~i x _ r`, ~ jwr. i~ ~ ,~.a _ a~ , "t FF Pre ared for p c i t of Auburn y } 5~ i J u 12004 v Note: Some pages in this document have been purposefully skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Auburn, Washington City of Auburn, Washington July 30, 2004 Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Project Title Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan File Number SEP02-0008 Nature and Location of Proposal The planning area for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is located east of Auburn Way North, west of the existing I Street NE right-of way, south of South 277tH Street, and north of 45th Street NE. The planning area consists of approximately 120 acres and encompasses several parcels, including the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater and adjacent parcels owned or proposed for acquisition by the Robertson Properties Group (RPG). The proposed plan would affect land use and development by establishing new Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning within the planning area and by establishing standards for development, including transportation, drainage, and site design. RPG proposes to redevelop its property with a mix of retail, office, and/or multifamily residential uses. The RPG property consists of approximately 59.2 acres within the planning area; in this environmental impact statement (EIS), this property is referred to as the Auburn Gateway project area. The Auburn Gateway project is evaluated in this EIS as a planned action under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21 C.031. Implementation of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan and Auburn Gateway proj ect would involve the development of new roads and utilities, surface parking, and stormwater detention facilities. The existing drive-in theater and other structures on the RPG property would be demolished. The proposed access to the Auburn Gateway project area is from the existing roadways of Auburn Way North, D Street NE, South 277th Street, and an extension of I Street NE that would reach South 277th Street. The project would be constructed in phases that could extend to approximately 16 years (through December 2020). n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS i Special Area Plan Fact Sheet Proponent Robertson Properties Group Contact: Michael Dee, Director of Development 120 North Robertson Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90048-3102 Phone: 310-855-8324 Lead Agency and Responsible Official City o f Auburn Paul Krauss, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001-4998 Phone: 253-931-3090 Contact: Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner Required Permits and Approvals City approvals associated with the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan: ■ Comprehensive Plan amendment: policies, map, and subarea plan adoption ■ Zoning text and map amendment ■ Planned action ordinance (for the Auburn Gateway project area) ■ Design guidelines ■ Right-of way acquisition City approvals that might be required for development: ■ Street dedication ■ Street or utility line easement vacation ■ Facility extension agreements ■ Right-of way use permits ■ Lot boundary adjustment and/or subdivision ■ Planned unit development ■ Demolition permit ■ Clearing and grading permit ■ Building permit ■ Shoreline permit ■ Flood zone control permit ■ Deviation from City standards tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan ii Final EIS Fact Sheet Other agency approvals: ■ County ❑ Sewer extension and modification approval ■ State ❑ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Washington Department of Ecology) ■ Federal ❑ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map amendment ❑ Section 404 permit (Clean Water Act) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) ❑ Section 401 permit (Clean Water Act) (Washington Department of Ecology) ❑ Endangered Species Act compliance (administered by issuing agency if federal permits are required) Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement Herrera Environmental Consultants ■ Document production ■ Geology, soils, and seismic conditions ■ Water resources ■ Plants and animals ■ Hazardous materials ■ Land use ■ Recreation ■ Utilities and public services Heffron Transportation ■ Transportation MFG, Inc. ■ Air quality ■ Noise tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS iii Special Area Plan Fact Sheet Streeter and Associates Architects ■ Aesthetics Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Cultural and historic resources Issue Date of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 3, 2004 Issue Date of the Final Environmental Impact Statement July 30, 2004 Public Meeting A public information meeting was held on February 12, 2004, at 7 p.m. at the City of Auburn Council Chambers at Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main Street in Auburn, Washington. During this meeting, the public had the opportunity to provide comments on the draft EIS. Date of Implementation Adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments, the special area plan, zoning code amendment, and planned action ordinance is expected in late summer 2004, followed by a review of other permits and approvals for development. Construction is expected to begin in 2004 and continue over approximately 16 years. Availability of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement The complete EIS includes two volumes: the draft EIS and this document, the final EIS. The final EI S builds on the information in the draft EIS . The draft EI S and the ~ nal EI S are available for public review in the Planning and Community Development Department at Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, during regular business hours. Copies are also available for public review at the Auburn Public Library, located at 1102 Auburn Way South in Auburn, and at the Kent Regional Library, located at 212 Second Avenue North in Kent. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan iv Final EIS Fact Sheet Copies of the draft EIS and the final EIS may be purchased from the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department. The cost of the draft EIS is $31 for a printed copy or $4.50 for an electronic version (pdf format) on a compact disc. The cost of the final EIS is for a printed copy or $4.50 for an electronic version (pdf format} on a compact disc. Subsequent Environmental Review Subsequent environmental review is not anticipated for most actions covered under the planned action described in the EIS, because a planned action ordinance is expected to be adopted. Additional environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) will be required for any action exceeding the thresholds analyzed for the planned action. Development of roadways outside the area covered in the planned action, including 49th Street NE to the east of the Auburn Gateway project area, will require additional SEPA review. In addition, any action involving the filling of wetlands may require the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and may require additional environmental review under federal laws. It is also anticipated that detailed geotechnical analysis will be necessary before any grading permits can be approved, and that more specific studies of hazardous materials may be required in order to obtain approvals for the removal of structures and grading in some portions of the proj ect area. Background Studies and Available Data Background studies and data used for the preparation of the EIS are listed under References in Part 5 of the draft EIS and in Part 4 of this final EIS. The archaeological resources report and the data sheets for the transportation study prepared specifically for the EIS are available in the Planning and Community Development Department at Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, during regular business hours. n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS v Special Area Plan Contents Fact S eet .........................................................................................................................................1 Part 1-Summary Introduction l Relationship between Special Area Plan and the EIS ..............................................................4 Public Participation and Special Area Plan Adoption Process .................................................4 Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Alternative 1: Retail and Office ................................................................................................9 Alternative 2: Retail ..................................................................................................................9 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential ........................................................................................9 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................9 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative .................................................................................10 Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................................................11 Major Conclusions and Unresolved Issues ....................................................................................17 Traffic Circulation ..................................................................................................................17 Floodplain ...............................................................................................................................17 Stormwater Management ........................................................................................................18 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ................................................................19 Part 2-Errata and Additional Analysis Errata ..............................................................................................................................................21 Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation ..............................................................................23 Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions .................................................................................23 ~Uater Resources .....................................................................................................................23 Plants and Animals .................................................................................................................24 Aesthetics 2 6 Utilities and Public Services ...................................................................................................26 Transportatlon .........................................................................................................................27 Impacts ..........................................................................................................................27 Mitigation ......................................................................................................................31 n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS vii Special Area Plan Part 3-Reponses to Comments on the Draft EIS Comment Letters and Responses ...................................................................................................37 Letter #1-Sarah Blake, Washington Department of Ecology ..............................................37 Letter #2 -Meredith Redmon, King County Wastewater Treatment Division ......................39 Letter #3 -Gary Kreidt, King County Metro Transit .............................................................43 Letter #4 -Stephen Mullen, City of Kent ..............................................................................45 Letter #5 - Kathleen Fendt, Port of Seattle ............................................................................49 Letter #6 -Dennis DeLaHunt, Select Properties ....................................................................55 Letter -David Van Vleet ...................................................................................................57 Public Meeting Comments .............................................................................................................59 Commenter #1-Mark Tullis .................................................................................................59 Commenter #2 -Dennis DeLaHunt .......................................................................................59 Commenter #3 -Wes Giesbrecht ...........................................................................................60 Commenter #4 -Ronald Stein ................................................................................................62 Part 4-References and Distribution List References ......................................................................................................................................65 Distribution List .............................................................................................................................67 Appendix A Traffic Distribution Patterns for All Action Alternatives, Using the Preferred Access Option Appendix B Memorandum Regarding Traffic Signal Warrants tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan viii Final EIS Tables Table 1. Features of alternatives for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan .........................................................................................................................8 Table 2. Summary and comparison of impacts of the alternatives .............................................13 Table 3. Levels of service for the preferred access option under various action alternatives in year 2020 ...............................................................................................29 Table 4. PM peak-hour total entering traffic volumes for intersections in Auburn under year 2020 conditions with project .................................................................................30 Table 5. PM peak-hour level of service for the South 277th Street corridor under year 2020 conditions with proj ect .........................................................................................31 Table 6. Recommended mitigation measures for offsite intersections .......................................33 Table Allowable cumulative project trip generation for years 2014 to 2020 without mitigation for concurrency in the South 277th Street corridor ......................................35 Table 8. PM peak-hour levels of service for additional intersections on Lea Hill ......................46 Table 9. Percentage of traffic entering intersections on Lea Hill as a result of the Au urn Gateway prod ect ...............................................................................................47 Fi ures g Figure 1. Vicinity map of the planning area for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan in Auburn, Washington .....................................................................2 Figure 2. Aerial map of the planning area for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan ............................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Road layout and classifications under the Preferred Alternative for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan ..........................................................25 tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS ix Special Area Plan PART 1 Summary Part 1, Summary-Introduction Introduction The Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is being developed to address issues related to street alignment, utilities, storm drainage, floodplains, and land use, as identified in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Auburn 2003) for the northernmost portion of the city between Auburn ~Uay North and the Green River. For this plan, the City has focused the study on approximately 120 acres of land (referred to in this environmental impact statement (EIS) as the planning area). The planning area is bordered by Auburn VUay North, South 277th Street, 45th Street NE, and the existing undeveloped right-of way of I Street NE (Figure 1). The planning effort for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan project is being driven largely by the desire of Robertson Properties Group (RPG), one of the largest property holders in the area, to redevelop the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex and adjacent properties that it controls. RPG has named its proposal Auburn Gateway. A core area of RPG's holdings together with other properties that RPG is considering acquiring or that could be developed cooperatively, totaling approximately 59.2 acres within the planning area, has been defined in the EIS as the Auburn Gateway project area. The RPG proposal is to redevelop these properties with a mix of retail, office, and/or multifamily residential uses. The boundaries of the planning area and the Auburn Gateway project area are shown in Figure 2. A draft special area plan is being published simultaneously with this final EIS and is evaluated as the Preferred Alternative. Implementation of the special area plan would include rezoning some properties and passing a planned action ordinance. The development proposed by RPG would not be allowed under current zoning; therefore, new zoning is being considered for portions of the planning area. The planning area is currently zoned as unclassified (UNC), heavy commercial (C3), and multifamily residential (R4). Changes in zoning and development standards would affect the types of land uses, the sizes of areas designated for various land uses, and the locations of land uses allowed on the properties. The proposed action would amend the zoning code to create a new zoning district titled C4 Mixed-Use District. The new zoning would create amixed-use commercial zone that would allow a range of uses similar to those allowed in the C3 zone, with some modifications to the allowable land uses and development standards. Because the new zone would allow both residential and commercial uses, some light manufacturing and automobile-oriented uses would be prohibited. A draft planned action ordinance pertaining to the Auburn Gateway project area is being developed. The planned action ordinance will include a list of mitigation measures and a set of design guidelines to be implemented in the Auburn Gateway project area as development under the plan proceeds. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 1 Special Area Plan gZ00Z uangny :0002 sdeW ~soa8 sauaoyl :saoanos 0 N o I N \ 3 c - o m ~ v ~ ~ E yI~ N ~ m o yey ^ ~ M ~ ~ ~ W ICI a-+ m i+'Y v" L ~ o ~ ~ O S~~ ~ f` R y~ V~ ~ ~ # O ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ i J o°~~yseM a''aW _ Y c Q ]!5 ~11 ~ a.~ 1S1~Z ~ ~ ~ ~ H~~j F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~~ 1 ' T~ r~ ~ ~ . ~ 3~ y a,a ~ ~ ~ elnsiuua ~~41~ ii~ &Y ~ d desaiN w ~ - - _ ~ ~ ~ o~~ . . ~ p V ~~10~i y R 1; ~ ~ M O ~ ~ ~ 11 ~ f~Ml 15 f x ti ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ lIM 1N Mq~; ~I ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . si7~ ~ ~ hl w~~' . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ r.., ~wa~a~ M~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~5 ~ ~ tMMN l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (6 ~ y 3. A ;~4~' r A ~ ~ ~ ~ i - fil 33 v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~I~~AMI _ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~L ~ N ~ ~ 4~ . ~ o~ O o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C N C~ L ~ ~ vP ~ ~ ~ Q ~ t W~ ~ z 1 - ~ D i ~v ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ tm Z ~ .rT~' ue eaa elaad a-o Id dl SI600-ZOE-000-bZ660-601Q 1~3HIgl~Ib0-S6-90 , s ~ t N _ ~ ~ y. , o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.~e~. a w , ~ lir. .C~.? ' ~ eft - '.I I I tV,kF{,~ v,' L W ~ fi ..P'' •.a~~r ~ W r L d ~ f \ j d rcx ~ ,F- { . - _ ~ 7 tai ree a., ~ - a" - . - ,~o; - y . 4 ~ ~ , ~ 4 ' 1 6 ~ V ~ r M, ~ : ~ s fit' tM . R-~ FF I y A Jk1y 5 ~ ''I ;.fit } ~ , ~ ~ r° ~L. 4.. ~ r ~ ~ A `{'~y, _ w' W ~~'~'```._,,y ,h ~~~s,. ~'i _ n P 4 an Ns f fit.; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~ ~ y g+ . °n ~ t{'~ a' a ~ F ° ' E _ ~ • pp v r r. , Y ~a q a, e a ^v 4TH.-h ~,P" ~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 4 ~treef 1V m ~R ~ ~ _ ~ Y, • ~ ~ ~ r_ ~F Fa - . , ~ ~ S s ~ E ! * air. ~ u€ n J ~ y `i • d 44 r ~ ~ , e ~+n ~ ~ _ _ _ , - A,~: p r a~ f,A~+~ k - ~ y q ~ # = ~d y~7, F ~ ~~i~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ r;~. e~~ f ~ • ~ { V ~ ~ _ AI 1 ,w pp__ a ~ 1• ~ e t , ~s . ~ _ - ~ J .V I _ y~ ~ t _ j a R ~ ~ - . ~ W " d;. 'L. ~ ~ R ~ ~ F ~ rrr ~ ~ ~a M'~.r. r. ~ R'~h 4f111P ~ k n n k b~ A, r Ak d'. F ~~I• 1LTi ~ y~~ A ~ ''~rd ~~[II ~i ' v _ ~ 4~', W a •r,T yhl` ~~IN.I" ~FFIy ~ ~ B 4~ y ~ W$h*- r..~.ak~, ~ n ~~~~~h4 "i1 ° .E.r -a F - 'L ]V r" ~ I .fin ~ ~ ~ N x ny 4 r' A a ~ ° a~ y i ~ ~ ~t 'rP } ~ ~ . a ~ _ . i~,~+ _ t' ~ fi g, _ • _ ~ AFB. _ - ~ ~ N r t ~ , ,h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.,1' h ~ ~ q P it ~~~_.x~ _ ~t , ~ n ` ~ ~ Iv i ~ ~ ,l Y _ f 4ry y P' • y d P , o ~ s d _ _ r ~ " ' B p ~ a. _ _ x> p i ~ * ~.p! ' T'~#~ ~ii~: r ~ a a q* e _ F . , r ~ s ~ y v !k~ 2 1:~ Fan ~ ~ ~ , ,mA x~ ~ k •~.s~a aj , ' ~ _ _ - ar F'~ h "~~I r~"~ n'F+.. ~..r r _ do ^ ,p,"_ ~ - _ y . y ~ ~ k. k fii .,gam, i ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-Y.'r" ~ ra ~ m ' . ' _ S x , r ~'~'f'':~ ~ ~ W _ a~ ~ -~rw'+~ ~ ~ / ~ J ~ ~ is ~ S~ ~ ~i ! ~ 14 L m ~ F '7r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~hPr a'1, ` e p n 1 , ' ~ ~ i d . . n , r A i ~ a ~ _ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.. x~ ~ . o Y ~ r a~ e . ~ ~ • r ~ ~ ~ A 1 ~ ~ ■ '~j! r ~ , ~ ~ ~ f w. ~ L ' . .am " F ;.d i P "r' 1. '~+`-~+~,vr+l1~6~Pi.}~.~w.. F ~.~.,y~~`. 