HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-A-1 & 2
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
AQenda Subiect Date:
Closed Record Hearing on Hearing Examiner Recommendation 4/21/2006
regarding City Council Remand of Application Nos. REZOS-0001,
PUDOS-0001, PL TOS-0001; REZOS-0002, PUDOS-0002, PL TOS-0002
Department: Planning, Attachments: Please refer to Exhibit Budget Impact:
Building and Community List
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council approve the Rezones, revised Planned Unit Developments, and revised Preliminary Plats,
based upon the Findings of Facts, Conclusions and Conditions as outlined below.
BackQround Summary:
OWNER/APPLICANT: Wayne Jones, Lakeridge Development (Kersey III, Division 1)
Dan and Stormy Hayes, Landholdings, LLC (Division 2)
REQUEST: Application for a rezone from R1 ("Single Family Residential") to PUD
("Planned Unit Development"), PUD approval, and preliminary plat
approval for 1) a 167 lot single family residential subdivision known as
"Kersey III Division 1," and 2) a 201 lot single family residential subdivision
known at "Kersey III Division 2."
SIZE: Division 1: SO.8S acres; Division 2: 38.46 acres; total: 89.31 acres
LOCATION: West side of Kersey Way at S3rd St. SE, extending approx. 660 feet south
to the Auburn city limits (Pierce County line) and approx. 1320 feet west.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential
EXISTING LAND USE Vacant, forested site; BPA powerlines pass through site
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential
SEPA STATUS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued on July 1, 2004;
Final EIS issued on February 11, 200S
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
o Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: 181 Building 181 M&O
o Airport o Finance o Cemetery o Mayor
o Hearing Examiner o Municipal Servo o Finance 181 Parks
o Human Services o Planning & CD 181 Fire 181 Planning
o Park Board OPublic Works o Legal 181 Police
o Planning Comm. o Other 181 Public Works o Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: DYes ONo
Council Approval: DYes ONo Call for Public Hearing -'~-
Referred to Until -'~-
Tabled Until -'-'-
Councilmember: Norman I Staff: Krauss
MeetinQ Date: April 2S, 2006 I Item Number: 11.A.1 & 2
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
AQenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site and
surrounding properties are:
Site Single Family R1, Single Family Vacant; BPA
Residential Residential owerlines
North Single Family R1, Single Family Vacant lands
Residential Residential
South Single Family Residential MSF Moderate Semi-rural homesites
Density Single Family of 2.5 - 5 acres
Pierce Count
East Rural Residential RR Rural Residential Low density single
famil residential
West Single Family R1, Single Family Vacant (potential
Residential Residential Kersey III Div. 3
PUD/ lat
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 16A
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
Exhibit 21
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 23
Exhibit 24
Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Page 2 of 15
Hearing Examiner Decision
Vicinity Map
City of Auburn Resolution No. 3947
Resubmittalletter of January 11, 2006 from Chris Ferko, Barghausen Engineers
Revised Preliminarv Plat/PUD plans and supporting drawings, Barghausen Engineers,
January 11, 2006
Comment/Response matrix prepared by Barghausen Engineers, received 1/11/2006
Architectural Renderings and Conceptual Building Design Guidelines
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Land Use Agreement dated 8/30/05
Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, PowerPoint Presentation Slides
Preliminary Landscape Plan - 3 sheets
Correspondence from GMS Architectural Group, dated 2/22/06
Lot Coverage Drawings
Correspondence from Segale Properties, dated 2/22/06
Statutory Warranty Deed - Tax Parcel 3221059039
Public Comment Letter: Perry and Trina Peters, dated 2/22/06
Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated 10/15/05
Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated 2/21/06
Correspondence from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated 8/16/04
Public Comment Letter: Michelle Fassbind, dated 2/22/06
Public Comment Letter: John Chaffee, dated 2/22/06
Public Comment Letter: Erin and Paul Galeno, undated
Public Comment Letter: Erin Galeno, dated 10/17/05
Public Comment Letter: Janet Koch, dated 2/22/06
"Where's the smoke...." Auburn Reporter, dated 2/15/06
Aaenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
Exhibit 29
Exhibit 30
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32
Exhibit 33
Exhibit 34
Exhibit 35
Exhibit 36
Exhibit 36A
Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Will
and Jean Julum, Rod and Judy Johannsen, Eric Padilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh,
Larry and Cathy Hansen, and Mark and Caterine Neubauer, undated
Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Mike
Bykonen, Eric Padilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh, Will and Jean Julum, Rod and Judy
Johannsen, undated
Public Comment Letter: Bruce Koch, dated 2/22/06
Public Comment Letter: Bill Anderson, dated 2/22/06
Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Stan
Purdin, Kirk Anderson, Mike and MariLee Bykonen, Gary and Margaret Staples, undated
Public Comment Letter: Gary and Margaret Staples, dated 2/21/06
Tax Assessor's Vicinity Map
Applicant's Response to Public Hearing Comments, dated 3/3/06
Agency Comment Letter from Auburn School District, dated 3/2/06
FINDINGS OF FACT
General
1. The applicants, Wayne Jones of Lakeridge Development and Dan and Stormy Hayes,
Landholdings, Inc., have requested a change in zoning, approval of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD), and preliminary plat approval for Kersey III Divisions 1 & 2. Kersey III Division 1 is a
proposed 167 lot single-family residential subdivision of a 50.85 acre site located west of Kersey
Way at approx. 53rd St. SE. Kersey III Division 2, is a proposed 201 lot single-family residential
subdivision located on an adjacent 38.46 acre parcel abutting the western boundary of Division 1.
Although owned separately, the two projects are being processed concurrently and have agreed
to share common open space and recreational amenities, storm drainage facilities, and other
road and utility improvements.
2. Division 1 lot sizes will average 4990 sq. ft. in size, with an average lot width of 50 ft. The
smallest lot will be 4000 sq. ft. in area. Overall project density is 3.28 dwelling units per acre.
Since the project is proposed as a PUD, smaller lot sizes than typical zoning standards are
allowed. The minimum standards for lots within a single family density PUD are contained in ACC
18.69.070.
3. Division 2 lot size will average 4990 sq. ft. in area, with an average lot width of 40 ft. The smallest
lot will be 4000 sq. ft. in area. Overall project density is 5.23 dwelling units per acre.
4. Collectively, the two projects consist of 368 dwelling units at an overall density of 4.12 units per
acre. This density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Single Family
Residential (4-6 dwelling units per acre).
5. Both projects are proposed to be platted in two phases. Temporary cul-de-sacs and utility
services would need to be provided to ensure that each phase can stand-alone pursuant to
Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.69.110.
6. Per the mitigation measures of the Kersey III Final EIS, no homes may be constructed until
Evergreen Way is extended from its current eastern terminus within Lakeland Hills east to Kersey
Way at 53rd St. SE. The applicants have entered into an agreement with each other and the
owner of property to the west (future Kersey III Division 3) regarding the construction of
Evergreen Way and its future dedication to the City of Auburn as a public street. A traffic signal
will be installed at the 53rd St. SE intersection and the eastern 53rd St. SE approach will need to
be reconfigured to eliminate the current angular intersection.
Page 3 of 15
Aaenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
7. All streets within the two projects will be developed to City of Auburn standards and dedicated as
public streets.
8. Development of this area will also require the construction of a temporary sewage lift station to
the north along Kersey Way. The exact location of this lift station is not known at this time, as
other property owners to the north of the Kersey III projects are also discussing development
plans. It will likely be located in the vicinity of 49th St. SE and Kersey Way. The station will be
required to be appropriately sized to serve not only filed and proposed development applications,
but also the entire drainage basin. When sanitary sewer lines are extended northward along
Kersey Way to Oravetz Rd. at some point in the future, the lift station will be abandoned in favor
of a gravity system.
9. City of Auburn water service will be provided by connecting to existing water lines within the
Lakeland Hills development. Numerous improvements will need to be made to the water system,
including the construction of a booster pump station at the Terrace View Townhomes project
along the East Valley Highway.
10. The western 300 feet of the Division 1 site is encumbered by the Bonneville Power
Administration's transmission lines and easements. This area will be developed as a passive
open space amenity, including landscaping and a trail system.