14 F gyn. A,. ~ ~ I ~ ~I ~ R~iA_ M ~I . ~ IIII, _ r . I ' I 1 w F+ t~~11~ d~ _ o , _ r.. 5- ~ - . II p r , ~ ~ P ~ . "I {"'mss. a~ _ _ ~ a. fi w ~ ° ` ■ _ , I A ~ ~ I N ~ y • 2 • . :r _ YR a ~ ~ ~ ~r mar 45~Ii1 ~ ' P~ ~P _ l ~ r ~ r ° ~E i`s Y' 4.k T.. ~ s , . e u ' - ~ ~ Jam. ~ _ ! r n mv. f e'' , ~ p Figure 2. Aerial map of the planning area for the NEAuburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. Part 1, Summary-Introduction Relationship between Special Area Plan and the EIS The EIS is being used to evaluate options for the special area plan and forms the basis for the development of specific policies, regulations, and land use decisions for this area. The planning effort and the EIS are intended to facilitate the approval of a planned action for the Auburn Gateway project area as provided for in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), codified in Section 43.21 C.031 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Planned action approval would limit the need for further environmental review for City approvals associated with the implementation of the Auburn Gateway proj ec~ The overall intent of the special area plan, zoning amendment, and planned action approval is to provide RPG some flexibility for responding to market conditions within a specified range of commercial and residential land uses. Under the RPG proposal, this range of uses could include up to 1.6 million square feet of office space, up to 720,000 square feet of retail space, and/or up to 500 multifamily residential units (and not to exceed 50 percent of the lot area). The project would be constructed in multiple phases over approximately 16 years. Public Participation and Special Area Plan Adoption Process The planning process for adopting a special area plan, establishing new zoning, and designating a planned action involves the public at several steps. The following list outlines the steps of the planning process, some of which have already been completed: ■ The Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area was established in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan in 1995. On February 23, 2001, RPG requested the preparation of an EIS and submitted to the City of Auburn a proposal to rezone its property within the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area. ■ An initial public meeting was held November 21, 2002, to describe the RPG proposal and solicit input on issues to be addressed in the special area plan. ■ RPG developed three alternative development scenarios for the Auburn Gateway project area that included the maximum amounts of office, retail, and residential uses that it anticipates could be constructed in the project area under a proposed new zoning designation. ■ A public scoping meeting was held January 28, 2003, to identify potentially significant impacts that should be analyzed in the EIS. The scoping notice is provided in Appendix J of the draft EIS, and notes on tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 4 Final EIS Part 1, Summary-Introduction subsequent modifications to the scope are provided in Part 4 of the draft EIS, under Scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement. ■ RPG's proposed alternatives for the Auburn Gateway project, together with a No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative are analyzed in the draft EIS. The EIS evaluates all potential significant adverse impacts due to the proposed development of the Auburn Gateway project area as a planned action, as required under SEPA. ■ Public comments on the draft EIS were solicited at a public meeting held on February 12, 2004. The public meeting also included discussion of potential policy preferences for the special area plan. ■ A draft special area plan has been developed as the Preferred Alternative for analysis in this final EIS. The special area plan establishes policies covering a range of allowable uses, preferred street alignments, stormwater and floodwater management policies, and urban design goals designed to address the potential impacts of development under the plan. ■ This final EIS has been prepared to respond to public comments and to evaluate the Preferred Alternative. ■ A draft planned action ordinance pertaining specifically to the Auburn Gateway project area has been prepared. This ordinance specifies the thresholds for the development covered under the planned action and the required mitigation measures for addressing the adverse impacts of the proposed development. ■ The draft special area plan, a zoning amendment, and an amendment to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan acknowledging the special area plan will be presented to the Auburn Planning Commission. ■ Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the special area plan, zoning amendment, and Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Auburn City Council for consideration. ■ Assuming that the planned action ordinance is adopted, the proponent then is allowed to proceed with all the necessary permit applications without further environmental review, provided that the development complies with the terms of the planned action ordinance. After the planned action approval, with each application for a grading permit, a building permit, a subdivision, or other City approval required for development, the City will first determine if tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 5 Special Area Plan Part 1, Summary-Introduction the work related to the application is covered by the scope of the planned action. If the work is covered, the conditions of the planned action apply. If the work related to an application is determined to be outside the scope of development covered by the planned action ordinance, the proj ect will proceed through an environmental review as required for all other proj ects that require City approval. If the work related to an application is determined to be covered under the scope of the planned action, no further SEPA review is required. In some cases, the planned action ordinance may require additional engineering or other studies to confirm the EIS conclusions that adverse impacts of a specific design would be adequately mitigated. Unless the specific approval sought by RPG (such as a future subdivision or planned unit development) requires a separate appealable decision by the City, there is no further administrative appeal of the City's decision to approve (or deny) an application under the planned action ordinance. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 6 Final EIS Part 1, Summary-Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Summar of Alternatives Evaluated Y This EIS evaluates the potential impacts of the range of land uses proposed for the Auburn Gateway project area, along with possible options for vehicle access and circulation. The action alternatives represent combinations of land uses that could be constructed in the Auburn Gateway project area, encompassing the maximum development for each of the three general use categories proposed by RPG: retail, office, and multifamily residential. The final development in the Auburn Gateway project area may include any combination of these uses. The features of each alternative are summarized in Table 1. A Preferred Alternative for the special area plan was developed for this final EIS. The Preferred Alternative, which is similar to the action alternatives evaluated in the draft EIS, is described under the heading Preferred Alternative. Additional detail is provided in the draft special area plan, which is being published simultaneously with this final EIS. Development for retail and residential uses would occur in phases over an approximately 16-year period. The assumptions for phased development that were used for this analysis are provided in Appendix B of the draft EIS. Under all the alternatives, development in the portion of the planning area outside of the Auburn Gateway project area is expected to be in accordance with the existing zoning and would include multifamily residential development to the south and east and heavy commercial development to the west. Under all the alternatives, including the No-ActionlExisting Zoning Alternative, stormwater detention would be provided in surface ponds within the project area, although detailed plans have not yet been developed. Under all the alternatives, including the No-ActionlExisting Zoning Alternative, floodplain storage compensation would be accommodated primarily outside the boundaries of the project area by means of the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation project. However, compensation may need to be accommodated within the project area during the initial phases of development if the Auburn Gateway project area is developed before the Port of Seattle prof ect is available for use as floodplain compensation. One purpose of the special area plan is to choose the best public road configuration to facilitate the development of all properties in the vicinity, including the mix of uses and densities shown in the action alternatives for the Auburn Gateway project area. Under all the alternatives, South 277th Street would be widened and a pedestrian trail would be constructed along the south side. Also included in all the alternatives is the construction of a new east-west street and I Street NE from South 277th Street to 45th Street NE. The draft EIS evaluated several vehicle access options that include various locations for I Street NE, the new east-west street, and signalization options on Auburn ~Uay North. A preferred access option has been developed for this final EIS. Separate stormwater detention facilities for public roads would generally be required and could be provided in underground vaults or in surface ponds. The infrastructure constructed with the project, including roads, public stormwater detention facilities, and utilities, would be similar for all the action alternatives. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 7 Special Area Plan U }~~II ~ ~ O iii . ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U N U O O N U ~ Z ~ ~ ~i Z O ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ N U N ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd a ~ M M m o0 0~~~0 ~~O oar oo•~' OW •--~~a~ +~o ~a~~o ~ Z~~~~nv~~~UU~~~v~~ZU-o~Uv~N~v~~v~~-o v~Uv~~HU~3~ U ~ ~ ~ U ~ s~ ~ • ~ s~ ~ N U ~ ~ N ~ O 4~ ~ ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4-r ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ a O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O c~ N ~ O N ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ r/ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~ ~ ~ ...a ..r ~ ..r ~ U~ U ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U U O~ O~ U • N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~°0°000 ~ ~~~o; ~ . Z m ~n Z N C/ir+ v~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o0 ~ ca? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ z~zzM~ ~ ~ ~ U +;~o ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ a O ~ _ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ bJ~ y.~ U O O ~ ~ ~ ry.y ~ ~ Z ~ U U ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ O ~ U cd O (q ~ ~ U ~ ~ Z U ~ U ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ U O ~ ~ ~ ~ 41 ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ U ~ O O ~ bJJ 0 N ~ -O U U cd O cd U ~ O ~ cd sr c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ c~ ~ O ~ ~ N ~ U ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ \ O U ~ Q ~ 0~~~ a~ a o ~ 0 Z Part 1, Summary-Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 1 consists of the development of a mix of land uses in the Auburn Gateway project area to include retail and office space, new roads and utilities, parking, and stormwater detention facilities. Office buildings would generally be three stories or about 45 feet high, although one or more buildings could be up to 75 feet high. Approximately 200,000 square feet of retail space would be constructed. Retail buildings would generally be one story but could be up to 70 feet high. Retail uses as defined here include the retail sales of goods and services and some entertainment uses, as typically found in many shopping centers. Retail uses could occur in "large pad" buildings such as large discount and membership-type stores (sometimes called big- boxretail), or in small- to medium-size buildings, including freestanding buildings such as restaurants with drive-in service. Impervious surfaces including roofs, roads, and parking areas would cover up to 90 percent of the project area. Parking could include surface parking areas and parking in structures. Alternative 2: Retail Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1, with the exception that the land use would be retail and service uses only. Alternative 2 would be more likely than Alternative 1 to include large retail stores, and would require less parking than Alternative 1. Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, with the exception that the land uses would include multifamily residential as well as retail. The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines include standards for recreational open space that would be provided with the residential development. Preferred Alternative The Preferred Alternative would allow any of the range of uses described in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 in a new mixed-use zone. I Street NE would be located on the east side of the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater and would connect to 45th Street NE, 49th Street NE, and South 277th Street. A collector road, 49th Street NE, would extend through the Auburn Gateway project area due east from D Street NE to the eastern edge of the Auburn Gateway project area, then curve to connect to the proposed River Sands project located just east of the planning area. A major driveway serving the Auburn Gateway project area would be located on Auburn Way North between 45th Street NE and 49th Street NE. The existing wetlands in the planning area would be preserved, with the exception of the ditches along South 277th Street and the wetlands in the existing and tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 9 Special Area Plan Part 1, Summary-Summary of Alternatives Evaluated proposed right-of way for 49th Street NE east of I Street NE (these wetland are regulated as waters of the United States by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Grading could include up to 650,000 cubic yards of fill material and 250,000 cubic yards of excavation. This increased amount of grading may be necessary in order to create a stormwater management system that operates adequately by gravity during extreme flood conditions. Except as described above, the features of the Preferred Alternative are the same as those of Alternative 1. The Preferred Alternative would be constructed over a period of approximately 16 years (through December 2020). No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative consists of development of the Auburn Gateway project area consistent with the current zoning. The current zones in the project area include 9.3 acres of heavy commercial (C3), 8.4 acres of multifamily residential (R4), and 41.5 acres of unclassified (UNC). The current zoning would accommodate approximately 130 single-family houses, l32 multifamily residential units, and 73,200 square feet of retail development. Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, I Street NE would be built in the existing right-of way along the eastern edge of the planning area. No other changes in land use would be implemented under this alternative. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 10 Final EIS Part 1, Summary-Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Summar of Im acts Y p Table 2 summarizes the impacts expected under the alternatives considered in this EIS. Impacts and mitigation measures are discussed for each element analyzed in the EIS. The draft EIS contains detailed analysis of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Part 2 of this final EIS includes analysis of impacts resulting from the Preferred Alternative. n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 11 Special Area Plan This page intentionally left blank. bD ~ U U N ~ N p ~ ~ 0 ~ C U ~ ~ ~ ~ 0' ~ U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O N U y „O ~ Q ~ 0 N b0 U ~ ~ b~0 ~ . ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ 'O ~ cd ~ bq ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 4~ tom" c~ cC ~ f+ " p 4; tr' ° ~ O U Q O U O ~ ~ bA ~ ~ 0' U ~ ~ ~ y, 'ill cd 0 cC 'O p„i vi ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 0 N I1 Q ~ N N 0 ,s,• f+ ~ 4-i bA . U ~ ~ N U ~ .y cd U ° ~ U cd O ~ vi y-0-~ ~ 'O ~ r~ U "tl , ~ cC O U ~ by 0' y ~ 0' raj ~ ~ U cC ~ C 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ N #r W i"~ ~ ~~j ~ ~ ~ N U Ly FL ~ ~ ~ "•y ~ U Ci U Vl fC 5 ° ~ N C ~V ~ O ~ ~ V ~ ~ N 0 cd cd ' ~ 'O ,y N Y. ~ cd 'JO y A. ° ~ . ~ N ' ~ N ~ ~ bq ~ ° ~ ~ ~j ~ ~.I a-' U ~ Q • V cd U N cd S•' ~ _U U U ~ y bq U 0 Or U `"r' ~ U ~ m N ~ ~ s" ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '•tl ~ ~ S.' m ~ ~ ~ ~ c°d ~ ~ G ~ O ~ A ~ ~ ~ 6~ ~ ~ '0 p ~v, ~ ° U ~ ~ N • ~ c°C ~ ~ -0 ~ O U O iC s. 0 ~ cd CC ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ 0 cF.i in cC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U ~ ~ by p ~ N cH W G 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Q ~ ~ ~ ,k' 0 y ~ U ~ ~ 0 O z " ~ 4~ ,.O ~ U ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ C N ~ ° ~ cd C i"' v' ~ N A U ~ ° V 0 4` O O U U . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O U ~ ~ ~ U U U 4r U ~ i.. ~ ~ m ~ cd m cH N O O ~ N ~ ~ y ~ O ~ 'c+ ~ U U ~ ~ cd ~ y ° ~ '0 U ~ ~ N ~ N "tl . ~ 0 U ~ U cd ~ 'O cd ~ ° U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ m ^0 m r/ ~ ~ N ~ v; m ~ n ~ ' ~ O A. O c~ ~ ~ ~ ~j O O cn U . ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ L ~ ~ C 0 ~ ° ~ 0 ,Q ~ ~ O cd U ~ ~ N ~ N 0 ~ 51J U N V] ~ ~ O ~ ti 0 ~ ~ ~ O yU, ~ ~ cd O v' r ~ y ~ ~ y GAO vi U ~ ~1 ~ U 5A ~ vi C ~ ~ ~ O U ~ ~ C ~ Q"'.0 'O cd v' O U W OU~y mSC3~0 ~ cdN +-''SOU ~~o U ~.U~, ~ 0~'... ~C UO ~ p,~cd N ~ Gq C U V G N ~ N ~ U ' ~ y bfl ~ ~ cd O ~ ~ ~ bq U O U U . ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 4-r ~ ,OC. ' ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .Y ~ ~ C ~ 0 V 3.. ~ ~ ~ a.. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~~++L bIj ~ ° ~ ~ r~ `'O • in ' y"., N cr ' ~ ~ y ° 0 r~ N cd U 0 ~ W p, ~ ~ y 0 ~ 'O U p ~ ~ 'S' ~ ~ ~ Or p p ~ , +U-' ~ N Oa G • ~ . ~ U O N U . ~ ~ bq . ~ .O ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ A+ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ' " CC 0 ~ 0 U ~ 0 ^tl ~ ~ U i.. U ~ 0 Uy ~ . a' C 0 N ~ ~ v, ~ ,~N/ ~ ,.NI ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~j ,DUI O 0 N ~ 0 p ~ i--i G Q ~ Q,' !3, cd ~ cd U] ~ Y cd ~ "O ~ bq 'O ~ U p r~ ~ U Q ~ Q,' ~ f+ w U w U cd U] U W D Fzi Isi m ~L . ~ ~ C/~ 4; (Q ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ~ ■ ■ ■ a U y. ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ 0 4: ~ S", ~ 6' 4-a N 0 N ~ ~ U ti cd m ~ ~ 0 cd s. L7 ,"C N c°d 5~~~ ,Si U N U O 5 ~ O~ N ~ ~ r-i ~ ~ ai ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ r-i ~ 0 M c~'d ~ ~ ~ U td V 0 0 4 i U 4~ cad 0 ~ N m ~ ~ ~ cad . ~ ~ 4~ ~ N Q' ~ ~ ~ Q' CL ~ ~ U ryj m c~ COI Q'' cad cad cyd ~ tad ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ cd y N ~ ~ ~ ~ V] V] ■ ■ I/~ ■ L/1 ■ ■ cCd ~ 0 ~ W ~ U x 4a . ~ U ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ rr ~ ~ ~ N cd ~ ~ ~ ~ 4r cC cd ~ ~ N U U S"i ~ ~ ~ rUn U S". Sr" G~ ~ ~ ~ c~"d _y U O ~ ~ _N _N a ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 0 ~ ~ N ~ ~ O 0 ~ c~C r~ ~ S~. C~ ~ U ~ ~ c~C cC~C c~CC'd ~ ~ G G G V td cd cd cd ~ U~ ■ U] ■ I/~ U1 ~ i i--i ~ ~ ~~Y~ ~ ~ •"o~ ~ oy oN ~ U M ~ ~ O p vOi bq ~ • ~ ~ bq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ U ~ N 'O ° ~ y 'O Y~ C ~ y~ ° N cd ~ ~ ~ r-i cd 0 cd N cd y~", 4` ~1 r-i , c~~d ~ V ~ N U N y N N y rUj bG U N 7-i Y i-' ~ ~ ~ O ..fir fd .--i ~ ..fir Cd U ~ i.i y ~ ~ p ~ U 0 CL ~ ~ ~ ~ cad N V ~ ~ 0 0 V ~ rn ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ i/~ V] ■ V] ■ V] ■ ~ yU, ~ H 0 ~ "Z•" ~ o~~ yo ~ ~ o a~ M ~ S.' U ~ S 5~ O~ 0~ N A, N cd y N U N N U~~ bG U N~ ~ 5 ~ i 0 0~ y i ~ U L" S"r U U N~ ~ ~ .U. G G~ Q N d' ~ ~ N O O O ~ ~ U ~ ~ ` ~ ~ U N 0 cad c~C 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 c}j ~ ~ ~ N U ~ ~ ~ Z ~i y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C%~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i/~ V] ■ i/~ ■ I/1 ■ N cd "0 y ~ C ~ ~ O p ~ ~ N cC ~ . ~ 0' ~ ~ i. O U N O ,-O ~ 0 ~ U 0 4-i N O -0 ~ 'O m ~ ~ N • U p ~ 0 ~ 4a W U ~ U 0 ~cd ~ U ~ ~ cd y ti ~ ~ Z'i ~ 0 ~ c+j Uj ~ U O ~ 0 O bq cd ~ cC S". 4, 4:r , cd ~ r-+ -tl ~ cd~. • y ,s' ~ ~ ~O UU+ ~ N ~ p r~i, bA ~ ~ Ste.' -O y 'O b0 ~ ~ ~ ~ .O ~ ~ ~ L". ~ "r'i cC U U ~ p ~ ~ N 0 N ~ . ° ~ ' y~, ~ bq y ~ '0 ,n U . ° bA ~ _N y0, ~ ' ~C ~ U ~ ~ uUi ~ " U ~ ~ U cd cC U 0' cd ° ~ U N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ cd O N N cyj cd y, 3C U Q, bq ~ cd ~ b0 0 i.. ° U O `a"' ~ ~ ~ r" U N cd ~ O 0 ~ in N ~ ~ ci.a ~ U cd ' cd v~ C ~ O a' ~ ~ 'O cC U ~ C ~ 'O ~ C cd U N S3+ cd U cC y, m U ~ iC G " ~ p _ cd ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ cd cd ~D "0 O 0 ~ 0 ~ y 0 cd ~ ~ 0 GL td y C~ U ~ ~ 0 ~ ~L ~ N S.' ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ' ~ • ~ ~ 'r N ~ ~ s0. ~ ~ rUi, ~ ~ U ~ tom' , ~ ~ ~ V O 0 m ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ 4; ° ~ ~ U ~ b0 0 5 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ U ° ° cd 0 v, N U N cd U ~ U U ° ~ 0 ~ 4~ 0 C ~ U ~ CC U U f' ~ cC ~ -d ~ U ~ ~ ~ O v, ~ ~ ~ bq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '0 cd ~ N O y G 5 s.. ~ U ~ 0 ~ C ~ ~ f+ ~ • ~ S'. cd A. U C 6' cd U ~ cN `JU ~ U ~ ~ ~ N cd U G bA O N U ~ 0 5 U V U ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ W bf1 cd cd 0 ~ N ~ ~ U 0 tai U ~ U 0 U ~ O U W ~ U ~ ~ ° ~ 0 Y N C cd 0 ~ ~ bq'~ ~ bq s~ U N U ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L " cd C ~ s~ 0 0 U ~ ~ ~ U ~ m ~ N ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ cd i~ U W m U v, P; ~ ~ ~ U t3~ ~ ~ ~ v, cd " L) ~ Q 0. cd P; 'O ~ U W bI1 m U H 'O G ~ ~ ~ U H 'O LL W " ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ U ~ ~ ~ ~r ,S~" v W ~ 6~ ~ ~ h .r"i ~ '..w z ~ ~U ~ ~ ~ ~ [aj~ ~ ~ ~ I I\I ° Wl ~nl ~ 1 V ~ 1~I ~ j fR O vl .r ~ ,V w ~ ~ z P o yy,, ~ ~ 5p C ~ ~0 ~ U ~ bq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~bq ~ ~ s W ~ ~ .O m U ~ y,, ~ ~ ~ y pUj U ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ 0 O ~ ~ O n cd ~ V ~ ,r W ~ ~ 0 Y G~ ~ 0 cd SYr' N •0 ~ ~cd i 'O ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ U U N ~ ..r ~ i"' N ~ ~ cd ~ 'O Sir Y~; O ~ ~CC' V] ~ V] 0 ~ ~ U ~ 0 cd ~ C/] U N Q ~ 4a ~ y ~ Si ~ U ti ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ G 0 O U U 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ 'T ~ ~ .c 4~ U s"' v, U cd CN C ~ cC U y„~ bA ~ ~ 4` U C) U p cd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .;..i Vi O Q"'+I fA cF.l Vi ~ G ~ U 'O ~ c~C ~ ~ CL O •.r Ld ~ ~ Q vU, ~ ~ ~ ' ~ N 'O ~ N O~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ N bq cC ~ ~ C cd ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ 0' cd vi U s~ ~ ~ cd . O U ~ ~ ~ ~ S•,~ N N 0 ~ ~ cd cd 0 , v~ ~ 4; ,S.' 'O ~ ~ N ~ f+ N 0. cd cC i-' U U 0 0 U cd c bq ,S,' ~ U ti ~ 0 0 ~ ~ cd 0 ~ . bq m ~ ~ A N N p ' ~ N t.' A. ~ C~C y U ~ ~ O ~ , ~ 0 0 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ 0 b0 ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ Y 4a cn 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ cd cd cC O A V ~ ~ ~ ~ y..i C ~ cd ~ l~ y, ~ ~L ~ bq W 0 cd ~ ~ C U ~ N ~ . ~ .U. C O l0 ~ ~ ~ ~ '.O ~ ' O ~ O N ~b0 ~ ~ ~ N ~ cd ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N 0' ~ . O . ~ 'O .O p 4"' N 0 b0 p y p ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ cH Q, N 4a ~ m ~ ~ 'O U N U N ~ N G.'~ c~'d ~ m ~ N ~ vUi y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ id O ~ . ~ 0 bq N 'O b0 ~ ~ bq s.+ 0 ~ O cd 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -O ~ U U ~ y U ' ~ U N ~ ~ y N cad CNC ~ y 0 ~ s-. 'O ~ ~ ~ cd ~ N N ~ vii P. ~ ~ O ~ y ~ ~ i..~ ~ ~ ~cd A s~ : , W cd U W ~ sr Q', cd bq ~ Y ~ U U S3, cC W U A cC W cd cd U cd U . i~ y U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~}U, OQ y 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a o m ~ ~ ~ N bq 5 ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ N N N N U 0 ~ CUd ~ U cC cd ~ ~ CC N U U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r"~ ~ ~C ~ ~ N O y ~ 4a N ~ ~ C/~ 41 O ~ ~ N 0~ ~ N O~ O~ N O p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cd p P•+ a in yU., y.a G~ ~ U N cd ~ U a, S", 0 ~ ~ ~ O ~ 0 V U 0 cUd ~ ~ ~ y,a ~ ~ 4; O U O cd ~ O 0a ~ ,cF~d~ ~ ~ y 0 N ~ ;+a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V c~C ~ U ~ U~ r~ ~ S3+ N N G~ U1 ■ ■ U] C%] ~ O ~ ,Ci U] ~ 00C 0 ~ Q N A~ ~ CL G~ N ~ c~C N ~ 5 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O ~ N ~ V Q 'O bq N ~ . ~ ~ cad N ~ vUi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y, ~ k O y U~ ~ 5 ~ ~l ~ Q' ~ " y P~ cad ~ cd cC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ e~ ~ ~oz~ ~ A,~~~ o ~~m°~' (V ~ ~ U U O 0 ~ =a ~ ~ N ~ rr ~ ~ U bq U ~ L Cd ii U~ t~"r U ~ ~ y l^ Ste' ~ Y U ~ ~ k U ~ ~ ~ Q' U ~ cd cd 0 ~ ~ N r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ■ V1 V] rig 'O i V 0 ~ W ~ N ~ y 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ cd C ~ bq N ~ U cUn ~ cd A ~ N ~ ~ 0 ~ p ti A. ~ ^,"y ~ ~ . ~ N S]. vUi ~ O , ~ ~ sC. ~ cd -p 4 ~ N ~ N ~ V ~ ~ aU. O U A U m cd C ~ U N ~ 'O ~ cd C ~ ~ ~ ~ cd m N L•I i.l ' ~ ~ (a,r N ' 0 ~ ~ U . ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ U C/~ ~ U ~ ~ cd ~ 0 ~ ~ Q bll V ~ cd 4: ~ N 0 ~ G ~ ~ a~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ cd 4a 0 ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ p y V ~ bq N 'y, ~ ~ N ~ ~ U . ~ ~ ~ ~ y N t~ "tl G]. cd ~ 0 ~ cd p 0 ~ 0 . ~ ~ U U O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 cc G U UJ 0' it 0' ~r ~ I/] ~ ~ O W ~ ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ,~"r ~ ,,,N,,J bq ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ U G ~ [ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O bq 4a 0 cd G. N "tl U ~ 0 ~ p m ~ ~ U W ~ ~ ~ U • ~ ~ O y O U 0 vii CQC" ~ • O . 'O " ~ 'C ~ U N "tl f+ U U S.' ~ t~ ~ G 0 ~ sr v, ~ ~ U V vi U ~ U . ~ cd cd ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U ti ~ U] N ^d O U U A 'O 4-i 0 ~ N . ~ . ~ cd s. 0 N ~ cd l~ 'O 0 4a ~ ~ ~ O Sb, p, ^ Uj U di N W N V m " N 4N ~ ry,.,~ S"i N 'O N ~ O CL ~ ~ U .Y 4a v, ti lB U U ~ ~ ~ U U m ~ cyd ~ ~ z ,5 cd ~O 4 t~J ~ ~ `+W+ ~n ,s," p N ~"0 O ~ c~ cUd v~ ~0 cad O v Q ~ ~ ~ ~ O Y A" cC ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ a? N N ~ y, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • G., ~ O U ~ 4; O ~ 4r ~ Q s. 4~ ~ yi U U fd Sr' y N ,r'i ~ ,-y 0 v~ N •'i cd O ~ 'O N ~ U W ~ ~ 0 i l~ ~ N bA U ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 0 ~ ~ W ~ U U O ~ cd ' ~ ~ ~ G' r~ m 0 O Q, U ~ q i. 'O L; cd s. "tl Ul ..a N O ~ ~ cd U cd bq y, S•' ~ cd ~ N ~ U O C ,S," N 0 S.' cd 0 S'" N b4 ~ N S.' N bA c~ ~ f+ U U U N ~ N m 'O m ~ U G ~ N m 0' 'O ~ ,mod 0 a~i cd y ~ bA ~ ' cd ~ , ~ O ~ r" ~ ~ O r~ ~ Q U N ~ ~ O 0' . ~ U ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ N ~ ~ f+ ~ f+ 4; ~ N ~ ~ f+ U ..r ~ ~ N ~ cd ~ WW ~ 0 O O~ l0 ~ 4-i 0 0~ ~ C O O U N U y~ U N O 0 0 U U O 0 0~ cd ~ O~ U~ N ~ ~ Wr~Z. ~ a ~a a o o~ ~ o U a~~ 3 Z 3~n w a ~ W 3 ~ a 3-a A ~ ~ A.~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^C ,CUB ~ t~C m ~ Q V J 0 Cr' G .r u ~ p ~ ~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ ~ U a W z a x ~a z~ ~ c ~z p ° a ~ ~ ~ M a~ ~ a'"i ~ ~ b4 ~ U ~ ~ ~ L L v ~ o ~U ~~~~~~5~ °~0~ ~Q a m m o." ~ a, arm " ~ y U m U ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ o ~a .tr"i ~ U c"d ~ ~ ~ O „`may cd ~ Ci ~ 0 ..y O O U ~j "O f+ di ~ ~ Siy ~ ~ rUn ^1'" ~ ~ ~ c~ CNC O ~ ~ ~ 4a 4a ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ bq ~ ~ OO, ~ O y, N b0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ cad ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ v; ~ N 0 i~ ~ OU c~"~ vOi ~ ~ "O y ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ cd ~ U . ~ y N ~ c~ ~ ~ U :O bq ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0' cd m ~ W ~ y +N-' _U m m cd N U bq ~ ~ cd ~ 4; ~ ~ U ti ~ bq ~ ~ C~ N ~ ~ S~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N U vUi bq U U ~ ' ~ ~ • G ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ cad ~ ~ 0 O 0 ~ vii ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ N bq ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ay V ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O ~ V O ~ U '-O 0 ~ p ~ ~ p ~ ~ b~11 N +U-' 'G ~ ~ U V N N U cad ~ ~ cad ~ H ~ 0 H ~ ~ ~ ~ O v~, ~ ~ ~-I 0 , ~ • v P-i ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ 0 z ~ cd O ~ U O~~ N M ~i cd ~ U bq ~ 'r S,' N 4.i U N N m cN ~ -O U ~ s. V ~ ~ ~ SL O vOi O O ~ , ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 N c~~d N ~ ~ ~ cd y"a N U 0 ~ 4a ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O cd y G ~ U y ~ r" ' ~ 0 ~ . ~ G 0 cn ~ ~ ~ U O ~ ~ cd ~ ~ U 0 Qt ~ U ~ s. CC W N ~cd C cd ~ ~ m 0' C bq ~ cd ~ C -tl ;py -tl ~ ca ~ N V ~ o m ~ "O ~i ~o cd ~ G ~ ~ ~ ca ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ U U Sly ~ SL ~ U ~ ~ U ~ ~ 0 U ~ fd 0 ~ ~ ~ Fi y ~ ~ O~ S~L m ~ U cad ~ O , ~ ~ ~ H d, ~ ~ ~ H . ~ N ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ U1 ~ N N ~ r~-i 'O G~ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ~ ~ bq U N ~ o m 4a ~Y N U cd N cd ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ Vl U N U v, ~ G ~ 0 cd ,.a ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ cd U . ~ SL ~ y ~ y ~ cd ~ N U ~ cd "'d U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~v" ~ a ~ U bn a o-o,~-o U~ ~~a~ ~Ua~~ o~,~'~;~, <C CC b4 U O "tl c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bD U ~ s~. ' ~ ~ S4 ~ "O N . ~ ~ ~ ~ G . ~ 'O O N ~ cd N N ~ -O N C '-tl N ~ C a.. U C 0 ~ ~ U ~ V1 G ~ in U -CS ti cd m ~ N f+ 0 0 ~ f+ bA N it ~ w N ~ ~ ~ ,x ~ ~ N N ~ cC ~ y ' ~ -O C ~ y ~ Q~ S>~ 5 ~ ~ O U U U U . ~ ~ N N v, N ~ S'~ N ~ G bq N 0 ~ N ~ ~ U ~ V~+ N ~ ~ V ~ cd ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ U W ~ ~ y N W ~ ~ ~ m U ~ ~ S>a vU, • ~ ~ ~ SL ~ ~ ~ Or ~ bq ~ U ~ cd 0 0 cd cd V O " N U ~ ~ 0 ~ vi y 0 . ~ 4'' U bll cd . ~ U ~ ~ O ~ ' " ~ CL SL aU. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -Ui ~ N 'O N s0. 0 ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U cd N ~ O ~ O O ~ 0 N ~ ~ ~ N c~d yv, ~ W CC~ ~ N 0 0 ~ ~ cad CC ~ U cC ~ ~ i--i i--i v, N ~ cd r, ~ U ~ ~ N r-i s. 4a ~ V] cd P-~ 0 G ~ A Z ~ 4a 0 ~ it ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ v] ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ~i m pp N ~ ~ cd ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 y ~ V c"d ~ ~ b[l 0 ' bq ~ ~ ~ N cd bq p ~ U O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • iT. U N ~ O N ~ N ~ O bq U ~ Z++ ~ c~"d N 0 " ~ ~ G . ~ ~ ~ Y O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U Uri ~ • ~ cd 0 v, 0 U m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M k ~ ~ ~ U U U ~ Qy N U 3 ~ vi ~ N cyC U ~ N U rr . ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ U m U k m 0 ~ cd SL ~ r+,y bq ~ ~ 4? N ~ td ~ 0 ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ S' 'G ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ O bq ~ ~ N ~ ' ~ ~ 0 Q N U ~ CNC N ~ it ~ ~ ~ N U ~ cad ¢~y N U c4 m O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ L'i V ~ 0 G 0 ~ U N U N C 0' ~ S' C ~ y ~ U U O . ~ U ~ 0 ~ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Vj ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 'tl m N rn rn m O m 0 cad ~ ~ ~ S'-y rn N N ~ N N cd 0 U bA tr N N W U cd cd by bq ~ bA ~ ~ ~ W ~ cd N " ~ U ~ ~ ~ 3~ X335 ~ ~U."o ~v~~~b4-a~~.~~~ ~ ~ ~ a, ~ ~ N W W by ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ cUd ~ U 'O C ~ C U N ~ N ~ ~ cd ~ 0 'O 0' cLdy, ~ 4 ~y ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ N SL ~ G ~ y ,s", ~ ' ~ SSy ~ 0+ ~ SL N U ~ bq ~ O ~ N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ SL v, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4a ~ cd U 0 U ~ o ~ ~ ~ cd O O 0 bA ~ ~ ~ cd ~ ~ ~ m SL U N ~ cd 0 ~ G 'O ~ O C cd S✓, SL N v, S,' U ~ ~ cd • ~ ~ cd cd ~ U U cd ~ N ~ U N ~ N ~ 0 m ~ ~ cC ~ ~ ~ U Q" • U 5 N ~ N 'O ~ ~ 'O ~ ~ N ~ ~ U ~ ~ :O^ ~ ~ U y U C ~ Siy ,,J ~ ~ ~ cad ~ C . ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O ~ W W N Si ~ cd m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C ~ 'O cd cd N cd ~ 0 v, cd O ~ ti U N '.O ' U ~ r-y bq N U O ~ cd U ~ Siy ~ N 4; 0 S: bq U y+ S, td ~ bA bA 'O ~ ~ rri ~ ~ ~ ~ f+ ~ ,n 0 ~ W W N SL 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ cd ~ . ~ N ~ " ~ ~ ~ N 0 bQ O N "a N U ,-O cd v, 0 O 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ti U ~ a~ r, ~ O U N b11 py'~ 0 U U O U a~ O N ~ 4; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bq y ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ 0 ~ vi ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ bA bq S, 0 ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ U N ~ 0 U ~ sue. N " s. U cd ~ 'O U ~ cd N " Say m U ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ . ~ ~ Or . ~ ~ v~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N y ~ y ' ~ ~ ~ 'U" rUn U ~ p^ 0.' Q ~ ~ ~ C~C N N C~ U cd yN•, ~ cd ~ N ~ 4a U p, 4; U 4-r U N cd N ~ U N 'O O U 0 G "O 0' 'O N U U ~ U ~ 4; C ~ U 0 r✓ O ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ Sa U U ~ 0 N 0 ~ U ~ N ~ C U U rd ~ O r; 0 i..a " O ~ W U cd U 0 P.a p ~ A W a~ H ~ cd W ~ S~ " O ~ ~ p 'O cd U CL U r✓ SL U ~ ~ m cd ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ U ~ W ' ~ z U q ~ ~ ~ ~ u c Vl nl ~ p 1 1 , 0 ~ ~ cC a W ~ ~ ~ ~ j \ ' y L ~ C v U ~ ~ W F~ d ~i ww ww ~ ~ i; N N ~ S.' F~ tom" -d '0 ~ o cd ~ y "O ~ ~ ~ ~ U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ste. U bQ O N N y~",~ ~G+ N yU, N " N ~ s.. ~ p. U N U y H a ~ U~ I/] ~ G . ~ sU. ~ rr ~ Q, ~ ~ yp, ~ ~ ~ vii ' V cyi~ a G ~ p ~ U y„S"i N ~ ~ N x ~ y ~ f+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U Y ~ G O cd cd .ti i 4-i ~ N Vl ~ ~ N is ~ bQx U bfJ 0 ~ 5q v, , N U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IQ 0 ~ n H ~ ~ ~ U Q' A ~ i~ O . ~ ~ O cC , ~ cC ~ v ~ O U ~ sU. " yU, cC y O ~y ~ O ' ~ U O cd N ~ ~ vi . ~ 'Z' ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ .O ' ~ ~ C 0 =a 4.a a p ~ cd ~ Ul ~ U cNn N ~ N O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0' cd N p N a '0 N N cC 'O 4^ U U ~ O cd ~ z ~ Z cd s.. U ~ O cn ~ cd ~ hfJ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ cC n U N Vl ~ U 0 U cd C ~ 0 O O 0 N 0' U '0 ~ cd N U ~ y0 0 O s.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,s' ,S.' ~ Z N ~ U a ~ U a 0 U U bl1 ti ~ W • ~ 4a ~ v, l~ ~ 0 ~ y, y . ~ ~ ~ cd cd n V] U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ U ~ ~ y, U O U . ~ N ~ N ~ a ~ ~ l~ r~ ~ r~ ~ N ' ~ U N ~ ~ cd p N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Y ~ "U ~ ~ Q ~ m N ~ td U ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 01 N ~ and ~ ~ ~ ~ N cC « U ~ ' ~ ~ ~ U cd "i i, N N cd ~ ~i ~ 0 a N : a ~ -0 cyd 0 '0 V 0 v~ ~ ~ b~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N cad \ ~ N ~ ~ a.~ ~ y, ~ ~ l~ 0' ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ c~C ~ ~ ~ 0 r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • m ~ 0 ~ V] ~ V] ~ « ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cd ~ N N 'O Oa .0 O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 O ~ p N , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '+Or ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ U vii ~ ~ ti ti ~ ~ ~ V N ~ N N V V ~ OU J ,s' ~ ,s0"+ ~ O 'C$ N ~ ~ w 4a ~ a"' ~ \ 0 ,s" N L,' U ~ Y L.' ~ S.' 5 ~ 5 ~ y ~ ~ N ~ U U ~ ~ ~ 0 N cd O ~ cd ~ O O ~ O 0 O cd W N p N • ~ U N C/~ O vi ~ ~ cd U ~ U] F'+ 4-r i i i i i ~ ~ U] ~ p r-; cd cd U ~ cd di U C/~ H r; ~ 0 A W A ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ~ U U w 4a ~ ~ bq . ~ ~ 0 U ~ ~ ~ ~ N cad bq C/~ c*d m~ U r+0i ~ O p N y U ~ 0~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ bU a "tl ~ 0 5 ~ ~ a bq ~ U ~ '0 O N ~ ~ cyd N ~ U N U ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~ N U N ~ cd 0' c~C N O O~ U N N~ O N 0 U ~ S 0 wa~~•y.~~ oW ~ a~ ~ ~A NW ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U O 0 ~ v, 0 ~ ~ bA ~ V~ CVO ~ ~ ~ , 1 ~ a ~ ~-1 a~i a~i ~ ~ a~i rig C7 ~ ~ o • ~ ~ O o O a~i ~ o ~ ~o¢'av~aU~C~ ~ a~ ° b ~ -o z ~ . ■ ■ ■ ~Z~ ~ h~° . . . . y it ~ ~ U 0 ~ 0 O ~ y U m ~N ~ cd 0 U ~ p 0 r+ N ~ ~ `*^N ~ 5 ~ a~ a~ ~ ~ V ~ O ~ O Ci ~ ~ ~ 'O ~ N ~ I/~ ~ ~ V U 4r Y 0 ~ ~ ~ .O O G4 ~ ~ U~ ~ yN'~ ~i ~ ~ Q' vUi U ~U,, ~ ~ O V~ N H 0 ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ -o ■ ■ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ C ~ bD ~ 0 U 4 ~ • *i ~ S7 C bq a U bQ U U U ~ ~ U 0 ~ . ~ v' cd ~ cd y cd c^-d C ~ U y ~ ~ ~ ~ U U ~ cd U 4~1 ~ y~",~ ~ 's" ' ~ •O N cd ~ ~ U U S: cd U O Y N N ~ F'1 Cd i CI ~ Cd 0 N SRI e--I .~yy r~ a ~ fd ~ ~ ~ ~ rl Y+ L1 ~ N ~ ~ ~~I U ~Q+I S~..i N' ~ ~ c~ .--I • Iff_I~ ~ ri Ca . ° fa "ra ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ['r''7'lI n r\l r\l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~.J 5 0~~ oy~~N~,U 4:R.z b ~0 0 ~0 ~0 ~ a~,.;-o~ Ica w~ a W ~ ~ C y N ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ yU, ~ yU, ~ ~ N 0, N -0 m ~ N 0 m O U ~ cd •y cC .y ~ ,,,0 A .Y ~ di ~ ~ i y U U ~ N ~ V o~~ oc~i~~ ~~°'o c~a°' ~A NW road ~a~i ~w ~N ~a~i~o°' cd ~ ~ N N ~ 0 N U N p O U U ~ ~ y ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OM IQ ~ ~ O • m ~ ~ N p" Ste' v, ~ ~ ~ 4-i '0 .r'~" ,i, ~ 0 N l0 N N N U 0 v~ N ~ ~ ~ it v~ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CC rUn U ~ 0 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ bfJ ~i ~ , U F~ 0 ~ ~ c'"d ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ hN ~ ~ CW/] O ~ cn ~Oj N ~ hD cd it 4~ iUr a ~ 0 r-` ~ U U y U 7-I ~ U ~ r~~-i rl 0 N 0 ~ ~ 4; ~ U V] may ° w~'w~w~w~ p,~~ a~~~o Ste' ~ ~ ~ O p y ~ ~ S." ~ U ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ N 0 ~ V ~ p . V ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O C/] 0 ~ a ~ O ~ '0 ~ ~ w ~ a ~ ~ ~'A NW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w ~ cn N ljj y ~ m m m U~ l~ m m ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~O o0 ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ W ~ WO ~N ° ~ o v~ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ~,~y , ti ~ py O ~ ~ ~F~I N N a ~ p Y ~ ~ N y ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ . O ~ a ~r VZ+, .i N 0 "r ~ ~ ~ ~ ca a~ w a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -o ~ ca w ~ I~L~, U ~ ~ ~ i'1 Q ~ ~ p ~ ~ 0 ~ v] ~ ~ ~ ~ yUy ~ yUy ~ yU, .--1 Q ~i ~ ~ ~ O C~' iy ~ 4"i ~ Sy Gd « ~i Sri ~i Y ~i ~i N '~r+i ~i 4-I Q U C N .O Yr _0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O U O V] O V] O V] 0 'O a [a O Yr ~ "0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ ..fir ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O a ~ W O ~ v°~o~ ~,~~m o~ ~,s' ~a'"i ~a'"i ma'"i m~ m~ a'"ia~i~o na'"i~5~ ~ ~ a~~ a~o~~ ~h a~ O o0 W~ W~ WO o~~a~0 r-; u ~ ~ 'tl U~ m td y H m v ~ ~ a ~ a U C/~ C/~ C1~ a r~ U~ ~ U W ~ 'O U ~ ~ ~ ~ A N ~ D ~ c ~ o ~ ~ ca ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ E~ c~ ~ o ~ ~ p, II I1 0 ~ Q V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,A W Q Part 1, Summary-Mayor Conclusions and Unresolved Issues Ma' or Conclusions and Unresolved Issues J Traffic Circulation The Preferred Alternative integrates several major conclusions regarding traffic circulation. I Street NE would be relocated westward to the Auburn Gateway project area, providing better access for commercial development and avoiding wetland impacts that would occur with the existing right-of way alignment. A collector street (49th Street NE) would be extended across the planning area connecting the two existing segments of the 49th Street NE right-of way in the planning area. While some wetlands would need to be filled to extend this road to the east of I Street NE, the alignment chosen for 49th Street NE is designed to have the least impacts on wetlands possible while providing safe and adequate access for the properties east of the Auburn Gateway project area. The existing I Street NE right-of way could be partially vacated while still providing adequate access to all properties. Floodplain The Auburn Gateway proj ect would require the filling of approximately 27.5 acre-feet of the 100-year floodplain. The widening of South 277th Street and the development of other parcels in the surrounding area would require additional filling in the floodplain. The City anticipates that the wetland mitigation project proposed by the Port of Seattle near the Green River, southeast of the Auburn Gateway project area, would provide compensation for floodplain filling for much or all of the planning area. The flood storage compensation is expected to be apportioned on the basis of existing flood storage volume, as described in the draft Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. The flood storage capacity created on the Port's wetland mitigation site could be used as floodplain compensation by the Auburn Gateway project or other developments south of South 277th Street. Currently available information suggests that the Port's wetland mitigation project would compensate for filling of approximately 90 percent of all the existing flood storage capacity in this area. The Port has indicated that it intends to begin constructing the wetland in 2004 and that the would be available for use as floodplain compensation in approximately 3 years. If the Port's wetland mitigation projector hydrologic connection is not completed before the development of adjacent property, the Auburn Gateway project or any other project in the planning area involving floodplain fill would be significantly affected, because floodplain fill compensation would then be the responsibility of the developer and would have to be located and constructed on the site or at a functional and suitable offsite location. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 17 Special Area Plan Part 1, Summary-Mayor Conclusions and Unresolved Issues Stormwater Management The estimated volume of fill material needed for the Auburn Gateway proj ect is based on the assumption that a detention system can be constructed to operate adequately during storm events and still provide drainage to the City stormwater conveyance system. The conveyance system experiences backwater conditions when the Green River, which is subject to flow control at the Howard Hanson Dam, is at its highest levels. The proponent's detention system concept for the Auburn Gateway project area relies on pumps and gravity flow. If the pump system does not meet City standards and is not acceptable, then it could be necessary to fill the project area even further to increase the elevation and provide gravity flow from the development's detention facilities to the City conveyance system. This final EIS acknowledges the possibility of the placement of as much as 650,000 cubic yards of fill material in the project area. A final decision on this issue will be made when the City has received further details on the design of the proposed stormwater management system. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 18 Final EIS Part 1, Summary-Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ~Uildlife habitat areas in the Auburn Gateway project area, other than areas within boundaries of wetlands that would remain and be enhanced, would be eliminated and replaced with urban development. Habitat areas that would be eliminated include most of an approximately 2-acre forested area that is currently the only such habitat in the planning area or vicinity. It is worth noting that the Port of Seattle plans to create a wetland southeast of the planning area that would provide new forested habitat over time. n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 19 Special Area Plan PART 2 Errata and Additional Analysis Part 2, Errata and Additional Anal ysis-Errata Errata The following are corrections to information provided in the draft EIS: ■ Page 1, Introduction, first paragraph; and Page 31, History and Background of the Proposed Action, first paragraph: The text of the draft EIS indicates that the planning area is approximately 90 acres. One property was erroneously omitted from this tally. The EIS text should indicate that the planning area studied for the EIS includes approximately 120 acres. Page 23, Summary of Impacts, paragraph at top of page continued from previous page. Reference is incorrectly made to 49th Street SE. The statement should read: A connection to these properties could be made at either 49th Street NE or Robertson Way and would depend on the preferred access option. ■ Following page 40, Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 (depicting the alternatives considered in the draft EIS) show a wetland outside the Auburn Gateway project area to the northeast. A wetland delineation that was provided after these figures were created (Parametrix 2003) showed this wetland to be smaller than the area shown on these drawings, but the drawings were not corrected. The wetlands shown in Figure 10 of the draft EIS are based on the Parametrix (2003) delineations, and the analysis was based on the configuration of wetlands shown in Figure 10. ■ Page 94, Water Resources, end of first full paragraph. The drainage improvements on south and east side of the Auburn Gateway project area were incorrectly identified as VHV-1 from the Comprehensive Drainage Plan. The correct numbers for these improvements are VS and V6. n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 21 Special Area Plan Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation Preferred Alternative-Im acts and Miti ation p g This section provides additional analysis of elements of the environment that would be affected by the Preferred Alternative differently than by the alternatives evaluated in the draft EIS: geology and soils, water, plants and animals, aesthetics, utilities and public services, and transportation. For air quality, noise, hazardous materials, historic and cultural resources, and land use, the impacts resulting from the Preferred Alternative are within the range of impacts that were determined to result from the alternatives evaluated in the draft EIS. Therefore, no further discussion of those elements of the environment is provided here. Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions Depending on the design of the stormwater management system in the Auburn Gateway project area, the volume of fill that would be necessary for development under the Preferred Alternative could be as much as 650,000 cubic yards, 30 percent more than the 500,000 cubic yards estimated in the draft EIS for the action alternatives. If the stormwater system cannot be designed in a manner to meet City standards using the proposed passive (gravity)/pump system, an entirely passive (gravity) system would be required. A passive system requires that stormwater be detained at an elevation that allows it to flow by gravity to the receiving system. Because the receiving system in the planning area becomes flooded from time to time, the entire project area would need to be filled up to an average of 6.5 feet, approximately 1.5 feet in elevation higher than the elevation discussed in the draft EIS. While placement of the additional fill is not preferred by RPG, the City does not yet have sufficient detail about the proposed stormwater system to approve the passive (gravity)/pump system; therefore, the additional fill must be considered. The additional fill would not result in any impacts on earth resources that are different from those that were discussed in the draft EIS, and similar mitigation measures could be employed to avoid significant impacts. Water Resources In terms of its effect on water resources, the primary difference between the Preferred Alternative and the alternatives evaluated in the draft EIS is that additional filling may be required in order to address the effects of flooding on stormwater management. Because a plan for a preliminary stormwater system has not been submitted, it is necessary to consider the possible need for sufficient filling to create a stormwater control system that could function by gravity alone. With either the passive (gravity)Ipump system proposed by RPG or the gravity system recognized by the City's Design and Construction Standards manual, the system would be n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 23 Special Area Plan Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation required to control its runoff to the same degree. Therefore, the impacts on water resources would be the same with either system; the primary difference is in the dependability of a system involving pumps versus one with no pumps that functions by gravity alone. Special approval by the city engineer is required for all pump-operated facilities. The 650,000 cubic yards of fill necessary for the passive system is approximately 30 percent more fill than that required for the passive/pump system. The use of such a large amount of fill would raise the same concerns as those discussed in the draft EIS in terms of the possible effects on wetland hydrology. The mitigation measures proposed to address this concern and other impacts associated with the placement of a large quantity of fill would be sufficient to address the impacts due to the additional quantity of fill. Plants and Animals Two properties containing wetlands would be filled in order to accommodate the road alignment included in the Preferred Alternative (Figure 3). Several options were evaluated for extending 49th Street NE east of I Street NE. Because of the extent and location of the wetlands on the Stein property and the Port of Seattle construction access property, it would be impossible to extend this street without affecting wetlands. The preferred alignment was selected using several criteria: ■ Provide access to I Street NE for properties east of the new I Street NE a ignment. ■ Provide road design for aneast/west collector road with appropriate design speed, with intersections located far enough from South 277th Street so that capacity on the principal arterials (South 277th Street and I Street NE) is not compromised, and traffic movements are safe. ■ Minimize overall wetland impacts, including fragmentation of larger wetlands. ■ Minimize the need to acquire additional right-of way. The preferred roadway alignment would require filling of approximately 0.2 acres of wetlands within the Auburn Gateway project area. This fill would occur on the Stein property and the existing 49th Street NE right-of way (Wetland A, shown in Figure 3). Approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands (Wetlands F and K, Figure 3) on the Port of Seattle construction access property would be filled in order to develop 49th Street NE and I Street NE in the preferred alignment. This total of 0.5 acres of wetland impact compares with 0.62 acres of wetlands on the Port of Seattle property that would be filled in order to develop I Street NE in its existing alignment. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 24 Final EIS ~^lr'hZ O \~llh W~J ~~Z T kl O jg ® ~ P IYYY////~ Z LLO r Z ; yy~~J ~T ~ / d" . - ~ ~~11~ N33 .r tl' i i i I ~ o ~ ~ Z ~ a ~ '1 ~ i J I~ ~I4 ~ ~ , ,I W ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ i I J W f~7 ~ v 0 1 # ~ I W 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (~1 ~ ~am 1 1 1 1 ~ a 1 1 1 1 e ® Y ~ r Y ~ e 1 a 1 1 1 1 N ,rp~ tl ~y ~ a 1 1 1 1 a e e ~y ~ L.L I a' a m n~ O # 1 1 1 A l ~ I..V # g 1 ~~`'w ~r i 1 1 e 1 m W W s` I I s 1 a it "J~r, e o eO~~ a I I a# a aL.L ,o a s 1 a 1 e 1 i ICI 1111 N 7 1 1 a I"•".r e 1 a 1 1 1 1 L.L ` 1 a e r~/'~J a~ a 1 1 1 e 1 e 1 e LL ~ I 0 1 e T ~ # 1 a 1 1 a e ~ Q 1 1 r # i i 1 1 1 # 1 # m a 1 1 1 e e o # i ~ 1 1 1 e 1 # " O W ~ e 1 e i u ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t' L` 1 / t# 1 1 1 1 e 1 1 i m W T ICI ~ ~ O I 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ Oct J ,aa11e11111e e W ~ I,I ~W ~ 1 a 1 a ~ a 1 1 1 1 e 7 1 1 1 a e 1 a e a //y\ / O O L~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-+ 1 1 # 1 1 1 1 1 e a 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O ~ e # 1 1 e 1 1 e a e 1 a ~ ~ V/ Q a# a 1 e a e 1 1 1 1 1 "n _ ~I v, a e 1 a m 1 1 a e 1 e "e, L I~~I V L----- a 1 1 i e i e 1 1 1 1 ~ 2 n a e o i o 1 e i o a i e ~ i 9 e # a tl a U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ / a 1 # # i # e 1 # I\ 7L mh # 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1# 1 1 1 ~ \ \ [C J LLJJ a 1 1 # L ~ z a 7 n~ ~ a m~ e 1 1 U vJ L.L ~ ~ a~ r. 1 a 1 ^l ry W i e ® 8J 1 e 1~ W W \ \ ~~1~ W Px ~ ~ / 1 1 A LS e 1 ® ~ ~ \ \ ~ 1, 1, 1,# I iw 1 1 1 a 1 1 0~ `Uf LOL ~ \ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 i m 1 1 e ~ Ip ~ i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 0 O ~ / / rL I r e ~ o TAI •^~;.ae+:ale-:uareur:uwa -x L.L - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z a ~j ~ !1! 0 ® # I. ~ ~ - = w w ~ a~ ~ lb' I~~ ~~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Ri31~lb' 2i0NIW ~ ~ w )i 3N 1332i1S I Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi ~ i z c~~~~ ~ ~0 ~ i;"+ N ® ~ ~ U e ~ I ~W ~ ~ i ~J ~ 0 II i ~ ~ ~ i v ~1332i1S lb'00~) ~ a ~ P ~ ~ ff ~ ~a3N341M) ~ _ W ~ 11 3N 1332~1S Q z ~ III ~ J ~ i ~ ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ cn z ~ ~ z ~ ~ s J O O~ WZ ~Q Q a ~ y~ a zZ omQ ~ zcn ~ a c w~ pQW z a W i wm Q~Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ^a ~~c~ W ~ ~~11 ~ 'a e oa ~ w I tleW ~aaa~S 13db'~SONb'1-8-1dd I :auaeua!!d ~a~X •~aoasaad~ :aas~ Qy~ uad~5:86~Z0-b00Z `LZ Inf :alep fold £ :auaeual!~ a1P~~1000-bZ660-601foad}:0 ~yaad Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation The Preferred Alternative would result in less fragmentation of ~Uetland F (on the Port of Seattle construction access property) than would result from the development of the existing I Street NE right-of way. Under the Preferred Alternative, a small portion of ~Uetland F would be isolated on the north side of 49th Street NE. Hydrologic connectivity between the isolated portions of ~Uetland F could be maintained by properly installing a culvert under 49th Street NE. South of the planning area, portions of several small wetlands may need to be filled in order to accommodate the preferred alignment of I Street NE. These impacts are expected to amount to less than 0.10 acres of wetland loss, compared to a loss of approximately 0.22 acres that would result from using the existing IStreet NEright-of way in this area. Additional SEPA environmental review will be required for development of the extension of 49th Street NE east of the Auburn Gateway project area, and specific mitigation measures will be developed at that time. Mitigation for wetland impacts in the Auburn Gateway project area could be provided through enhancement of existing onsite wetlands or by creation of replacement wetlands. Aesthetics The Preferred Alternative includes new zoning and design guidelines that would apply to the project. Zoning and design review would allow further opportunity to review the impacts of a specific development. If 650,000 cubic yards of fill material is necessary for the Preferred Alternative, the Auburn Gateway project would be raised approximately 6.5 feet above existing grades, on average, which is approximately 1.5 feet higher than the grades described for the other alternatives in the draft EIS. This would make the bulk and scale of the buildings slightly more apparent. However, the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, together with the landscaping and other measures required by the Auburn City Code, include measures to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of the proj ect that would be effective in addressing this additional impact. As discussed in the draft EIS, the design review process envisioned in the special area plan provides an opportunity to evaluate the impacts of individual projects developed within the Auburn Gateway project area and to implement measures to address the specific impacts. Utilities and Public Services Any of the alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative and the No-ActionlExisting Zoning Alternative, would increase the demand for water. The 2001 Comprehensive Water Plan (Auburn 2001b) identifies several improvements that would be needed to serve the area with adequate ire flow and system reliability (i.e., looped systems to ensure dependability and water quality). The needed improvements identified for development of the Auburn Gateway project area include the following: tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 26 Final EIS Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation 1. DS 605-109-Replace existing 8-inch and 6-inch asbestos cement pipes with 12-inch pipeline in 49th Street NE from Auburn Way North to G Street NE. 2. DS-602-109-Construct a new 12-inch pipeline along the extension of I Street NE between 49th Street NE and South 277th Street. 3. DS-603-108,109-Construct a new 12-inch pipeline along South 277th Street from Auburn Way North to the extension of I Street NE. At the project location, the fire department response time is likely to be around 8 to 10 minutes. This would be among the highest average response times in the city. In 2002, the City purchased a 1.59-acre site at 30th Street NE and I Street NE for a future fire station, which is expected to improve response times within the planning area. Transportation Impacts In the draft EIS, six potential access options with various alignments of I Street NE were evaluated for the Auburn Gateway project area (Figure 23 of the draft EIS). A preferred option has been selected (see Figure 3 of this final EIS). All signals shown on Figure 3 would be warranted by 2020 (see Appendix B). The preferred access option includes the following features: ■ I Street NE would be located west of the existing City right-of way on property owned by RPG. The location would be about 1,000 feet east of D Street NE and 2,900 feet west of the Green River Bridge. I Street NE should be designed as afive-lane minor arterial. A traffic signal would be located at the intersection of I Street NE and South 277th Street; it should be operational when I Street NE opens to traffic. ■ 49th Street NE would be extended between Auburn Way North and I Street NE, and a signal would be installed at the intersection of Auburn Way North and 49th Street NE; it should be operational when 49th Street NE opens to traffic. A signal would also be installed at the intersection of I Street NE and 49th Street NE, when warranted. The entire section of 49th Street NE between Auburn Way North and I Street NE would be designed and built as a three-lane collector arterial. This collector road would be extended east to the east edge of the Auburn Gateway project area to eventually serve other properties located between I Street NE and the Green River. The extension of 49th Street NE would connect to and serve the proposed River Sands development (see Figure 3). ■ D Street NE would be truncated so that it no longer intersects with Auburn Way North. Access to D Street NE from the south would be from 49th Street NE. D Street NE would be stop-sign controlled (as the minor tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 27 Special Area Plan Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation leg) where it intersects 49th Street NE. Where D Street NE intersects South 277th Street, turns to and from D Street NE would be restricted to right-in/right-out only and would also be controlled by a stop sign. ■ A major driveway leading to the Auburn Gateway project area would be constructed on Auburn Way North, between 49th Street NE and 45th Street NE. This intersection of the driveway with Auburn Way North could be signalized in the future, if and when it meets signal warrants. ■ 45th Street NE has already been improved to be a future residential collector arterial as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. No further roadway widening or improvements would be needed on 45th Street NE. However, when I Street NE is extended south to or beyond 45th Street NE, a traffic signal would likely be warranted and should be installed at the intersection of Auburn Way North and 45th Street NE. A signal would also be installed at the intersection of I Street NE and 45th Street NE if and when it is warranted in the future. The preferred circulation and access plan would provide regional benefits. First, the plan includes construction of a portion of I Street NE that ultimately would be part of a minor arterial extending from Harvey Road to South 277th Street. This arterial would parallel Auburn Way North and would help reduce congestion along Auburn Way North. Second, the extension of 49th Street NE between Auburn Way North and I Street NE would provide a continuous east- west arterial to B Street NE, which would improve cross-town movement and reduce congestion along the South 277th Street corridor. Finally, the proposed roadways would form a grid system that would improve overall mobility by creating parallel alternative routes. This grid also would improve emergency access-if one route is blocked, emergency vehicles could find another route to or through the area. One issue to be determined is whether the major driveway access from Auburn Way North to the Auburn Gateway project area should be signalized. The benefit of signalization is that it would encourage more of the left-turning proj ect-related traffic to enter and exit the project area via the new driveway intersection, which would reduce traffic volumes and congestion at the intersection of Auburn Way North and 49th Street NE. Because the latter intersection is relatively close to the heavily congested intersection at South 277th Street and Auburn Way North, reductions in congestion and traffic queues at 49th Street NE would improve overall flow in the corridor. Also, multiple routes for accessing the project would serve to disperse traffic along the corridor, which also would reduce congestion. An analysis of traffic operations indicated that if a traffic signal is installed at the new driveway intersection on Auburn Way North, it would operate at LOS C or better at full build-out in the year 2020. Appendix A of this final EIS provides diagrams illustrating the project-related traffic distribution used for this analysis. However, depending on the land use, traffic volumes may not be high enough to warrant a traffic signal at this intersection (e.g., if development is similar to that in Alternative 3); therefore, the final decision to locate a signal at this intersection should be made when the site plans are submitted to the City. Periodic signal warrant analysis may be necessary to determine when and if signalization is needed. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 28 Final EIS Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation An analysis of traffic operations was performed to show how various intersections would operate under the three action alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS. The results shown in Table 3 indicate that all new roadway intersections within the project area would operate at LOS D or better if and when they are signalized. All intersections where signals are recommended would meet signal warrants for full build-out conditions (see Appendix B for discussion of the timing of warrant analyses). Even if land uses are substantially shifted within the project area so that one intersection accommodates more traffic than the level assumed in the EIS analysis, traffic operations are expected to continue to be acceptable. The only location where levels of service could fall below LOS D is the right-turn movement from northbound D Street NE to eastbound South 277th Street. This movement would be controlled by a stop sign. If only two eastbound lanes are provided on South 277th Street, LOS D conditions would be exceeded for right-turn volumes in excess of about 290 vehicles per hour. If South 277th Street is widened to include a third eastbound lane (either as aright-turn drop lane or as a through lane), higher volumes could be accommodated on the right-turn movement from D Street NE before the intersection level of service would degrade below LOS D conditions. Table 3. Levels of service for the preferred access option under various action alternatives in year 2020. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a Signalized Intersections Auburn Way North/49th Street NE C 20.6 B 19.1 C 20.2 Auburn Way North/proposed major B 12.5 B 11.6 A 7.6 driveway to project area Auburn Way North/45t11 Street NE B 19.0 B 18.4 C 24.0 I Street NE/49t1' Street NE D 36.6 B 15.6 A 8.9 I Street NE/45t1' Street NE (if signalized) B 13.7 B 16.2 B 18.2 Unsignalized Intersections b D Street NE/49th Street NE B 14.4 B 12.7 B 12.9 South 277111 Street/D Street NE E 39.3 E 41.6 E 36.4 LOS =level of service. e Average seconds of delay per vehicle. LOS reported for the side street movements. The percentage ofproject-related trips on various roadways within the project area has been determined for this final EIS. These percentages were not calculated for the draft EIS because there were too many access options under consideration. The percentage increase for offsite locations would not be different from that presented in the draft EIS. Table 4 presents the percentage increase in traffic on the internal roadway network compared to year 2020 background (non-project-related) traffic on these roadways. See Figure 3 for locations of intersections shown in Table 4. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 29 Special Area Plan Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation Table 4. PM peak-hour total entering traffic volumes for intersections in Auburn under year 2020 conditions with project. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 2020 Project Project Project Background Portion Portion Portion Signalized Intersection Volume Trips (percent) a Trips (percent)a Trips (percent) a South 277th Street west of I Street NE 2,910 270 8 150 5 110 4 South 277111 Street east of I Street NE 4,615 670 13 445 9 245 5 I Street NE just south of South 277th 1915 1040 35 800 29 420 18 Street ' I Street NE just south of 49th Street NE 1,585 545 26 495 24 240 13 I Street NE south of 45111 Street NE 1,140 470 29 270 19 180 14 49th Street NE just east of Auburn Way 620 320 34 265 30 320 34 North 45th Street NE just east of Auburn Way 995 50 5 60 6 60 6 North Auburn Way North/proposed major 0 650 100 605 100 270 100 driveway to proj ect area a Percentage of total year 2020 traffic volumes attributable to project with full build-out of the alternative. Because the Preferred Alternative would allow any of the action alternatives to be developed, these figures represent the range of potential trips expected under the Preferred Alternative. The location and orientation of various land uses in the project area have not yet been determined, nor has the number or location of driveways been determined. The City of Auburn will perform a detailed review of the site plans, including driveway location, spacing, geometry, and traffic control for each project developed within the Auburn Gateway project area. To assist with this review and to ensure that subsequent site plan submittals include compatible driveway layouts, the City may require the submittal of a master site driveway plan in conjunction with the first building permit application. Additional traffic analysis, including levels of service and queuing analysis at driveways, may be required to confirm the geometric and traffic control needs associated with this master driveway plan and the specific development proposal. The City may also require a periodic review of traffic signal warrants to determine when signals should be installed at I Street NEl49th Street NE, I Street NEl45th Street NE, and Auburn Way North/45t1' Street NE. The results of the concurrency analysis discussed in the draft EIS indicate that the project's expected completion date of 2014 would not exceed the City of Auburn's transportation concurrency policy. However, under the Preferred Alternative, the timeframe for completion would extend through the year 2020, or approximately 16 years, as described elsewhere in this final EIS. If full build-out is extended beyond the year 2014, the South 277th Street corridor may not meet the concurrency threshold of LOS D. It should be noted that the intersection of South 277th Street and West Valley Highway is included in the corridor analysis even though it is not tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 30 Final EIS Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation located in Auburn. This intersection affects overall corridor operations because of its proximity to the SR 167 interchange. Levels of service for the South 277th Street corridor were calculated for conditions in the year 2020 (Table 5). The cumulative reduction in delay that would be needed for the South 277th Street corridor to attain LOS D conditions is also presented. A cumulative delay reduction of about 41 seconds would be required for Alternative 1 to meet the LOS D threshold, whereas, a cumulative delay reduction of about 26 seconds would be required for Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would meet the LOS D threshold without any delay reduction measures. Table 5. PM peak-hour level of service for the South 277th Street corridor under year 2020 conditions with project. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Retail and Office Retail Retail and Residential South 277th Street Corridor Intersections LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a South 277th StreetlAuburn Way North F 84.6 F 76.9 F 88.6 South 277th Street/West Valley Highway F 157.6 F 153.7 F 146.6 South 277th StreetlSR 167 southbound ramps C 26.4 C 23.5 C 21.4 South 277th StreetlSR 167 northbound ramps C 27.0 C 25.8 C 21.1 South 277th StreetlFrontage Road C 20.8 C 28.4 C 33.4 South 277th Street/D Street NWl78th Avenue South F 81.2 F 85.2 E 75.2 South 277th Street/B Street NW A 9.7 B 9.8 B 10 South 277th StreetlI Street NE E 73.4 E 62.7 D 38.5 Corridor Average E 60.1 E 58.3 D 54.4 Cumulative Reduction Needed to Attain LOS D 40.7 26.0 0 Mitigation This section describes mitigation measures that should be implemented to accommodate maximum build-out of the proposed project under the Preferred Alternative and supersedes the mitigation described in the draft EIS. These measures include onsite roadways and offsite improvements, in addition to compliance with the City of Auburn traffic impact fee ordinance (ACC 19.04). Transportation Improvements in Immediate Site Vicinity The following roadway improvements should be implemented onsite and on roadways immediately adjacent to the site: ■ ~Uiden South 277th Street adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area to include two additional lanes, curbs, drainage systems, planting strip, and trail, in accordance with requirements of the City of Auburn Public Works Department. n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 31 Special Area Plan Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation ■ Construct a dual left-turn lane on the westbound approach of South 277th Street to the intersection with I Street NE. Construct auxiliary right-turn lanes (deceleration and acceleration) on South 277th Street at I Street NE. At some time in the future, these auxiliary turn lanes may be removed to provide a third eastbound through/right lane. Signalize the intersection of South 277th Street and I Street NE. This signal should be operational when I Street NE is open to traffic. Construct I Street NE from South 277th Street to 45th Street NE as shown in Figure 3. This roadway should be designed to a minor arterial standard and include eve lanes (two lanes in each direction plus a center left-turn lane). Auxiliary right-turn lanes may also be necessary at major intersections and driveways. ■ Construct 49th Street NE between Auburn VUay North and the eastern property line of the Auburn Gateway proj ect area. This street should be designed as a minor arterial with three lanes (one lane in each direction plus a center left-turn lane). Signalize the intersection of Auburn VUay North/49th Street NE when 49th Street NE is complete. This signal should be operational when 49th Street NE is open to traffic east of Auburn way. Signalize the IStreet NE/49th Street NE intersection when signal warrants are met. Signalize the intersection of Auburn ~Uay North and 45th Street NE when signal warrants are met (signal warrants would be met by 2020). ■ Improve the eastern half of D Street NE adj acent to the Auburn Gateway project area in accordance with requirements of the City of Auburn Public ~Uorks Department. This roadway should be widened to accommodate three lanes (one lane in each direction plus a center left-turn lane). Sidewalks should be added to the east side of the street along the frontage of the Auburn Gateway project area. ■ Prior to subdivision or development approvals, provide a master plan for pedestrian/nonmotorized circulation for City review and approval. This plan should provide an efficient and safe pedestrian circulation system that includes appropriate crossing of I Street NE, D Street NE, and 49th Street NE at places where pedestrian/nonmotorized crossings are likely to occur and where crossings can be safely accommodated with necessary improvements to minimize travel distance. ■ With each development plan submitted for review, demonstrate that the proj ect is consistent with the approved master plan for pedestrian/nonmotorized circulation. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 32 Final EIS Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation ■ Prior to subdivision or development approvals, provide a master plan for site access for City review and approval. The plan should indicate driveway locations, lane geometry at the driveways, and traffic control. It should also evaluate signal warrants for the intersections of I Street NE/49th Street NE, I Street NE/45th Street NE, and Auburn Way North/45th Street NE. The plan should show how these driveways relate to internal circulation and nonproject driveways on the opposite side of the street. ■ With each development plan submitted for review, demonstrate that the proj ect is consistent with the approved master plan for site access. ■ At least every 2 years, perform signal warrant analysis for the intersections of I Street NE/49th Street NE, IStreet NE/45th Street NE, and Auburn Way Northl45th Street NE, so long as the intersections are unsignalized. (Signal warrants would be met by 2020 for all these intersections.) Install signals when warranted. Offsite Transportation Improvements Development of the Auburn Gateway project area could degrade traffic operations at several intersections in the study area. For the locations that would operate at LOS E or F in the year 2020 with or without development associated with the proposed project, mitigation could be provided by the proj ect proponent contributing a proportional share to the intersection improvement. For locations that the project causes to degrade to LOS E or F, mitigation could be provided by the proj ect proponent constructing the improvement or providing a proportional share in relation to the contribution to vehicle trips. As an alternative mitigation measure in those circumstances where LOS is exceeded, the City could elect to change its LOS standard. Table 6. Recommended mitigation measures for offsite intersections. Location Recommended Mitigation Measure Auburn Way NorthlSouth 277th Street Add westbound right-turn lane. (City of Auburn) Auburn Way Northl37t1' Street NE Add southbound right-turn lane or eastbound right-turn lane. (City of Auburn) Harvey Road NE/Eighth Street NE Widen southeast-bound Harvey Road NE to two lanes. (City of Auburn) Central AvenuelSouth 259th Street Add northbound right-turn lane. (City of Kent) South 277111 Street/55th Street NE Change lane configuration on westbound South 277th Street to (City ofKent/King County) provide a dual left-turn lane and one through lane. Widen 55th Street NE to accommodate dual left turns. South 272ii4 Street/Military Road Change from split signal phasing on north-south approaches to (City ofKent/King County) conventional signal phasing. SE 304111 Street/112111 Avenue SE Signalize and widen intersection to provide left-turn lanes. (King C ounty) tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 33 Special Area Plan Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation No mitigation has been identified for three intersections that would operate at LOS F in the year 2020 with or without the development associated with the proposed project: South 277tH Street/West Valley Highway, Central Avenue/Willis Street, and 116th Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road. Discussions with City of Kent staff determined that no feasible mitigation exists for these intersections. Signal warrant thresholds are established by the 1~lanual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Although signals are identified as required for this project, at least one of the MUTCD warrants must be met before a traffic signal is installed at an intersection, pursuant to City of Auburn policy. T~anspo~tation Concur~ency As previously mentioned, a reduction in cumulative delay of approximately 41 seconds or more is needed to meet LOS D under Alternative 1, the worst case; and a reduction of approximately 26 seconds of cumulative delay is required for Alternative 2, to meet the City of Auburn's transportation concurrency policy threshold for the South 277th Street corridor. If development equivalent in traffic generation to Alternative 1 or 2 is not completed before the City of Auburn transportation concurrency policy threshold for the South 277th Street corridor is exceeded (estimated to be about the year 2014 for Alternative 1 and 2017 for Alternative 2), additional improvements in the South 277th Street corridor would be necessary. The following improvement, consistent with the City's current plans for widening South 277th Street, should be implemented first: ■ Widen South 277th Street from Auburn Way to I Street NE to create three eastbound through lanes. With this change, the eastbound right-turn-only lane at the South 277th StreetlAuburn Way intersection would be converted to athrough-right lane. In addition, three eastbound through lanes would be provided at the South 277th Street/I Street NE intersection. This improvement would satisfy the concurrency requirement for Alternative 2 through 2020 and would provide additional time before another improvement would be needed to accommodate Alternative 1. If this improvement is completed but Alternative 1 is still not completed by the year 2019, one of the three measures listed below should be imp emente ❑ Widen southbound West Valley Highway to change the existing right-turn lane to a through-right lane. The delay reduction associated with this improvement is about 20 seconds. or tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 34 Final EIS Part 2, Errata and Additional Analysis-Preferred Alternative-Impacts and Mitigation ❑ Add an eastbound right-turn lane at the South 277th Street/D Street NW/78th Avenue S intersection. The delay reduction associated with this improvement is about 29 seconds. or ❑ Reduce single-occupant-vehicle (SOV) trips for Alternative 1 by 20 percent. Transportation demand management strategies could include increased reverse-commute bus service, custom bus service, vanpool, van-share (where a commuter van is located at a maj or transit hub such as the Auburn or Kent commuter rail station), and carpool options. Other improvement options may also be available to achieve the desired level of service in the corridor. A smaller project, such as that described for Alternative 3, would also meet the concurrency requirements without any mitigation. To meet concurrency, the improvements would need to be in place before the completion of any phase of the Auburn Gateway proj ect that would contribute to a cumulative total exceeding the concurrency standard. Table 7 lists the allowable cumulative PM peak-hour primary trips for the years 2014 through 2020. Any amount of development completed before 2014 with traffic generation less than or equal to that of Alternative 1 would comply with concurrency requirements for transportation. Table Allowable cumulative project trip generation for years 2014 to 2020 without mitigation for concurrency in the South 277th Street corridor. Year Allowable PM Peak-Hour Primary Trips 2014 2,193 2015 1,433 2016 1,189 2017 944 2018 0 2019 0 2020 0 The improvements could be constructed by the City of Auburn or another agency (e.g., King County, which currently has jurisdiction over the intersection at South 277th Street and West Valley Highway). n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 35 Special Area Plan PART 3 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Comment Letters and Res onses p Letter #1-Sarah Blake, Washington Department of Ecology 1-1-Comment acknowledged. Wetland impacts specifically related to the development of the ~ ~ ~U~~~r~~~ ~ getter 1 roadways east of the preferred ~ r Y alignment of I Street NE and W ~f1 15aq " south of the planning area are s~~~~ a~ ~,~~~,~~~Q,~ discussed in further detail in this ~~~A~-~-MINT o~ ~CO~o~~ Emil EIS. The preferred access ~vorrF~~~esr ~~~~onat office . 3~9o r6otl, A~-~nu~ s~ p 6~afev~e, Washinbfon 9808.5452 ®(~2a) 649.70p0 option was chosen to minimize eb~ary 20, 2oQ4 filling and fragmentation Of Paul Krauss, Director wetland areas. City of Auburn Department of Punning and Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn WA 980Q1-4998 Dear Mr. Krauss: RE: SEPA comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Northeast AuburnlRobertson Special Areas Plan 'The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Northeast AubumlRobertson Special Areas Plan and has the following comments; 1-1 Ecology is pleased that impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources on the subject property will be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent possible. If impacts to these resources are unavoidable, the DE1S states that mitigation would occur in accordance with th.e Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). While fallowing the recommendations ofthe SAMP maybe appropriate for this proj eet, please note that, ultimately, lost wetland area and functions would need to be replaced should .Ecology need to approve of this project through the 4Q1 Water Quality Certiftcatian or the Nationwide Permit process. Ecology's guidance on wetland mitigation can be found on-line in our document entitled, How Ecology Regulates Wctlands (Publication # 97-112 ht :~lww~v.ec .wa. ovlbiblio197112.htm1) or as updated thereafter. 'Thant: you for the opportunity to comment an the DEIS for this project, Ecology looks forward . to working with you on this planned project. Please contact me at 425.649-7124 ifyou have any questions about the content of this letter or related wetland concerns, Sincerely, ~.J ~ ~ 4 Sarah Blake ~ ~ Wetlands Specialist, PWS `~'^~n Shorelands and .Environmental Assistance Program. _ r, f ;.'v~. SB;SA cc; SEPA Pile ~ 4 tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 37 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Letter #2 -Meredith Redmon, King County Wastewater Treatment Division 2-1-The approval required for sewer extension plans and Letter 2 modifications has been added to ~ the list of required approvals on the fact sheet in this fmal EIS. Caunfy Thank you for the contact Wastewater Treatment Divlsian information. i:nvironrnentaf Planning and Community Relations a ©epartment of 2-Z-The mformation regardmg Natural Resources and Parks b KSC-NR-0505 the location and depth of the zol ~o~t~, ~a~kson S~r~et Seattle, WR 98104-3855 main sewer and stub has been provided to RPG for use in designing the sewer system for ~ebr~tary 23, ~aD4 the Auburn Gateway project PauE Krauss, Arch area. Direccor, Gepai~tinent or Planning a;rd Carnmunity Development. City of Auburn 2S West Main Street Aubtua, WA 9$QD1-4998 RE: graft ~IS_Northeast Auburn I Robertson Properties„Special Area Plan, Auburn. Washington J SBPD2-DDDB . The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Draft CIS far the l~artheas# Auburn) ltobertsan. Properties Special Area Plan dated February 2004. King County is recluesttng that the City at' Auburn do the following: 2_~ Submit sewer extension plans and modifications to King County for review and approval. Drawings should be sent to Eric Davison in the Design, Construction and Asset Management Program, CivillArchitecturalS~ction. Eric can be contacted at (2Q6) 684- 1707. 1Jric Davison, DCAM, CivilfArchitecturalScction r= Ktng County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South 3ackson Street, KSC-i~t-OSDB Seattle, WA 9810-3$55 2-2 Inclutie the fallowing information in the Utilities and Public Service Chapter of the Final IJiS. . Page 208 of the Draft 1✓IS is'attached to illustrate where the edit could be made, "...54-inch King County sewer main lies at a depth of approxirrtately 15' below the surface of South 277`h Street;" and " 54-inch pipe invert at MH R98-14 DST Nl~) is 33,7$. There is a 12" stub south Ito serve proposed develapznent) that has an invert of 35,DD. (Both use NGVD 29 adjusted f947) ~,~~~z~ tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 39 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS (Letter 2~ Thank you For the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal, l:Fyou have questions, I can be reached at (206} 253-5278, sincerely, - Meredith Redmon Environmental'Pianner Enclosures ec: lric Davison, DCAM, CiviilArehiteeiuzal Section Pam Elardo, supervisor, Right-of Way Unit, Planning and System Development tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 40 Final EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS (Letter 2y Utilities and PubliCServiees ~c @ Tai N~: 33,~~ (M~a'pa~v~ _ (2~ SZUULs7 fC= 35.40 The highest-capacity sanitary sewer main that borders the Auburn Gateway project area is the 54-inch main under South 277`h Street (DBM 200D). This line currently drains to a 72-inch line at South 277`h Street and State Route (SR)167. Additional 14-inch sewer mains extend north along D Street lV~ and east along 49`h Street NE to the intersection of D Street N) and 49`h Street NE. The City's D Street sanitary sewer pump station, located near the intersection of D Street NE and Auburn Way Nnrth, is anticipated to be removed with nearby redevelopment... Tkte removal of this-pump station will requite that wastewater generated in the vicinity of the planning area drain via gravity flow to the King County sewer main along South 277`h Street, north of the Auburn Gatewayproject area (Roscoe 2043 personal communicalion). The invert (pipe bottom} of the 54-inch King County sewer main lies at a depth of approximately 15 feet below the surface of South 277th Street; therefore, gravity flow of wastewater into this sewer main from the project area to the south should be achievable. No public sanitary sewer lines currently extend into the Auburn Gateway project area, .Two private sanitary sewer lines extend into the project area: one extends northeast from the corner of D Street NE and 49`h Street Nlr and the other extends east from the intersection of D Street NE and Auburn Way Narth (Auburn 2003e}. Domestic Water Supply The City of Auburn provides potable water Pram the Coal Creek Springs and West Hall Springs watersheds and a system of ten ground water wells, Storage facilities are located on the l~numclaw Plateau, at Lakeland Hills and at Lea Hi1.I (Auburn 20038}. The Gity maintains the water service lines in the streets and to the back silo of each service meter at a private property. Property owners are responsible for maintaining the line from the back side of the meter to buildings and any indoor or landscape irrigation plumbing (Auburn 2003b). A 12-inch water main runs along Auburn Way North adj acent to the planning area and floe Auburn Gateway project area. An $-inch line extends from Auburn Way North along 4~`h Street NF as far as the intersection of ~9`h Street NE and D Street NE. A combination of 8-inch and b- inchpipes extends along D Street NR as far as the intersection of 49`h Street NE and D Street NTH: A b-inch line xuns from this intersection east into the Valley 5 Drive-in property. Finally, an 8-inch line runs a short way east from Auburn Way North, along the southern margin of the project area (Auburn 2fl01, 2D03e}. Solid Waste . The City of Auburn handles solid waste collection and disposal in the planning area. Garbage collection service is mandatary far all multifamily residences and commercial customers, and City.fees are assessed whether or not the service is utilized. The City's contracted hauler, Waste Management, collects, removes, and disposes of solid waste from multifamily residences and commercial establishments in the city at least once each week. The City also contracts to provide recycling services. Unlike garbage service, recycling is not mandatary and is covered by garbage collection fees unless the volume exceeds certain set levels. wp2 pp.Ui47!-OPP iu~h~ini n~rts~<r docmnerxdx N~' AuburRiRabertsan Properties Specie! Area Plan ~D8 Drait ~1S n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 41 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Letter #3 -Gary Kreidt, King County Metro Transit 3-1-Comments about the location Of transit stops are Nflrtheast Aub,unlRobertson Properties Draft ~S Letter 3 Page 1 of 1 noted. The City of Auburn will direct the developer to contact ~e~ oEXOn Metro Transit regarding transit stop locations as plans for street Frnm: Kriedt, Gary (Gary.Kriedt@METROKC.GOV] Sent: .Thursday, March a4, 2Qa4 4:36 PM improvements are developed. Tn: 'Paul Krauss, Director, Auburn Planning & Community 3-2-The potential benefit of a c~: 'Jed Dixon, city Auburn Subject: Norl;heast AuburnlRobertson Properties Draff EIS traffic signal allowing transit 3_~ Hera Paul--King County Metro Transit staff reviewed the northeast AubumlRobertsan Properties Draft E6S and riders to cross Auburn Way have the following comments, off the record (not necessary to Include in F~IS). Transit Route 15a operates along Central Ave, an the west side of the project. There are bus zones located at 45th, 49th and nearside of 277th, North (a.k.a. Central Avenue) which could possibly be upgraded as part at the project. Please have the developer contact Paul Alexander, Transit Planner, at 206.684.E 599 to discuss possible improvements. will be considered in the detailed design of the access to 3-2 Depending on the location of any new access,-anew traffic signal on Central might be necessary, whiah would I help with the sate movement of bus riders tolfrom zones on the west (southbound) side of Central. the project area. Under the Preferred Alternative, two new Thank you for the opportunity to comment an this proposal. traffic signals would be ~~~y~edi` provided On Auburn Way North Senior Environmental Planner when volumes at 45~h Street NE (vtetro Transit 2a1 South Jackson St., MS KSC-7R-a431 and 49th Street NE warrant wattle, wA sa~a4-3s56 signalization. The major site (~os)6$4-~~66 fax: ~2o6~-684-99ao driveway may also be signalized if warrants are met. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 43 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Letter #4 -Stephen Mullen, City of Kent 4-1-As described on page 215 of the draft EIS, impacts were ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ - - ~ ""v`""' r"~~ evaluated for intersections getter 4 affected by 100 or more PM ~ ~ ~ : ; ~ f f ~ i, ~ j ~ a a 1.:~ E1 ~ E i peak-hour trips. This covered ~ ~ ~ ~I; I~A~ ~ 24D~ i; the maj or corridors radiating out ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ March 2404 ~ from the proj ect area. At this ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.E ~ a ~ ~ n M ~ ~ threshold, 42 intersections were ~ ~ ~ lv~.p~ulx.~u$s, ~ ~ evaluated for this ro'ect-30 in ~ua~~ ~°~s Dtre~°~' Department °f planrrrng and Cort~unrty Development p ~ Don wlckstn;,m, P,~,. 2S West Main Street Auburn and 12 outside the city °ars~t°~°f A~b~m,wA 9saol-~~~s~ 11m1tS. mono: 253~a~s-~sa~ Fax: zs3•$~s-s5no 4-2-The City of Kent was 22° s. year x~a~~s~: Kent, WA 98Q~2-'5895 contacted several times during ~,Ve have reviewed the Dzaft environmental Impact Statemcrat f°xN°rthGast re aratl0n Of the draft EIS t0 Auburn/Robertson properties special Area plan., pebruary 2404, and have p p several co~,cerns related to the Transportation secti°n. The traf,~Cc study is determine the requirements for 4-~ seriously flawed. Reco~izing the challenges inherent in establishing a traffic analysis and mitigation. $COPe of study tivl'en fire inspects, or even the likely range of impacts a.re not known, the study should declare fio what level the site-generated trips Despite extensive effort, a are i'ollowed. ~n this case, it is not possible to knave what impacts a.re response from the City Of Kent undisclosed, and whether the impact is sib ificant enough to justify 4-2 mii~gation. There are several intersections identi~ted as being at level of on the scoping of the traffic service (LOS} 1~ within the City of Kent. There is no mitigation or Study COUId not be Obtained In discussian ofpossible mi~~ation measures For those locations. That is not advance. 111 discussions with ~ acceptable sihsation, the author Of the Comment after 4-3 There a~ several intcrsectinns in the Lea Hill area that have been idcn.tified this letter was received, It WaS in othor ~affic studies as being at or near Failing. These intersections are within Aubum's potential anne~:ation area and are not identi~ecl in the determined that all necessary subject DEZS. The intersections include 5E 344` Street1132nd Ave SH (west intersection}, 3~4`" AvefSR-18 westbound, S~ 312th St~rEet/11f~`~' Ave SE; intersections in Kent had been SE 284`'' Stll 12`n Ave S~. ~vlaetber or not King Coutaty has concerns about analyzed. The draft EIS ~ these intersecti°ns under their jurisdiction, the residents in the area have d1SCloSeS the potential lmpactS expressed their frustration. T~be DEIS fails to disclose Ihese deficiencies, nor has any mitigation been proposed for any facilities outside the on these intersections. immediate vicinity ofthe proposed develapment a~i.an. However, no mitigation mCaSUrCS were identified b the 4~ ~ There are st~.te~nen.ts made in tr14 DF"'S that may be supported by a tra~f~c y 4-5 study, but the details tivere net readily available for inspection. One City of Kent for the conclusion that does not seem credible ar reasonable, is that there is a need, intersections within its under any of ~e developme~~t proposals, at~d at the initial stages, for SE 277 Street to provide dual westbound left turn lanes. Despite years of jurisdiction. 