11. In addition to the trail system within the BPA easement, the applicants also propose developing
additional recreational amenities within the project. Plans for these facilities have been revised as
a result of the remand to the Hearing Examiner. The City Parks Department and Parks Board
has accepted the proposed improvements as currently proposed. Division 1 now includes a 2.62
acre tract proposed for development with play equipment, a ball field and basketball court (Tract
Q). Walking trails will also be developed with open space Tract B (3.55 acres). Division 2 includes
a 0.75 acre park featuring play equipment and a sport court (Tract P) and walking trails within
Tract F, 1.70 acres. All park lands would be dedicated to a future Homeowners' Association for
maintenance.
PUD Approval Process
12. PUDs are allowed pursuant to Chapter 18.69 of the Zoning Code. More specifically, ACC Section
18.69.040 allows PUDs within all residential Comprehensive Plan map designations of the City,
except "Rural Residential". Property must be at least 10 acres in area in order to qualify for PUD
approval. The combined projects are 89.31 acres (50.85 and 38.46 acres individually) in size.
13. The PUD process is a multi-step process. The first step is to rezone the property to the PUD
classification. The rezone is a contract rezone that defines among other things the land use,
density, number and types of dwelling units, amount and type of open space, and the
responsibilities of the applicant. In the subject cases, a preliminary plat for a single-family
development is being processed simultaneously, therefore the next steps will be the
administrative approval of infrastructure, construction of the infrastructure, and subsequent final
plat approval.
Densitv
14. ACC Section 18.69.060 determines the maximum number of units that can be allowed within a
PUD. The number of units is determined by subtracting out any non-buildable area and then
multiplying the remainder by the number of dwelling units allowed per acre by the Comprehensive
Plan. In this case the entire project site is identified as "Single Family Residential" on the
Comprehensive Plan map, which allows a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre.
Page 4 of 15
Aaenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
15. The applicants have identified 15.82 acres of non-buildable lands on both sites. These areas
have slopes in excess of 25%, which pursuant to ACC 18.69.030.G, renders them as "non
buildable." Therefore, the net area of both sites totals 73.49 acres, which would allow a maximum
density of 441 dwelling units. As noted, a total of 368 units are proposed.
Park Land
16. A PUD must also provide for park property. The City may allow a PUD to use park land to meet
its 20% open space requirement. That is what is being proposed for this PUD. The City's
subdivision code refers to the City's Park Plan for requirements that for every 1000 population of
a plat, 6.03 acres of unimproved park land must be provided. With a total of 368 lots in the two
divisions and an assumed population of 2.5 people per household, 920 people are anticipated to
live within the developments. That translates into a park requirement of 5.55 acres. Under the
current proposal, 9.17 acres are proposed, which is in excess of the standard. However, since
some of the park lands will be encumbered by the BPA easement, the City Parks Department has
not granted full credit for these lands. However, the final proposal has met the approval of the
Parks Department and City Parks and Recreation Board.
Open Space
17. ACC Section 18.69.080 outlines certain design requirements that a PUD must meet. Each PUD
must have at least 20% of the total gross area set aside as open space. Nonbuildable areas may
meet no more than 50% of this requirement. Collectively, the two projects are required to provide
17.86 acres of open space; a total of 29.64 acres is being provided, of which 18.12 acres is
located outside of areas with 25% or greater slopes. The total open space includes the following
features:
* small tracts for entry signage
* pedestrian pathways between blocks and to provide access to the parks facilities
* the aforementioned park facilities
* other miscellaneous tracts, some landscaped, others left in a natural state
* two tracts that will contain a unified storm drainage facility
Desian Reauirements
18. Section 18.69.080(D) requires certain design requirements to be met including architectural
treatment of the buildings and other site design features as lighting, furniture, signs, fencing, etc.
The applicants have submitted new "Architectural Design Guidelines" that depict a variety of
home styles consistent with those found in the Auburn area. Houses will be of wood frame
construction, feature lap siding and architectural style composite roofing, and include front
porches, overhangs, bay windows and staggered garage fronts. Other exterior accent materials
such as brick, stone or stucco will also be used to provide differentiation between houses.
Variable and multiple roof pitches are also proposed. Each home will include at least a 2-car
garage.
19. A conceptual landscape treatment of the PUD is illustrated in the "Preliminary Overall Landscape
Plan" dated July 19, 2005. The plan depicts those areas to be maintained with native vegetation,
those areas to be developed as park facilities, and street tree plantings throughout the project.
20. The standard requirement for detached single-family homes within a PUD is a 20 ft. front yard
setback to a garage and 15 ft. for the remainder of the structure. The lot coverage limitation is set
at 40%. (see ACC 18.69.070.A). These same standards apply within the Lakeland Hills
developments located to the west of the project. The applicants are agreeable to complying with
Page 5 of 15
Agenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
these standards and note that due to the architectural treatments being proposed, further
restrictions should not be necessary.
The front yard setback standards for PUDs are identical for single-family density, moderate
density multi-family and high-density multi-family developments. All lots within the proposals are a
minimum of 100 ft. in depth, which is minimum lot depth requirement in the R1 zone.
The PUD ordinance allows 50% of lot coverage for moderate density multi-family residential
developments, but restricts single-family density projects to 40% of lot coverage. This is
equivalent to the amount of lot coverage allowed in the City's R3 zone district (the R1 zone
restricts lot coverage to 35%). By definition, lot coverage includes the total percentage of a lot
covered by all buildings, including accessory buildings and uses (ACC 18.04.550).
PedestrianlTraffic Circulation
21. Each PUD must promote pedestrian movement. The project will feature a trail through the BPA
easement from Kersey Way south to the southern project boundary. The Parks Dept. envisions
this trail continuing to the south along the corridor in the future. Internal plat streets will feature
sidewalks. The long blocks within the two divisions include mid-block pathways to facilitate
pedestrian movement. Crosswalks will be marked where internal plat streets intersect with
Evergreen Way. Also, Evergreen Way will include center median planter islands to provide for
traffic calming and pedestrian refuge.
22. These projects will require the extension of Evergreen Way as a Residential Collector Arterial
from the Lakeland Hills Development through to Kersey Way. The extension is required prior to
construction of homes in either division. The new road will intersect Kersey Way at 53rd St. SE at
a signalized intersection. The FEIS details other traffic mitigation measures that should be made
a condition of approval, including the installation of a traffic circle at the intersection of Evergreen
Way and Lakeland Hills Way.
23. The internal street network of the plat will consist of large internal blocks intersected with
pedestrian pathways. One roadway will connect Divisions 1 and 2 through the BPA easement.
There will be three points of access onto Evergreen Way from internal streets, but no direct lot
access will be allowed. All street will be public.
24. The applicants have agreed to pay the higher Lakeland Hills South PUD traffic impact fee at the
time of home construction. Currently, the Lakeland fee is $940.36/lot, as opposed to the standard
single family residential fee of $677.71.
25. The applicants will also be required to construct half-street improvements along Kersey Way
along the sites' full frontage. At the direction of staff, this will include a 10ft. wide ped/bike trail
behind the curb and planter strip, as opposed to a separate bike lane at the edge of roadway and
a typical 5 ft. sidewalk.
SEPA
26. An Environmental Impact Statement was required for the Kersey III proposal, originally proposed
in 2000. The EIS addresses these two properties, plus adjoining land to the west. Two total
development potentials for this area were analyzed in the document, one for 481 total units, and
the other for 700 units for all three properties. As noted, the current proposal involves 373 units
(lots) for two-thirds of the area addressed in the EIS. The Draft EIS was issued on July 1, 2004,
with the Final EIS being issued on February 11, 2005. No appeals of the Final EIS were filed.
Recommended mitigation measures are included beginning on page 9 of the Final EIS.
Page 6 of 15
Aaenda Subiect: REZOS-0001, PUDOS-0001, PL TOS-0001; REZOS-
0002, PUDOS-0002; PL TOS-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
Resolution 3947
27. After conducting a closed record public hearing on October 3 & 17, 200S, the City Council
subsequently voted to remand the Kersey III applications to the Hearing Examiner to lire-open the
record and consider how the development addresses or affects the following issues:
(1) Open spaces and the protection of sensitive environmental features, such as
steep slopes, mature trees, wetlands and scenic views;
(2) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential traffic
congestion, particularly along Kersey Way, and promote alternative modes of travel.
Consideration should be given to applying the Lakeland PUD traffic impact fee
structure in responding to similar impact areas south of the White River.
(3) The development of transitional areas between these projects and adjacent
developments and environmentally sensitive areas;
(4) The building and structural designs that complement surrounding land uses and their
environment, reflecting quality site design, landscaping and building architecture
required under the Auburn PUD ordinance;
(S) The parks and open spaces, and the adequacy of parks and open spaces under
Bonneville Power Administration power lines;
(6) Incorporation of adequate notification to future lot owners of the adjacent surface
mining operations;
(7) Protection of waterways and the development's proposed storm water system.