4-5 analysis and design, this need has not been idenfiifred before. Tl~e proposal includes a traffic circle which operates at LOS just ttivo block sou,tla of tl~e 4-3-The four intersections 277`h Street C°nidor. It is unfathomable how travel demand c°uld exist cited b the Clt Of Kent aS ~ downstream of such a failed izatcrsection that would require a dual left turn y y lane from the regional corridor of SE 277 Street. failing or nearly failing the level Of service standards are located ~ The developer's proposal is i°r tr''s intersecti°n t° °e a ga.te`Vay f°r the development and be oorrzmercially viable. T.he intersection is aF a principal in unincorporated King County. While no comments on the draft EIS were received from King County, the county generally requests analysis of intersections affected by 10 or more peak-hour, peak- directiontrips. The intersection of SE 304tH Street and 13211dAvenue SE (west junction) would meet this threshold for all action alternatives. The intersection at SE 304th Street and 13211d Avenue SE (east junction) and the intersection at SE 304t1' Street and SR 18 westbound would meet this threshold for Alternatives 1 and 2 but not for Alternative 3. The intersection of SE 31211' Street and 11611' Avenue SE would meet this threshold only for Alternative 1. Since the draft EIS was published, a new level of service analysis has been performed for the intersections listed above for the various alternatives. Traffic volumes for these intersections were derived using information in Transportation Impact Analysis: City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Site (Kent 2004). Traffic volumes forecasted for the year 2008 were used as the basis; these volumes included a 1 percent background growth rate plus traffic associated with 30 pipeline projects plus the traffic from the Impoundment Reservoir site. The worst-case condition for the Impoundment Reservoir site (Alternative 2) was used. To estimate the traffic volume for the year 2020,12 n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 45 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS more years of background growth at 1 percent per year was added to these volumes. The level of service results are summarized in Table 8. Table 8. PM peak-hour levels of service for additional intersections on Lea Hill. 2020 No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Condition (Retail and Office) (Retail) (Retail and Residential) LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Signalized Intersection SE 304t1' Street/132nd Avenue SE E 67.1 a E 72.1 a E 70.6 a E 68.2 a (east junction) Unsignalized Intersections SE 304t1i Street/132nd Avenue SE F >300 h F >300 h F >300 h F >300 h (west junction) SE 304th StreetlSR 18 westbound F 92.1 b F 96.4 h F 98.7 h F 92.2 h ramps SE 284th street/112th Avenue SE ~ C 24.2 b D 33.2 h D 31.6 h D 27.4 h SE 312th Street/116th Avenue SE F >300 b F >300 h F >300 b F >300 h Note: This table supplements the results provided in Table 33 on page 245 of the draft EIS. LOS =level of service ~ Average seconds of delay per vehicle. Unsignahzed mtersectlon. The vehicle delay fisted for the most congested side-street movement except as noted for the intersection of SE 284th Street and 112th Avenue SE. LOS and vehicle delay listed for westbound movements since eastbound movement is very minor. The level of service results show that the unsignalized intersections on Lea Hill would operate at unacceptable levels of service in the year 2020 without implementation of the Northeast AuburnlRobertson Properties Special Area Plan. (The transportation impact analysis for the City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir site predicted that the three unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS F in the year 2008.) The transportation impact analysis for the City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir site recommended mitigation measures for the intersection of SE 304th Street and 132~'~ Avenue SE, which would widen the eastbound approach to provide separate left- and right-turn lanes. That measure would dramatically improve operations for motorists turning right from eastbound SE 304th Street to southbound 132~~d Avenue SE (LOS D at 27.5 seconds of delay with the Auburn Gateway project). However, the left-turn movement would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS F) and delay would continue to be more than 300 seconds per vehicle. The LOS F condition would exist with or without the Auburn Gateway project. The transportation impact analysis for the City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir site also recommended mitigation for the intersection of SE 284th Street and 112thAvenue SE, which would add a southbound left-turn lane on 112th Avenue SE and provide a separate westbound right-turn lane on SE 284th Street. That project would add a substantial volume of traffic to the turning movements served by this mitigation; however, these measures would not be needed to accommodate the Auburn Gateway project. The signalized intersection at SE 304th Street and 132~~d Avenue SE (east junction) is projected to operate at LOS E in the year 2020 with or without the Auburn Gateway project. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed project would be small (Table 9.) The highest increase would occur for Alternative 1(retail and office) at the intersection of SE 284th Street and 112th Avenue SE, where increases would range from 4 to 1 o percent depending on the action alternative. The next highest increase would occur at the intersection of SE 304th Street and 132~~d Avenue SE (west junction), at which Alternative 1 would increase volumes by less than 3 percent. Other intersections would experience increases of less than 2 percent for all alternatives. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 46 Final EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Table 9. Percentage of traffic entering intersections on Lea Hill as a result of the Auburn Gateway project. 2020 No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Condition (Retail and Office) (Retail) (Retail and Residential) Background Project Percent Project Percent Project Percent Intersection Traffic a Traffic h Increase Traffic h Increase Traffic h Increase SE 304th Streetl132~'d Avenue SE 2,650 38 L40 25 0.90 8 0.30 (east junction) SE 304th Street/132~'a Avenue SE 1,760 49 2.70 33 1.80 10 0.60 (west junction) SE 304th Street/SR 18 westbound 2,270 31 1.30 21 0.90 6 0.30 ramps SE 284 Street/112th Avenue SE 1,400 162 10.40 119 7.80 59 4.00 SE 312thStreetlll6thAvenue SE 2,275 12 0.50 6 0.30 4 0.20 e Total traffic entering the intersection during the PM peak hour. Project-related traffic entering the intersection during the PM peals hour. 4-4-As noted in the draft EIS, detailed data from a level of service analysis and other background traffic data are available at the City of Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development. 4-5-The identification in the draft EIS of the need for dual westbound left- turn lanes on South 277ti' Street is a result of new travel demand forecasting models pre~ared by the City of Auburn that predict that a large traffic volume would turn left from westbound South 277t~ Street to southbound I Street NE. Even if this volume were to be half of these predictions, a dual left-turn lane would still likely be required because this volume is opposed by the peak-direction flows on South 277ti~ Street, which would be eastbound toward Lea Hill. According to City of Auburn staff, the potential for a heavy westbound left-turn movement is reasonable. It reflects travel between the residential areas to the east and retail opportunities >n Auburn. It may also reflect some commuters who would use the Benson Highway for southbound travel in the afternoon. Finally, it is reasonable that motorists would turn left at I Street NE rather than continuing west to turn left at Auburn Way North, which would be a more congested location. It is for these reasons that the dual left-turn lane is recommended for conditions without or with the Auburn Gateway project. 4-6-A roundabout on I Street NE has been dropped from consideration. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 47 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 4-7-Comment acknowledged. As noted in the draft EIS, the ~ " ~ ~~'"`""'~~U`"" ~A~ City of Auburn Comprehensive ~ ~ ~~~tter 4~ Plan has foreseen the need for the development of I Street NE . 4.7 arterial, with very t,€ghtty managed access to preserve tlac corridors capacity, as an alternative north-south and a minor arterial that serves tyre enure west side of tho city of Auburn as a relief route to the overburdened Aubum Way North, of~cn referred to as route paralleling Auburn Way Auto Row, a lcn.gthy conceia~ation of car dealersb.ips, The capacity pfthis North. arterial route has laee~~ compromised'by the lack of access management dine to tlae econ©mic engine of automobile sales. The possible .relief route is ~ 4-8-The intersection of street Auburn Way North and South 4_g The DE1S fails to Hate that the intersection of Atirbum Way Nortl~/Sl: 2~~th Street 1S Currently Street is operating at LOS today. 'the prevailing opinion is that tllc r m L F Thl bottleneclr section of S~ 277 Street 1~etveen Auburn Way North and the ope at gat OS S Gwen River constrains tl~e depa~ing traffic so severely that tl~c itatersection computed level of service fails. includes the current constrained 4-9 The vehicle access options and the development altcrnat~ves are Hat condition On the east side Of the examined in suf~cie~at detail to allo~v one to determine deficiencies at intersection because this section intersections beyond the city limits off' Auburn. 'fhe DEIS fads ~ disclose those impacts, nor does it identify potential mitigation aneasures for the few _ Of roadway has not yet been locations of unsatisfactory LOS that it dons idcr~tify. Tl~e D~1S does not Wldened t01tS full potentlal. If take halo consideration doe LOS stas~dasds orland use of its rreighbannp jurisdiction to the aiar`da. The D~xS does not incitzde ltkely and foreseeable the weStboUnd approach (east impacts from development of undeveloped land lying immediately to the. leg) were widened as identified cast of the T Screct corridor, though these parcels will also gcr~erate travel m the Clty' S Transportation derria~~d. The details that lead. to these conclusio~~s w~il1 be forwarded under separate covEr. Improvement Program (Auburn 2002b) the existing level of ~ ~ service would be LOS D. Stephen, G. Mullen, p.l~. 4-9-Between October and Transportation l;nti veering N~a~~$er December 2002, the Auburn traffic model (TModel sin~~r~ly, Corporation 2003) was updated with the most current land uses available from the City of st~phe~, c. Muli~n, Kent' S trafflC model. The data Transportation ~ngincering Nlanagcr were further refined by City of Auburn staff. The forecasts were then updated in January and February 2003 for use in the draft EIS for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan . The City of Kent model has subsequently been further updated; however, the modeling for the draft EIS was conducted with the most recent data available at the time. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 48 Final EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Letter #5 -Kathleen Fendt, Port of Seattle 5-1-The Port of Seattle's 67- acrewetland mitigation site is not located within the defined ~ ~ getter 5 study area, since the study area a~ ~ea~~~e was drawn to represent those properties closest to and most March 3, zoo4 likely to be affected by the proposed action. The northern portion of the Port's 34-acre l~a>~l xrauss, Director, City of Auburn construction access property is Department of Planning and Community Development located within the planning ~s west Main street area, while the southern portion Auburn' wA~~aal-~9~s is not. The dividing line follows the extension of the Drab Environmental Impact Statement Northeast AuburnlRobertson Properties Special Area Plan existing undeveloped rights-of way of 45111 Street NE and I DearMr. gauss, Street NE. The impacts The Port of Seattle appreciates the opporn~nity to review and provide comments on the resulting from the proposed referenced document. This letter provides comments for your consideration in preparing the Pinal EIS. As you know, the Port of Seattle owns two properties in the immediate action on the northern portion vicinity of the Robertson Property Group (ItPG) project. The Port's 34-acre parcel, of the parcel are related to the acquired from BPO, is located immediately east of the RPG site and has been included th within the Auburn Gateway project area boundary, while the Port's 67-acre wetland extension of 49 Street NE, and mitigation site property is located just outside the project area boundary to the east, the potential vacation ofright- of way associated with shifting General Comments I Street NE to the west and vacating the existing 5-1 1 ~ Sn terms of impacts to surrounding land uses, the Draft EIS needs to address ' specific impacts to all of the Part's property, whether within the planning area that undeveloped I Street NE right- has been identified or not. The Port's wetland mitigation site is not within the of way. The impacts on the designated planning area; but should be part of the study area in order to determine southern portion of the Port's and evaluate probable significant adverse impacts to that site, which the Port is constructing in compliance with federal and state regulations and permits. 34-acre access parcel are related to the potential vacation of 5-2 The Port's 34-acre parcel is a mix ofwetland and upland areas that limits the location of potential development sites to three areas (north, central, and south) on right-of way associated with the property. Thus, it is critical for the Port to understand the impacts that the RPG shifting I Street NE to the west project will have on the developable fund available on this property. associated under the Preferred Alternative. Each of these Specific Comments impacts is discussed further in 5-3 1. The graft EIS should adequately address the land use implications of extending. response t0 specific comments I I Street and east-west road alternatives through the T'ort's 34-acre parcel. While the below. None of the alternatives s~att~e-raeorE,a 1S expected t0 reSUlt 111 InternationaE Airport P.O. Box &8737 significant impacts on the Port's ss~~'~. ~a98'~s~SA. r~'LEX 703433 Wetland mltlgatl0n Slte. Fax (zosl a3~-ssre 5-2-The discussion of the preferred access option in this final EIS provides additional information on the potential reconfiguration ofstreets and rights-of way on the Port's 34-acre parcel, and the associated impacts of that reconfiguration. The extension of 49111 Street NE through the Port's access property would be subject to future SEPA analysis and permit approvals, when the exact extent of impacts can be determined. Please refer to the description of the Preferred Alternative in the Summary section of this final EIS. 5-3-Under the preferred access option in this final EIS, 49t1i Street NE would be extended from Auburn Way North to the eastern edge of the Auburn Gateway project area, and from there a proposed alignment of this street would provide a single crossing over the Port of Seattle's 34-acre construction access property and reach the eastern side of the Port property. It is anticipated that the development of the Port property and the Bristol property (the property east of the Port's 34-acre property and adjacent to South 277111 Street, which contains the proposed River Sands project) would include construction of the east-west segment across the Port property. The extension of 49th Street NE would be designated as a collector arterial with three lanes (one lane in each direction plus a center left-turn lane). Implementation of the preferred access option would bring additional roadways and utilities closer to the Port's 34-acre property and thus may make the property more suitable for development. The area where 49th Street n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 49 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS NE would cross the Port construction access property is located within the 100-year floodplain and would be filled. Within the Port property, the roadway would cross both wetland and upland areas. Approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands on the Port construction access property would be filled in order to develop 49t1i Street NE and I Street NE in the preferred alignment. This compares with approximately 0.62 acres of wetlands that would need to be filled to construct a roadway in the existing alignment of I Street NE. Realignment of these streets would make possible vacation of 3.69 acres ofright-of way and would require dedication of 1.92 acres of new right-of way, yielding a net area of 1.77 acres less right-of way than currently exists through the Port property. The exact amount of additional right-of way needed for South 277111 Street has not been determined but could be on the order of 0.5 acres. Most of the vacated right-of way would be outside the floodplain, while most of the new right-of way would be within the floodplain. Not all of the vacated right-of way would be available for development because of the presence of wetlands.. n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 50 Final EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 5-4-Widening of South 277th Street by two additional getter 5~ lanes on the south side, and the urban trail, have been pi art of the plans for South 277t' 5-3 document notes several variations to the I Street co~guration and states that the Conti. existing ROW will likely be vacated, it does not address the impact to the fort's Street approved by the Cities property in terms of any easement orright-of'-way needed or impacts to potential o f Kent and Auburn for far site development, The Port requests that the City commit to the number afeast- westcrossings it anticipates will be necessary and that the City designate a several years. The widening preferred alternative in the P'inal EIS including a definitive location for the east- proj eCt was ldentlfled 111 the west crossing chosen. Final EIS for the 272nd1277th 5~ 2. Widening of S. 277 St between West Valley Highway and SR l67 (page 20), Street Corridor, produced by along with assumed relocation ofthe existing ditch, would also impact the northern the City of Kent in June 1992. portion of the Port's 34Tacre parcel, That impact should be addressed from the land use~erspective. The document mentions a proposed urban trail extension along S. Preliminary designs for South 277 which may have further impact to Port property. The Part requests that the 277th Street between the liinal EIS include a more detailed analysis of the amount ofPort-owned property that will be required for these improvements and any stormwater or flood channel Green River and Auburn Way connections contemplated to allow the RPG property to tie into the flood channel North are being prepared by which will extend from s. 277 Street to the Port's wetland mitigation site. the City of Auburn. At a 5-5 3, p'igures 4 and The alternative preferred. by the Part is the one that will develop minimum, two additional adequate road infrastructure to access the Port's 3~-acre parcel property. The travel lanes, a 12-f00t evaluation needs to consider the type ofroad system or design that would be required to access the site, assuming various future development assumptions or pedestrlan/bikepoth, and a S- using the most conservative concept. foot planting strip would be 5-s ~ The document addresses area traffic flow and tl►e signalization of a number of required on the south side of intersections. Impacts to Port property in terms of how these intersections might South 277tH Street. A affect future land uses should be addressed. The document should address whether any future development potential would be affected by the proposed minimum of 43 feet in width intersectianslsignalizatian concepts. The Port especially requests that the City would be required for these 5-7 analyze whether one or more east west connections will be necessary to connect the Bristol project to the relocated "I" street or other signalized access to S. 277` ar improvements. In some areas Auburn Way, given that the Draft EIS has concluded that direct signalized access the minimum requirement from either the Part's or the Bristol properties is probably not feasible due to the could 1llCrease by up t0 12 proximity of the praperties to the bridge on S. 277. feet to accommodate left-turn ~ 5_g S. Although the Bristol property is not included in the study area, development plans lanes. In the Auburn for the Bristol property should be included in the Pinal BIS along with a cumulative Gateway proj eet area there is impact analysis of the anticipated impacts should this project also develop in the ~ immediate future. approximately 2 8 feet between the existing roadway 5-9 b. Page 53, paragraph 2. There actually may be a significant difference between alignment alternatives of I street in terms of land use, specifically with regard to and the south margin of the future access to Port property. Please see Camrnents I through 4 above. right-of way, so some additional right-of way would be required. The existing right-of way width along South 277tH Street varies in other areas. In addition, stormwater drainage and floodwater conveyance needs to be accommodated, either in a ditch or by other means. If stormwater is conveyed in a ditch and this area is to be dedicated public right-of way, additional dedication ofright- of way would be required; if in a pipe, the pipe could be located below the trail. Detailed designs would be required when development of adjacent properties is proposed. The analysis for this special area plan does indicate that an additional lane would be required for left turns, and this lane would also be constructed on the south side of the street. While these features would require additional right-of way and eliminate potentially developable area, without them the entire north end of the Port's construction access property would be inaccessible, would remain in the floodplain, and would therefore be undevelopable. 5-5-Because the Port has not developed or provided any specific site plans for its 34-acre construction access property, the assumption used in the EIS is that the nonwetland portions of the Port's property would eventually be developed with multifamily housing consistent with the City's zoning designation. The preferred access option provides for the future extension of a collector street east-west through the Port's 34-acre property linking to north- south arterial streets. The Preferred Alternative has been selected to minimize impacts on wetland resources on the Port's property while providing adequate access for such future development. See the response to comment 5-2. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 51 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 5-6-The preferred access option anticipates the future extension of a collector street east-west through the Port's 34-acre construction access property linking tonorth-south arterial streets. The intersection of the new I Street NE and 49th Street NE would be signalized, and the east and west legs of this intersection would be designed to have exclusive left-turn lanes. With the worst-case development of the Auburn Gateway project area, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS A. The intersection could accommodate over 500 additional trips in the single proposed westbound lane before operations would decline to a LOS D. If higher levels of development were to occur on the Port's 34-acre construction access property, traffic operations could be improved with the addition of a second westbound lane. Excess capacity would also be available at the intersection of 49th Street NE and Auburn Way North. Thus, the new roadways constructed as part of the project would have adequate capacity to accommodate growth to the east. However, new development on the Port's property or other properties to the east could require additional improvements to principal intersections along Auburn Way North or South 277th Street. 