(8) Application of the Lakeland Fire Impact Fee to aid the City in developing fire facilities
to serve the area south of the White River.
28. The EIS for the project noted that alteration of slopes greater than 40% is unavoidable for the
construction of Evergreen Way SE. Otherwise, slopes greater than 40% will not be disturbed.
Significant trees will be maintained in several open space tracts on the site, including along
Kersey Way, which should screen the project from view of motorists traveling the corridor. No
wetlands or streams are located on these project sites; however, there are water features on the
final third of the overall Kersey project, located to the west.
29. The project will include a number of traffic mitigation/calming measures, as noted above and in the
applicant's response matrix. Traffic staff is also recommending the "boulevard" design on Evergreen
Way be continued to the west to Lakeland Hills Way. The applicant has also agreed to pay the
higher Lakeland Hills South traffic mitigation fee.
30. The projects are proposing to provide perimeter setbacks consistent with requirements of the
adjoining zoning districts. Significant setbacks from Kersey Way are also provided (200 to 600 ft.).
31. The applicants have submitted revised architectural design standards and examples of the character
of homes anticipated to be built within the projects. These exhibits indicate a high quality of home
construction. All homes will feature at least 2-car garages and fenestration, varied rooflines and
setbacks, etc. to avoid a monotonous streetscape.
32. The proposed provision of parks and open spaces has been altered to address concerns raised by
the City Council. The Parks staff and Parks Board have accepted the current proposal.
33. The applicants concur with the requested re-wording of the condition regarding notifying future lot
owners of the presence of the nearby surface mining operation.
Page 7 of 15
Aaenda Subiect: REZOS-0001, PUDOS-0001, PL TOS-0001; REZOS-
0002, PUDOS-0002; PL TOS-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
34. Stormwaters will be directed to a two-cell detention pond developed consistent with city standards.
The City Stormwater Engineer has recommended additional conditions of approval to address
potential impacts. The storm system will be designed to avoid adverse impacts to Bowman Creek.
3S. Since the initial hearings on the project, the City of Auburn has adopted a fire impact fee that is
applicable throughout the city limits. The fee is $290.13 for each single family home. The Lakeland
Hills South PUD fee is $470.16 and has not been abrogated by the adoption of the new fire impact
fee. Given that the Kersey III project is located within the same area of the city for which the need for
a higher impact fee has been determined, staff is recommending the Lakeland fee be applied to this
project.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff has concluded that the Rezones and Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be approved in that
it is consistent with the following criteria necessary to grant a Rezone as outlined in 18.68 of the
Zoning Code and for a Planned Unit Development, as outlined in Section 18.69.1S0.
Rezone Criteria
1. The rezone must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan Map was amended in 1995 to be consistent with the Washington State
Growth Management Act. The area is designated as "Single Family Residential." Plan policy LU-20
states in part that "the development of new neighborhoods should be governed by development
standards which allow some flexibility." The PUD chapter is the only mechanism available in the
Zoning Code that provides flexibility in design/layout standards for residential developments.
Land Use Policy LU-26 notes that "development design should utilize and preserve natural features,
including, but not limited to, topography and stands of trees, to separate incompatible uses and
densities."
Due to the topography of the site, the proposed PUD plats will result in some significant clearing and
regrading of those portions of the site to be developed with homes and roads. However, a significant
natural buffer area consisting of a forested slope adjacent to Kersey Way will be retained, as will
another tract along the Evergreen Way extension. No homes will abut Kersey Way, which is
designated as a Minor Arterial street.
2. The rezone must be initiated by someone other than the City in order for the Hearing Examiner
to consider the request.
This rezone request was initiated by the property owners.
3. Any changes or modifications to a rezone request made by either the Hearing Examiner or
City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
Staff is not recommending any changes or modifications to the request. The density of the two
projects is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Single Family Residential
(maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre).
Page 8 of 15
Aaenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has identified other general rules for rezone
applications (see Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d.454; 573 P.2d 359 (1978)):
1. Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established.