5-7-See the responses to comments 5-3 and 5-6. 5-8-Development plans for the Bristol property (the property containing the River Sands project east of the Port's 34-acre construction access property and adjacent to South 277 Street) were not available until after the publication of the draft EIS. The analysis in the draft EIS assumes that this property would be developed with multifamily housing at densities allowable under the existing zoning. Therefore, cumulative impacts were considered, even though specific site plans were not available. The Bristol property project will require additional SEPA analysis to ensure that the site plan developed for that project includes adequate provision for infrastructure and other mitigation measures. 5-9-See the responses to comments 5-3 through 5-6. Several options for access across the Port's 34-acre property were examined, as described in Part 2 of this final EIS. All the options examined would provide access to improved roads that lead to all nonwetland portions of the Port's property, and all options would require less right-of way than that currently existing on that parcel. tis~p-/ '01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 52 Final EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 5-10-Future employers within the project area that meet ~ ~~etter 5) specified levels of employees and travel during peak hours would be subj ect to state 5-1a page 60, Table 4, Transportation, Proposed Matigatian Is the final bullet under the requirements for commute trip control of the proponent or City of Auburn? What method would the City or the reduction. The City could developer implement t° require end users of retailfoffice footage to implement transportation demand management? If there is no direct method, this would not impose additional requirements seem an appropriate mitigation measure. for transportation demand 5-11 8. Page 74, perhaps this section should reference the anticipated future FEMA map management (TDM) that I amendment, based on development of flood storage on Port property. include specific numerical . 5-12 9. Page 89, under Environmental Impacts, this section of the document should commute trip reduction goals, reference impacts to wetlands resulting from proposed road construction. The which could be required of document should also discuss potential siteslalternatives for mitigation for wetland property OWnerS Who WOUId impacts associated with development of the ruadway(s}. enforce the requirements 5.13 14. Page 92, under Mitigation Measures far Lang-~'erm operational Impacts, Bullet 4, through lease conditions. TDM this page refers to maximizing infiltration to reduce the amount of water residing in warm Stormwater ponds. Please confirm whether infiltration is a realistic option in would be most effective if a this context due to high groundwater levels. The location of Stormwater facilities sufficient amount of office sh°uld be indicated. space was constructed to create 5.14 11. page 229, under Potential Land Uses (`transportation), paragraph 1, since the Port's a large pool Of commuting 3~-acre parcel property has been included in the planning area, please clarify what employees who use the proj ect assumption was used in the trai~c analysis for fixture development of that site. area. The proposed TDM Please let me la~uw if you would like to discuss any of these comments or if we can methods are less effective for provide additional detail. 1 can be reached at (2Q6} 988-5527 or fcndt.k@portseattle.urg. retail uses. The City could sincerely, require TDM measures as part of the mitigation necessary for approval of the project. ~atleen o. Fendt Capital Program Envir°r~mer~tal Coordinator 5-11-The comment is cc: Michael Feldman, P4S acknowledged. The City is ~ Elizabeth Leavitt, Pos aware that a future amendment Ralph Wessels, Pos to the Federal Emer enc robin x~°rd~' P°s g y Tom Green, PCIS Management Agency (FEMA) map is anticipated, with the flood storage to be provided on the Port of Seattle wetland mitigation site and future filling of properties in the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the FEMA maps could be modified with an amendment to the flood elevation that may also be made to reduce the area designated as flood-prone. The precise sequence of events necessary to achieve the FEMA floodplain map amendments are unknown at this time; therefore, the discussion of map amendments was left out of the affected environment discussion. 5-12-The general discussion provided here refers to the potential impacts of all proposed development on wetlands, including roadways. Most of the project area would consist of roads or parking facilities, with about 35 percent covered by buildings and 1 o percent by landscape plantings, detention facilities, and natural areas. Additional discussion of wetland impacts due to road development associated with the Preferred Alternative is included in this final EIS. 5-13-Given the fact that several feet of fill would be placed over most of the project area, infiltration maybe possible in some areas, depending on the composition and compaction of the fill placed and the volume of water directed to those areas. Proposed locations for infiltration systems must meet the City standards for percolation. Stormwater facilities were shown in the conceptual diagrams in the draft EIS for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, along the eastern boundary of the Auburn Gateway project area. The Preferred Alternative diagram (Figure 3) shows these facilities generally in the southeastern portion of the Auburn Gateway project area. The final locations are subject to change, and the design must comply with City of Auburn Stormwater management standards as well as specific tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 53 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS requirements that may come out of the SEPA process. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected as a result of the location of these facilities either where they are shown or elsewhere on the Auburn Gateway project area. 5-14-The assumptions used in the transportation model are not established on a parcel by parcel basis; therefore, they cannot be disaggregated for the Port's 34-acre construction access property. The use was assumed to be multifamily residential and the density assumptions for the general area that includes the Port's property are consistent with the zoning for the area, which allows approximately 20 units per acre. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 54 Final EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Letter #6 -Dennis DeLaHunt, Select Properties 6-1-The preferred access option for the project area would include a traffic signal at getter s Auburn Way North and 49th Street NE (see Figure 3). e~ec~ 6-2-D Street NE would remain ~~a~. ~sraTi= • pv~~OPM~N~ ~ itvv~sTM~~v~rs open to South 277tH Street; ~ ~ however turns would be rope~t~~s ~ A WASHING70+V Caf§'.OflA~EON - O restricted to right-in/right-out ~ r ~1 only. Because a signalized ~ intersection would be available at Auburn Way North/49th 1~. 3eff Dixon ~ ~ , ~ 3.01.2004 Street NE and at I Street NE/ Auburn Planning Department ~ 25 w.-Main South 277tH Street, the A~b~rn, WA. gsoo2 properties are expected to have RE: Comments on DraFt EIS for Northeast AuburnlRobertson Properties adequate access to and from principal arterials. D~a~ Mr: Dean. 6-3-The issues around Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following comments on the above Draft EIS. driveways and access for these Please accept these comments as representizig Mr. Maxl~ Tullis o~ Tullis Investments, nearby properties can be owners of 7.62 acres in the .northwest corner of the Special Area Plan; Mr. Wes reSOlVed OutSlde Of th1S Giesbreeht ofAtlin Investments mc., proposed uevelopers of the subject property; and my frrm Select Properties Inc, Brokers far the subject property. planning process. Implementation of the Preferred co~MIaNTS: Alternatlve WOUId not preClud2 6_~ The road option that is selected should allow for a tru~c signal at the intersection of I Aubtim Way N ~.nd 49~' St. any of the modlficatlons suggested in the comment. "D" should remain open to 277` allowing for right turns in and out and left turn in as I long as there is a center tom lane. 6-4-Preliminary designs for th The existin curb cuts accessin the Wilson ro ert on the comer af277`~ and Auburn South 277 Street between the 6-3 ~ ~ ~ p y Way N. should be moved to the east on 277 and to the sautli on Auburn Way N. Green River and Auburn Way Negotiations are possible far replacement curb cuts on the Tullis Property that would North are being prepared by the access both the Wilson prope~y and the Tunis property. The 277t~ curb cut is partially City Of Auburn. At a minimum, on the Tub's Property. New curb cuts should allow only righti in and right out toms. two additional travel lanes, a g~ -The design for the expansion of 277' Stshnuld be delineated as soon as possible with 12-foot pedestrian/bike path, notice to ef£ected.Iandowners. The expansion of 277' should be accomplished in a rnat~er that does not place dispropartioned cost on the properties that front an 277cn and a 5-foot planting strip would be required on the south side of South 277th Street. A minimum width of 43 feet ~4~z Grayhawk ~.ri. ~ Olympia, WA 98516 • ~20G] 963-1407 • Fax (360 456-2093 • selectprap@aol,cam would be required for these improvements, and in some areas, due to tapering lanes to accommodate the additional left-turn lane and right-turn pockets, the minimum requirement could increase by up to 12 feet. In the Auburn Gateway project area, there is approximately 28 feet between the existing roadway and the south margin of the right-of way; therefore, some additional right-of way would be required. The existing right-of way width along South 277th Street varies in other areas. In addition, stormwater drainage conveyance needs to be accommodated, either in a ditch or by other means. If stormwater is conveyed in a ditch and this area is to be dedicated public right-of way, additional dedication ofright-of way would be required. If stormwater is conveyed in a pipe, the pipe could be located below the trail. Detailed designs would be required when development of adjacent properties is proposed. tis~p-/ .'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 55 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 6-5-The design requirements for the Auburn Gateway project t~ett~~ s~ are not anticipated to apply to areas outside the Auburn Gateway project area. Existing 6~5 The design requiarements that~are placed an the Robertson ~raperties should not ripply to the properties to the west: These properties, unlike the Robertson properties, should have zoning would remain In areas a~ auto orientation rather than a pedestrian orientafaan. These properties are Bost suited OutSlde the AUbUrn Gateway far retail uses with drive thru capability such as fast food o~itlets; gas nation, bank, dnzg project area and would allow stare, and video store. . the USeS mentl0ned m the ~_6 Smaller properties should be assured of a proportionate share of tlaad plain storage from I the Port of Seattle mitigation project, commercial zones. In the future, the city council could s.7 The :20 Ac, m~rgen.# Wetland E ~denti~ed i~ the Araft ElS which is located a~ the extend design requirements and Tullis pro~rty should be filled and mitigated to allow for the development of that property. If possible, the required norm water storage should serve as onsite mitigation zoning to adjacent properties for pis small wetland. after additional environmental reV1eW. ~_g The planning and pe~iit process fox properties inside the. Special Plan Area, which are not part of the Robertson. Properties, should be allowed to proceed on independent schedule, which may precede the Robertson property development. 6-6-Compensatory floodplain storage capacity provided by s-9 Once approved, the information generated for the planning area by the Northeast develo ment of the Port' S AuburralR.obertsonFIS should suffice far rho entire planning area, eliminating the need p for duplicate EIS. wetland mitigation site will be apportioned based on the s-~o In our opinion, the RetaillResidential option far the Rabertsori property is the preferable. f apt~an cans~dered in the drab I:1S. amount of floodplaln present on each property located south of South 277tH Street. However, Sincerely, the Port project may not provide sufficient capacity to mitigate the filling of all floodplain areas in the area south of South 277th Mr. vennis D~I~~xur~~ Select Properties Inc. Street; therefore, some of the floodplain compensation may Mary Tullis Mr. Wes Giesbrecht need to be provided onsite for private development. 6-7-The EIS does not include evaluation of any wetland modifications on properties located outside the Auburn Gateway project area and the roads necessary to serve these areas. Filling of the wetland as described in this comment would be subject to additional environmental review and would be regulated under the same rules described in the draft EIS. 6-8-An applicant may apply for permits on any other property in the planning area at any time. Only if features of the project, such as required improvements to roads, drainage, or flood management, cannot be resolved before the adoption of the special area plan, would permits be withheld until after the special area plan is adopted. Permits maybe sought at any time and are subject to rules and regulations in place affecting the property. 6-9-The EIS does not cover any development outside the Auburn Gateway project area at a project level. Individual projects outside the Auburn Gateway project area must comply with environmental review requirements independently. However, an EIS would not necessarily be needed for each project. It is possible that the environmental review would be limited to an environmental checklist and determination of nonsignificance, or an amendment or supplement to the fmal EIS. 6-10-Comment acknowledged. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 56 Final EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS Letter -David Van Vleet 7-1-The suggested mitigation measure will be considered in eafa4r2~aa 12: a4 ~~~8~~2~~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~M; ~ ~ . ~ p~~~ the adoption of the subarea plan ~ ~ ~ett~r 7 and planned action ordinance for this proj ect. M ~ ~ 7-2-The su ested miti anon ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Z.~o4 pvt gg g ~ l measure will be considered in ~ ~ the adoption of the subarea plan ;,~~r~~~= _ and planned action ordinance for this project. ~ ~ ~ ~v~~.~~~ j ~.~a,~ ~F~~~.~n ~~~~~~a~. 7-3-Comment ac snow e ge . ~,~,U,~;-~ The proponent has already agreed to provide photo documentation of the theater ~ ~ ` ~ complex to the historical society '~•~f~~ ~ in recognition of the role that the theater has played in the ~~'~~:~~sr ~ ~ _ cultural life of the Auburn area ~.tc-'~'~ • ~ ~ t: r~~,~-'~.~ r~' ~~~~'~~~T' in the latter half of the twentieth + ~ ~ century. ~c~ rn.~ ~ (Y~ ~ i ~ ~ ~-s tt~~.~:4~ 1 ~.~~.~~e ~ F:. ~ ~ ~;+~W~u~ t r~ ~~'~.~"`~;~..Va''y1 i i C~.1 1~,~ .V ~..L~ k~f~ /-1'y ~--11`~`R,>~~.~..^~ ~C~AA I~. ~ • ~.:4;. <~.a'~' `~~tt• '~',~::,~~~:.°4 1,-X.~-s ~~.'.,c:.; j~.~ '~i.~?~1.~` F~ C:~? T ~ ~%V i L ~ x-11' ~ i L~~ l C~ ~ 1 ~""~::YV[,`~ ` `~-,X.'. ~'l. 9~ ~ f Ate'' ( l.~ I 7-3 IU~~'u:E`D ~,.`I~~l. ~~,~l.~x~'t~..lJ ff~i~;a ~~~..t~. k~'1~.~71~.~~''"~ ~,,`.'r~ ~'v~~h1~~~.-~~r.~' t {jug,. ~~T~~~~ c""~ ~ ~ I?~.~.rA . `~Q~~ ~ tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 57 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS-Public Hearing Comments Public Meetin Comments g The following comments have been paraphrased from comments on the draft EIS offered at the public meeting held on February 12, 2004. Commenter #1-Mark Tullis H1.1 Will the proposed special area plan discussed in the draft EIS have the same impact on all properties in the planning area? Response: No. The EIS describes impacts of several actions. It is anticipated that the zoning would change only within the Auburn Gateway project area, and similarly the proposed planned action ordinance would apply only in Auburn Gateway project area. The design guidelines and other mitigation measures would apply specifically to the Auburn Gateway project area. The road improvements and floodwater management measures described in the EIS would apply to the entire planning area. H1.2 Will a master grading permit be issued? Response: It is anticipated that a master grading permit will be issued for the Auburn Gateway project area. This would not affect areas outside the Auburn Gateway project area, except as it would relate to road grades. H 1.3 Will this project delay other proj ects in the area? Response: Inmost cases, no. See the response to comment 6-8 in the comment letters. H1.4 What month will the EIS be ready? Response: July 2004. H 1.5 If no traffic light is provided at 49th Street NE and Auburn Way North there will be access problems for properties on 49th Street NE and on D Street NE. Response: See the response to comment 6-1 in the comment letters. Commenter #2 -Dennis DeLaHunt H2.1 Is it realistic to comment on combinations of access options? Response: Yes, it was anticipated that the access options could be combined in different ways to produce the Preferred Alternative described in this final EIS. H2.2 Will D Street NE be open to right-in/right-out on South 277th Street? Response: See the response to comment 6-2 in the comment letters. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 59 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS-Public Hearing Comments H2.3 will left turns be allowed to D Street from South 277th Street? This is important and a left from 277th to D Street NE is also helpful. Response: Left turns would not be allowed to or from D Street NE. See response to comment 6-2. H2.4 will there be any change proposed to curb cuts near Auburn way NorthlSouth 277th Street? The existing curb cut on South 277th Street to the Wilson Property is partially on the Tullis property. Access to South 277th Street and Auburn Way North are needed or else some other form of access. Response: See the response to comment 6-3 in the comment letters. H 2.5 Will development of South 277th Street all be on the south side of the street? what elements will it include? Response: See the response to comment 6-4 in the comment letters. H2.6 when will the decisions be made about the final configuration of street improvements to be required for South 277th Street? Response: See the response to comment 6-4 in the comment letters. Commenter #3 - VVes Giesbrecht H3.1 Excited to see things moving in this area. Response: Comment acknowledged. H3.2 was stormwater conveyance through the area studied? Response: Yes. See the Water Resources and Utilities and Public Services sections of the draft EI S and thi s final EIS . H3.3 All properties need to move the water from the east across the RPG property. Response: The project design would be required to comply with the City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan (Auburn 2002a), which includes a conveyance across the northern edge of the Auburn Gateway project area adj acent to South 277th Street. The Comprehensive Drainage Plan also identifies improvements needed to convey surface waters originating outside the boundaries of the project area to the south, to the north, and along the eastern and western boundaries of the project area. H3.4 will stormwater for the entire area be accommodated? Response: All stormwater conveyances would be required to carry the volumes described in the City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan (Auburn 2002a). The project would be required to design and install facilities to manage stormwater from impervious surfaces within the project area in accordance with City regulations governing tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 60 Final EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS-Public Hearing Comments stormwater treatment and detention. The Auburn Gateway project would not include facilities for stormwater management serving properties outside of the Auburn Gateway project area. H3.5 Will design guidelines apply outside the RPG area (called the Auburn Gateway project area in the draft EIS)`? Response: No, the design guidelines are expected to apply only to the properties within the Auburn Gateway project area. Zoning of properties in the city may be changed either through a request of a property owner or by aCity-initiated action. Therefore, properties outside the RPG properties can be rezoned either as part of this process or through any subsequent process initiated by property owners or the City. H3.6 ~Uill the existing C-3 zoning stay as it is outside of the RPG properties? Response: The existing C-3 zoning is not anticipated to change west of D Street NE or south of the Auburn Gateway project area. The Stein and McKee properties are within the Auburn Gateway project area and are not owned by RPG, but they would be rezoned H3.7 How will floodplain compensation be allocated`? How will the shortfall be accommodated? There should be an equitable distribution of benefit. Response: Compensation for floodplain filling would be provided by the Port of Seattle wetland mitigation site. As noted in the draft EIS, the Port's wetland mitigation project may not provide sufficient compensation for all floodplain to be filled in the area south of South 277th Street. Compensation provided by the Port of Seattle wetland mitigation project would be allocated to floodplain filling projects in the planning area in the following manner: 1. First, full compensation would be allocated for all planned street projects and any other filling necessary for planned public infrastructure, such as stormwater detention facilities associated with area streets. 2. Then the remaining floodplain area to be filled would be estimated on the basis of the best available topographic information at that time. 3. This estimate, (i.e., the remaining requirement for compensatory flood storage capacity) would be compared with the remaining compensatory flood storage capacity available from the Port's project, to establish a ratio for allocation of the compensatory credit to all projects on private property south of South 277th Street. For example, if 33 acre-feet of compensatory credit is needed for all filled floodplain areas on private property, and 30 acre-feet of compensatory credit remains available from the Port's project, the ratio would be 90 percent. 4. As each application for private development is made, the applicant could receive compensatory credit from the Port project at the established ratio. Compensation n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 61 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS-Public Hearing Comments for any additional floodplain filled would remain the responsibility of the individual development. H3.8 Is there any consideration of wetland banking? Have any policies been finalized? For example could smaller wetlands be filled and mitigated for off site or through a wetland bank? Response: Offsite mitigation for wetland impacts could beprovided on aproj ect-by- projectbasis, provided the proposed mitigation meets all other regulatory requirements. No mitigation bank is proposed in the Auburn Gateway project area, and no offsite mitigation approaches have been evaluated in the EIS. Commenter #4 -Ronald Stein H4.1 The I Street roundabout is a safety hazard. Response: A roundabout on I Street NE has been eliminated from consideration. As noted in the draft EIS, the roundabout is not expected to be capable of functioning adequately with full development of any of the alternatives. H4.2 Mr. Stein prefers Access Option A (for alignment of I Street NE); C is okay; B is not acceptable. Response: Comment acknowledged. See Figure 3 of this final EIS for the access layout for the Preferred Alternative. H4.3 All land use alternatives are ok Response: Comment acknowledged. H4.4 Should pursue off site wetland mitigation approach. Response: See the response to comment H3.8. H4.5 Should look at wetland mitigation banking and filling of smaller wetlands. Response: See the response to comment H3.8. H4.6 Can Mr. Stein pursue wetland banking independent of the EIS? How will it affect this project? Response: Yes. Pursuing a separate development proposal would not affect the Auburn Gateway proj ect or the adoption of the special area plan. However, any application would be required to be consistent with the special area plan once it is adopted. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 62 Final EIS Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS-Public Hearing Comments H4.7 ~Uill wetland mitigation need to be in the city or could it be anywhere in the Mill Creek assn? Response: The City of Auburn would consider potential offsite mitigation located outside the city limits as long as it is within the Mill Creek basin. H4.8 Placing the Auburn Gateway stormwater pond on his property is a problem because that puts him pretty much out of business since it consumes the majority of his undeveloped property. (Mr. Stein has been coordinating with the project proponent and also indicated that he would speak to the RPG representatives in attendance about this concern.) Response: Comment acknowledged. The stormwater facility locations shown in the draft EIS are conceptual. Under the Preferred Alternative, RPG anticipates that the stormwater facilities for the Auburn Gateway project area would be provided south of the Stein property and elsewhere in the project area. n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 63 Special Area Plan PART 4 References and Distribution List Part 4, References References Following are the references cited in the final EIS Additional references can be found in the draft EIS Architects BCRA. 2003. Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. November 1 1, 2003. Auburn, City of. 1997. Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Ordinance 5051. December 1997. Auburn, City of. 2001 a. Geographic information system data. Provided to Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington, on January 23, 2003. The data include an orthographic aerial photo of the planning area taken in 2001. Auburn, City of. 2001 b. Comprehensive Water Plan. Department of Public Works. Auburn, City of. 2002a. Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Produced by Tetra Tech/KCM, Seattle, Washington. August 2002. Auburn, City of. 2002b. 2003-2008 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. Adopted September 19, 2002. Auburn, City of. 2002c. Geographic information system data. Provided to Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington, on May 14, 2002, by Ed Knight, City of Auburn. Hazard area maps provided by City of Auburn, Planning Department. Data include city limits; street centerlines; Comprehensive Plan designations; zoning designations; FEMA zones; water, storm, and sewer utility systems; buildings; topography; wetlands; and assessor's parcels. Auburn, City of. 2003. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Originally adopted in August 1986; amended in April 1995 to comply with the Growth Management Act. Revised December 2003. Kent, City of. 2004. Transportation Impact Analysis: City of Kent Impoundment Reservoir Site. Prepared for City of Kent by The Transpo Group, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. January 2004. Parametrix. 2003. Port of Seattle Master Plan Improvements: Wetland Delineation Report for the Construction Access and Staging Site, Auburn Wetland Mitigation Project. Prepared for Port of Seattle by Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. Thomas Bros. Maps. 2000. The Thomas Guide: Pacific Northwest, Washington and Oregon. TModel Corporation. 2003. Travel Demand Forecasting Model. Output from model run April 2003. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 65 Special Area Plan Part 3, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS-Public Hearing Comments U.S. COE, King County, City of Kent, and City of Auburn. 2000. Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), King County, Washington. Prepared for Mill Creek SAMP Interagency Committee. Obtained from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website: <httpa/www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/MILL_SAMP_master8.doc>. University of Washington. 1990. Aerial photographs from the University of Washington map database. Photographs dated 1990; source unknown. Obtained April 4, 2003, from website: <httpa/duff.geology.Washington.edu/datalraster/dogs>. tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 66 Final EIS PART 4 References and Distribution List Part 4, Distribution List Distribution List City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Stephen Mullen, Transportation Engineering Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Manager City of Kent Public Works Pete Lewis, Mayor 220 4th Avenue S City Council Members (8) Kent, WA 98032-5895 Planning Commission Members Matthew Gilbert, Planner Dan Heid, City Attorney City of Kent 220 4th Avenue S Daryl Faber, Parks and Recreation Director Kent WA 98032-5895 Dennis Dowdy, Public Works Director Gwen Derdowski Jim Kelly, Police Chief Kent School District Paul Krauss, Planning and Community 12033 SE 256th Street, Suite A600 Development Director Kent, WA 98030 Russ Vandver, Fire Chief Fred Satterstrom Plannin Director g Shelley Coleman, Finance Director City of Kent • 220 4th Avenue S Joe Welsh, Public Works, Transportation Planner Kent, WA 98032-5895 Duane Husky, Public Works, Assistant City Jeff Gaisford, Section Manager Engineer/Utilities Recycling and Environmental Service Dennis Selle Public Works Cit En ineer/ Section ' y g Kin Count Solid Waste Division Assistant PW Director g y 201 S Jackson Street, Suite 701 Laura Philpot, Public Works, Transportation Seattle, WA 98104 Engineer David Osaki Plannin Communit Rhonda Strauch ' g' y Kin Count Roads Division Development Administrator g y 201 S Jackson Street, Ksc-Tr-0231 Al Hicks, Planning, Economic Development Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Coordinator Greg Borba Local and Regional Agencies King County Department of Development Kurt Horton Senior Planner and Environmental Services, Current • Planning City of Kent 220 4th Avenue S 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW, Suite 100 Kent WA 98032-5895 Renton, WA 98055-1219 n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 67 Special Area Plan Part 4, Distribution List Local and Regional Agencies (continued) Charlie Sundberg . King County Historic Preservation Program Paul Reltenbach, Sensor Policy Analyst Office of Business Relations Economic King County Department of Development ' . Development and Environmental Services 516 3rd Avenue Room 550 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW, Seattle WA 98104-2307 MS Oak-De-0100 ' Renton, WA 98055-1219 Dave Clark, Rivers Section Manager King County Department of Natural Gale Yuen, RS Resources Water and Land Resources SeattlelKing County Department of Public • • ' Division Health 700 5th Avenue Suite 2200 1404 Central Avenue S, Suite 101 ' Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Kent, WA 98032 Andrea Myntti Clark Townsend Kin Count De artment of Natural Green River Communit Colle e g y p y g Resources, Water and Land Resources President s Office Division 12401 SE 320th Street . 201 S Jackson, Suite 600 Auburn, WA 98092-3699 Seattle WA 98104 Kathy McClung Dar 1 Gri sb Mana er Communit Develo ment Services Director y g y' g y p King County Department of Natural City of Federal Way Resources Water and Land Resources POBox9718 ' St Division 3 3 5 3 01 Way S 201 S Jackson Street Suite 600 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 ' Seattle, WA 98104 Gary Kriedt, Senior Environmental Planner Joe Scholz Ma or Metro Transit y City of Algona 201 Jackson Street, MS Ksc-Tr-0431 402 Warde Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Al ona WA 98001 g Mike Newman, Associate Superintendent Isabel Tinoco, Director Auburn School District #408 Environmental De artment, Fisheries Office th p 915 4 Street NE Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Auburn, WA 98002 39015172nd Avenue SE . Auburn, WA 98002 Shirley Marroquln Environmental Planning Supervisor Gerry Pade King County Wastewater Treatment Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Division 110 Union Street, Suite 500 201 S Jackson Street, MS Ksc-Nr-0505 Seattle, WA 981 Ol -3423 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 68 Final EIS Part 4, Distribution List Local and Regional Agencies (continued) John Aden . Washington Department of Health, Division Perry Weinberg, SEPA Responsible Official of Drinkin Water Sound Transit g . P 0 Box 47822 1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Ol m is WA 98504-7822 Seattle WA 98101-3423 y p ' . SEPA Responsible Official Harriet Beale Washin ton De artment of Natural Pu et Sound Water ualit Action Team g p g Q y Resources SEPA Center P 0 Box 40900 ' . P 0 Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-0900 Ol m is WA 98504-7015 Y p Melissa Calvert, Wildlife/Cultural Director Elizabeth Mcna n Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Pro ram g y nd ' g Washington Department of Social and 39015172 Avenue SE Health Services Auburn, WA 98092-9763 P 0 Box 45848 Steve Taylor, Planning Director Olympia, WA 98504-5848 Muckleshoot Tribe, Cultural Program Washin ton State Office of Archaeolo 39015172nd Avenue SE g gy and Historic Preservation Auburn, WA 98092-9763 1063 S Ca ital Wa Suite 106 p y~ Kathleen Fendt P 0 Box 48343 Environmental Com liance Coordinator Olympia, WA 98504-8343 p Port of Seattle Terr Michalson, Facilities Su ervisor y p P 0 Box 68727 Superintendent of Public Instruction Seattle, WA 98168 State of Washin ton g . P 0 Box 47200 Norman Abbot, SEPA Responsible Official Ol m is WA 98504-7200 Pu et Sound Re Tonal Council y p ' g g 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Ike Nwankwo Seattle, WA 98104 Washington State Office of Commerce Development P 0 Box 42525 State Agencies Ol m is WA 98504-2525 y p Nancy Winters Washin ton De artment of Corrections Ramin Pazooki g p Washin ton State De artment of POBox41112 g p Ol m is WA 98504-1112 Transportation, NW Region y p Kin Count Area Develo er Services g y p SEPA/GMA Coordinator P 0 Box 330310 MS 240 Washington Department of Ecology Seattle, WA 98155 P 0 Box 47600 Washin ton De artment of Ecolo Ol m ia, WA 98504-7600 g p gy y p Environmental Review Section P 0 Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 69 Special Area Plan Part 4, Distribution List State Agencies (continued) Elliott Barnett Community, Trade, and Economic Anne Sharar Develo ment Washin ton De artment of Natural p g p Growth Management Services Resources Attn: Review Team P 0 Box 47001 P 0 Box 48350 Olympia, WA 98504-7001 Ol m is WA 98504 y p Lorinda Anderson Washington Interagency Commission, Federal A encies g Outdoor Recreation P 0 Box 40917 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Olympia, WA 98504-0917 Seattle District, Regulatory Division 473 5 E Marginal Way S Bill Wiebe P 0 Box 3755 Washington State Department of Seattle, WA 98124-3755 Transportation P 0 Box 47300 U.S. Soil Conservation Service Olympia, WA 98504-7370 SEPA Responsible Official 935 Powell Rex Derr Renton, WA 98055 Washington Parks and Recreation Commission Krista-Rave Perkins, Wetland Specialist P 0 Box 42653 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ol m ia, WA 98504-2653 1200 6th Avenue yp Seattle, WA 98101 Washington Office of Urban Mobility 401 Second Avenue S, Suite 300 Jeanette Mullin Seattle, WA 98104-2862 Federal Emergency Management Agency 130 228th Street SW Steve Penland Bothell, WA 98177 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Department of Housing and Urban P 0 Box 43155 Development Olympia, WA 98504-0315 Office of Administrative and Management Services, Market Analysis Staff Larry Fisher 909 First Avenue, Suite 200 Washington Department of Fish and Seattle, WA 98104-1000 Wildlife c/o Department of Ecology U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and 3190160th Avenue SE Wildlife Service Bellevue, WA 98008 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 70 Final EIS Part 4, Distribution List Federal Agencies (continued) Marsha King . The Seattle Times National Oceanic & Atmospheric p 0 Box 70 Administration, National Marine Fisheries Seattle WA 98111 Service ' 7600 Sand Point Way NE Southend News Seattle, WA 98115 Seattle Post-Intelli encer g P 0 Box 1909 Non overnmental A encies Seattle, WA 98111 g g Rainier Audubon Society Lisa Lannigan P 0 Box 778 Daily Journal of Commerce Auburn, WA 98071 P 0 Box 11050 Seattle, WA 98111-9051 Friends of the Green River 1 OS 101 lth Avenue NE Steve Meinard Seattle, WA 98125 Tacoma News Tribune P 0 Box 11000 Mike Morrisette Tacoma, WA 98411 Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce 108 S Division, Suite B Auburn, WA 98001 Libraries . Auburn Regional Library SEPA Responsible Official 1102 Auburn Wa S Pu et Sound Ener y g to gy Auburn, WA 98002 3130 S 38 Street, Tacoma Annex Kent Regional Library Tacoma, WA 98409 212 2nd Avenue N . Kent, WA 98032 Nancy Krause, Executive Director Auburn Downtown Association 16 S Division Street Interested Parties Auburn, WA, 98001 Jay Lorenz Terra Associates Media John Yorke Auburn Reporter AYSA POBox130 Kent, WA 98035-0130 Mike Carpinito King County Journal Pat Wolfson P 0 Box 130 Buck & Gordon LLP Kent, WA 98032 Terrence Danysh, Partner Dorsey & Whitney LLP tis~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Final EIS 71 Special Area Plan Part 4, Distribution List Interested Parties (continued) Arthur Hrin Linda Cowan, Superintendent Laurie Hum hre s p y Auburn School District #408 Brian McCabe Patrick Mullaney Foster Pepper & Shefelman John Corrado Dana Mower Colleen Thersen DBM Consulting Engineers Les and Doris Williams Robert Betts Robert Betts Inc Al Yamada ~Ues Giesbrecht, President Angela Black Atlin Investments Inc Granville Horn Anil Butail, P.E., President Terra Associates Inc Anna Nelson John Manavian, AIA Ronald Stein Robertson Properties Group Peter Dituri Dennis Delahunt Select Properties Mark and Wendy Belchoff John Faulkner David Van Vleet Port of Seattle Aviation Business Develo ment Office Janice McKee p Mark Tullis Alison Danz Tullis Investments David D. Kline Princi al p Cath Garland Murray Franklyn y Childrens Home Society Paul W. Pelland Cheryl Henry & Associates ~UPM South Brien Stafford Kate Collins Jim Gordon Brad Hughes n~p-/ -'01-0192-/-OOOfinal feis.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 72 Final EIS APPENDIX A Traffic Distribution Patterns for All Action Alternatives, Using the Preferred Access Option t N 59 191 0 ~ 187 ~ ~ -23 ~ 328 ~ 187 ~ 40 ~ 170 ~ 147 S 277 STREET ~ ~ ~ 87 ~ 79 ~ 59 ~ ~ 520 Z~ ~ ~ w 67 9G ~ w g5 147 w 513 ~G,~ 332 ~ ~ ~ 210 o ~ 24 320 L p 70 ~ 190 268 ~ 0 -3~~ ~ o 1 ~ o 50 49 ST NE o 339 ~ ~ T r o ~i~ 0 142 69 ~ O~ ~o ~o~~Py 37118 ~/1 ti1g F~~~~~ 72 ~j ~~~~~0 l -25 R~125 ~ 29 0 399 248 ~ 96 4~ ~ ~ ~ 0 y ~0 47 5~~~ 0 ~ e~6 0 0 ~ 0~ 0 0 248 ~ 67 0 295 96 i 399 96 1 67 Note: Traffic volumes do not balance along I Street and 49th Street because the site would have access driveways along these streets. NORTHEAST AUBURN PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES SPECIAL AREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 1 PREFERRED ACCESS OPTION t N spy sa 0 ~ 46 ~ -53 267 ~ 214 ~ 137 ~ 46 ~ 54 ~ S 277 STREET 127 ~ 100 ~ -30 ~ r p ~ ~ 229 ~ 130 -30 ~ ~ 114 9G~~ w 113 ~17~ w 263 G,~ 175 ~ ~ 153 o ~ o z5~ t o 71 780 140 ~ 0 X60 49 ST NE 0 .--\R ~6 , 48 ~ ~ t r 0 0 97 26~' 14197 ►V 60150 ~''~~~J~~ O O 165 ~ ~l`'~~~ -6~~ ~ 130 175 ~ 88 123 4~~~ ~0 p6 p y ~r 42 18 ~ I 0 0~ 0940 88~ ~~18 130 123 175 t 1 141 94 Note: Traffic volumes do not balance along I Street and 49th Street because the site would have access driveways along these streets. NORTHEAST AUBURN PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES SPECIAL AREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 2 PREFERRED ACCESS OPTION t N 70 58 0 ~ 42 ~ -25 146 ~ $2 ~ 42 ~ 47 ~ ~ 121 S 277 STREET 90 ~ 9 gg ~ -46 ~ r w ~ ~ 122 ~ 115 ~ I 15 ~ ~ 54 ~ W 107 91 ~ G~G,~ 98 ~ 115 ~ 114 o 143 ~ 70 93 36 L p ~0 ~0 -52 ~ ~ ~ p 62 49 ST NE \~49 18~ ~Tr 0 0 ~i~ 0 28 11 0~ o~~Py 85 x/71 94 32 ~j ~~~~~0 l -22 ~ R~75 6 4 113 72 ~81 2~~~ ~0 y ~0 28 5~~~ 33~ 0 ~ 0~ 0 ~ 0 67 ~Z~ ~ 33 100 81 + 113 t 1 114 67 Note: Traffic volumes do not balance along I Street and 49th Street because the site would have access driveways along these streets. NORTHEAST AUBURN PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES SPECIAL AREA PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 3 PREFERRED ACCESS OPTION APPENDIX B Memorandum Regarding Traffic Signal Warrants .,1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ # TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: July 28, 2004 By: Marni C. Heffron, P.E., P.T.O. Subject: Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan Signal WarrantAnalysis The Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan's transportation analysis recommended traffic signals be installed at up to five intersections. To test the need for these signals, traffic signal warrant analysis was performed for all six locations assuming full build conditions in the year 2020. The intersections include: • S 277th Street/I Street NE • Auburn Way North/49th Street NE • Auburn Way North/45th Street NE • I Street NE/49th Street NE • I Street NE/45th Street NE Traffic Signal Warrant Definitions The Manual on Un~forn~ Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) -Part 4 of the Millennium Edition, (US Department ofTransportation -Federal Highway Administration, 2001) is the standard used to determine whether or not a traffic signal should be installed at a given location. The MUTCD states, "A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this section are met." The eight (8) warrants for traffic signal installation are listed below: • Warrant 1-Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume (minimum volumes over eight hours) • Warrant 2 -Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (minimum volumes over four hours) • Warrant 3 -Peak Hour (minimum volume over one hour period) • Warrant 4 -Pedestrian Volume • Warrant 5 -School Crossing (adequacy of gaps near school crossing location) • Warrant 6 -Coordinated Signal System (platooning for one-way or two-way streets) • Warrant 7 -Crash Experience (number and type of accidents) • Warrant 8 -Roadway Network (for organized traffic flow networks) The intersections where traffic signals are recommended for the Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan do not currently exist. Thus, eight-hour traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, and accident history do not yet exist to measure these warrants. The only data available are future peak hour traffic volumes. Thus only Warrant 3 can be tested. MUTCD warns that this warrant should only be applied in unusual cases when a development discharges a high volume of traffic in a very short time. However, it does provide a good indicator of whether or not the other volume warrants may be met. 6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206 523-4949 Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan Si nal Warrant Anal sis ~ g Y July 28, 2004 Page 2 of 3 The volume thresholds for the Peak Hour Volume Warrant are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Peak HourTraffic Signal Warrant Criteria o~ ~o~~ LAI~~ o~ ~tio~E LACVE Z 4~~ _ o~ o~~ N~ 1 ~ IE ~ 4~~ - 1 ~~i~~~ P *cte: ~ ~ v,~~ ~pp~~e t~ Ic+er th~~~ra~~ v~~ue fog ~ r~~nor-trot ~~prh With tWO cr sir ~~nes rid ~ ~r~~ pp~i ~ t~ I~Wer thrc~~~~ ~~lurne ~cr a r~ir~~r-trt a,~~~rcch With ~n ~n~, Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis All five of the intersections listed previously would meet the peak-hour traffic signal warrant for the year 2020 with-project traffic volumes. As a point of reference, the minimum traffic volumes for both the eight-hour and the four-hour volume warrants were reviewed. Three of the five signals are proposed to be located along Principal Arterials in the City of Auburn: South 277th Street and Auburn Way North. Existing traffic volumes on these streets already exceed the minimum traffic volume required for the major street portion or both of these warrants. It is likely that the eight- hourvolume for these major streets (required to be 600 vehicles total in both directions) is exceeded for more than eight hours each day. Thus, the traffic volume on the intersecting side streets would only need to be 150 vehicles for each of those same eight hours. Given the probability of through traffic using the three minor streets (I Street NE, 49th Street NE and 45th Street NE) and given the size of the proposed development, it is also likely that all would meet the eight hour warrants. Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan Si nal Warrant Anal sis ~ g Y July 28, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Recommendations • Install traffic signal at the South 277th Street/I Street NE intersection when I Street NE opens to traffic. This signal should go in immediately upon completion of the new roadway due to its location at the junction of two arterials. Traffic speeds and volumes at this location will justify a traffic signal upon opening. • Install traffic signal at the Auburn Way NE/NE 49th Street intersection when 49th Street NE is constructed east of Auburn Way. This signal should be operational immediately upon completion of the new roadway due to its location on Auburn Way and the fact that NE 49th Street is desired to be the primary connection between I Street NE and Auburn Way N until such time as the full I Street NE corridor is complete. A traffic signal at this location will attract the through traffic to this route as desired. This traffic signal will also serve as a primary access point for the new development proposed on the RPG site. It should be noted that the need for the traffic signal would not exist if not for the need to build a new east-west connection street to serve the RPG property. • Monitor traffic volumes at the Auburn Way NE/NE 45th Street, I Street NEl49th Street NE, and I Street NEl45th Street NE intersections and install traffic signals when traffic signal warrants are met. All intersections would meet traffic signal warrants in the year 2020 with the project. Prior to full build out of the project, it is recommended that signal warrants be reviewed as part of the Master Plan for Site Access that will be prepared prior to building permits being submitted for the project. Periodic review (at least every two years) of the signal warrants should then be performed until all signals are installed. MCH/mch