This area was annexed into the City of Auburn in 1968 and has been zoned R1 since at least 1987,
when the current Zoning Code was adopted. Since that time, this area of the city has experienced
significant development as a result of the Lakeland Hills project. In addition, overall market conditions
in the Puget Sound area have changed with a trend towards smaller lots than the minimum required
in the R1 zone (8000 sq. ft.).
2. The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the
community.
The rezone will allow for development of the area in a manner consistent with Lakeland Hills to the
west and, due to the preservation of open space along Kersey Way, provide a buffer to the lower
density residential area located along 53rd St. E. to the east. The projects will result in another means
of access into Lakeland Hills through the extension of Evergreen Way and also bring sanitary sewer
and water utilities into an area of the city not currently served.
Planned Unit Development Criteria:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open
spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks, playgrounds, or sites for schools.
Adequate provisions are made for each, including emergency access and services, providing of
public utilities, storm drainage, parks and open space. Impacts to schools will be mitigated by the
payment of mitigation fees to the Auburn School District.
2. The proposed PUD is in accordance with the goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
See discussion under Rezone Criteria #1 above.
3. The PUD is consistent with the purpose ofthis chapter, Section 18.69.010, and provides for
the public benefits required of the development of PUD's by providing an improvement in the
quality, character, architectural and site design, housing choice andlor open space
protection over what would otherwise be attained through a development using the existing
zoning and subdivision standards.
The proposed PUDs are consistent with the purpose of the PUD chapter by providing superior open
space and natural system protection than otherwise might occur under a standard R1 development.
For example, the City's recently adopted Critical Areas Ordinance only restricts the development of
slopes in excess of 40%; these projects will preserve lesser slopes that could otherwise be altered. In
addition, these projects will result in developed park facilities for public use, as opposed to simply
providing land for future publicly-funded improvements. Pedestrian accessibility to the park facilities
and between residential blocks is superior to what could otherwise be obtained. The PUD will be
consistent with the flexibility, pedestrian-orientation, land use efficiency, environmental protection and
housing affordability goals advocated by the PUD zoning district.
Page 9 of 15
Aaenda Subiect: REZOS-0001, PUDOS-0001, PL TOS-0001; REZOS-
0002, PUDOS-0002; PL TOS-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
4. The proposed PUD conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or plans
which have been adopted by the City Council.
The projects are consistent with the Parks and Recreation Plan and Non-Motorized Plan. There are
no other specific plans or policies that apply to the project.
5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding area
than any other project would have if developed using the existing zoning standards of the
zoning district the PUD is located in. The PUD must also be consistent with the existing and
planned character of the neighborhood including existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan
map designations.
Total site area for the two projects is approx. 89 acres, which could theoretically result in anywhere
from 3S6 to S34 dwelling units, which would result in greater traffic impacts than the proposals. In
addition, the architectural and landscaping controls of the project will ensure a beneficial interface
with other developments in the area.
6. The proposed PUD is consistent with the design guidelines that are outlined in Section
18.69.080(D).
The PUD is consistent with the guidelines by providing different styles of homes with acceptable
architecture style and color. Project signage will be consistent with that of a residential neighborhood,
adequate landscaping is provided, and exterior site lighting will be provided as well.
Preliminary Plat Criteria
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open
spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks, playgrounds and sites for schools and school grounds.
Adequate provisions have been or can be provided to serve the plat. Public utilities, public schools,
public parks, private open space and new public streets will serve the proposed plat.
2. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the Comprehensive
Plan.
See discussion under Rezone Criteria #1.
3. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plans that have been adopted by the City Council.
The projects are consistent with the Parks and Recreation Plan and Non-Motorized Plan. There are
no other specific plans or policies that apply to the project.
4. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the Land Division
Ordinance as enumerated in ACC Section 17.02.030.
The plat is consistent with the broad purpose statements of the Land Division Ordinance as
enumerated in ACC Section 17.02.030.
Page 1 0 of 15
AQenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
5. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn Zoning Ordinance and any other
applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the City.
The plat has been or is capable of being designed in accordance with applicable City standards
including the City's Design and Construction Manual.
6. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the
preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
Development of these properties was thoroughly evaluated through an Environmental Impact
Statement process. The Final EIS, issued on February 11, 2005, includes 10 pages of potential
impacts and suggested mitigation measures, which are recommended to be made conditions of
project approval. The adequacy of the Final EIS was not appealed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the Facts, Findings and Conclusions of the staff report, staff recommends that the Hearing
Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the Rezone requests, approval of the Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) and the Preliminary Plats, with the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the following notice shall be placed on the final plat and on all
building permits and deeds issued within the Kersey III development (Division I and Division II):
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral resource lands on which a variety of
commercial activities may occur that are not compatible with residential development.
The owner of the mineral resource lands may, at any time, apply to the City for a permit
for mining-related activities including, but not limited to, mining, extraction, washing,
crushing, stockpiling, blasting, transporting, and recycling of minerals.
2. Prior to issuance of final plat approval for any phase containing an open space tract, Applicant
shall submit, or enter into an agreement to submit, a Declaration of Covenants Conditions and
Restrictions that conforms to ACC 19.69.200.
3. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted for the construction of interior
improvements to the subdivision, Applicant shall also submit engineering/construction drawings for
the construction of all park improvements as depicted on the drawings submitted. The park
improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn's Parks Director prior to the approval of the
construction drawings for the plat. Any materials supplied and installed for the parks must meet
current City Parks Department standards and be approved by the Parks Director prior to installation
and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future Kersey III
Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for review and approval by City Staff prior to final plat
approval. This document shall include architectural design criteria for new homes and specify the
financial means of maintenance of all common parks and open spaces.
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I & II Architectural Design Guidelines
dated January 9, 2006 and the submitted conceptual drawings and photographs submitted with the
application. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the project.
The final design guidelines shall include a color palette for proposed house exterior colors. In
addition, the following conditions shall apply:
Page 11 of 15
AQenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
a) Homes shall feature multiple roof pitches on their street-facing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line. No home
shall have more than a two-car garage door facing any street.
c) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two homes sharing the same floor
plan are located adjacent to one another.
6. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary Overall Landscaping
Plan, which was included with the Applicants' resubmittal packet for rezone, PUD, and preliminary
plat approval. The Applicants shall maximize the use of native and/or drought-resistant plants
throughout the plat, including park and landscaped open space areas. Emphasis should be on the
use of native vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native vegetation.
7. Any entrance sign shall be a low monument style with accenting landscaping. The number, style,
and placement of signs and associated landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director.
8. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material, style, and color. The
Planning Director shall approve such fences, which shall be equivalent to a six foot high solid wood
fence. Any fencing to be erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian pathways requires the
approval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that border on a native/open space, park,
or drainage tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and I) shall be separated from these areas by use of a two- rail
wooden fence of approximately three to four feet in height. This fence shall delineate the property
line and prevent encroachment by the property owner into the native/open space, park, or drainage
tract.
9. Approval of the rezone and PUD are valid only upon approval and execution of the associated
preliminary plat.
10. Compliance with all of the mitigation measures as noted on pages 9-19 of the Kersey III
Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8), dated February 2005, and as otherwise noted throughout this
recommendation, is required.
11. Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey Way SE. This traffic
signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
12. Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbound Kersey Way SE in advance of
the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE. This active warning signal must be
constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. Applicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Kersey Way
SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial surety for traffic
controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and
Evergreen Way SE. These traffic controls shall be designed and constructed as a round-about
unless the City Engineer determines, based on design, that a round-about is not feasible. If the City
Engineer determines that a round-about is not feasible, then the traffic controls shall be designed and
construction as a traffic signal.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial surety for traffic
calming and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen Way SE, in the vicinity of the park area near
Olive Avenue. These traffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities must be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Page 12 of 15
Aaenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
16. The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the environment, namely
impacts on wildlife populations and their associated habitat. Two main impacts pertain to loss of
native vegetation and fragmentation of habitat. Applicants shall endeavor to provide for preservation
of a wildlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native vegetation, thereby mitigating these
impacts.
17. Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Auburn School District.
Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the school district can provide transportation,
but that schools have the capacity to serve the students generated by the proposal without burdening
or creating overcapacity at any school. Applicants shall be responsible for all school impact fees in a
manner consistent with local and state law requirements.
18. Prior to issuance of clearing or grading permits, a grading plan for grading and clearing necessary
for both the construction of infrastructure such as roads and utilities and for lot grading shall be
submitted and approved by the City of Auburn. The purpose of the plan should be to accomplish the
maximum amount of grading at one time to limit or avoid the need for subsequent grading and
disturbance, including grading of individual lots during home construction. The plan shall identify the
surveyed boundary of the crest slopes for the site's 40% or greater slopes. This plan shall show
quantities and locations of excavations, and embankments, the design of temporary storm drainage
detention system, and methods of preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting
adjacent properties, natural and public storm drainage systems and other near by sensitive areas.
Temporary detention facilities shall be designed with a 1.5 safety factor applied to the post-developed
calculated pond design volume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-developed storm event. All the
measures shall be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filling, grading or construction
activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a licensed geotechnical
engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop and submit, for the City's review, specific
recommendations to mitigate grading activities, with particular attention to developing a plan to
minimize the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and related activities during wet
weather periods (the period of greatest concern is October 1 through March 31). The plans shall
show the type and the extent of geologic hazard area or any other critical areas as required in
chapters 16 and 18 of the International Building Code (IBC) and/or the City's Critical Areas
Ordinance.
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall have a geo-technical engineer
re-analyze the site and determine if new or additional mitigation measures are necessary. A revised
geo-technical report shall be submitted to the City of Auburn for review and approval by the City
Engineer. Recommendations for areas where subsurface water is known or discovered shall be
given particular attention by the geotechnical engineer and coordinated with the project engineer
responsible for the storm drainage system design.
19. Prior to final plat approval, a supplemental evaluation of stream channel conditions along
Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 must be completed, including the off-site erosional
feature observed at the outlet of the culvert under Kersey Way and near Bowman Creek. Appropriate
mitigation shall be proposed to eliminate the observed erosion as well as any erosion determined be
present from the supplemental evaluation of stream channel conditions along Bowman Creek.
20. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the appearance of
the site, preclude the need for security fencing, and serve as an amenity. The design of above ground
Page 13 of 15
Aaenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
storage and conveyance facilities shall address or incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation,
minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Prior to final plat approval, a landscaping plan with applicable cross-sections is required to
demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic requirements consistent with City standards can be
accommodated on-site.
Storm drainage facilities shall be provided consistent with the City of Auburn Design Standards. In
order to achieve this, the following design elements must be incorporated into the final design:
. Vehicle access for maintenance to all proposed storm drainage structures is required. To
provide an adequate and safe storm pond access, an appropriately designed pull-off shall be
provided from Kersey Way SE to serve the pond.
. All storm drainage conveyance lines required to manage upstream bypass surface flows shall
be routed through the project site and shall not be combined with the proposed on-site storm
drainage system. Maintenance access shall be provided to all structures proposed to be in
public ownership. The remaining portions of this system shall be placed within a tract
dedicated to the Homeowners Association for maintenance and operation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriately designed energy dissipation features are
required at the end of long runs of pipe, at pipe intersections and at the outlet to the storm drainage
pond.
To enhance the water quality of the discharge leaving the site, appropriately designed aeration shall
be provided within the storm pond.
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity of Kersey Way near 53rd Street SE, and
subsequent flooding of the intersection, an appropriately designed storm drainage system shall be
constructed to mitigate this condition.
21. The location and alignment of the force main and the proposed pump station shall be coordinated
with adjacent property owners and the City to ensure it provides service to the desired basin. The
public sanitary sewer pump station shall be located as directed by the City Engineer in order to allow
room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to back into public right-of-ways.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line located between Lots 27
and 28 of Division 1.
The applicant shall provide an easement for possible future extension of the sanitary sewer system
located at the SE corner of Tract D, Division 1.
22. All roads within the plat must be constructed to City standards (except where deviations are
granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as public right of way.
23. The applicant shall construct Evergreen Way to City standards for a residential collector arterial
including a 10 foot landscaped center median/turn lane area through the plat boundaries.
24. The applicant shall also construct median treatments to match the 10 foot center median/turn
lane within the plat on the existing roadway west to Lakeland Hills Way, to the satisfaction of the city
engineer.
25. The applicant shall redesign pedestrian crossings at Road G and Evergreen Way and Road A
and Evergreen Way to provide additional pedestrian refuge, to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
Page 14 of 15
Aaenda Subiect: REZ05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REZ05-
0002, PUD05-0002; PL T05-0002
Date:
4/21/2006
26. The applicant shall construct a minimum 10 foot wide shared multi-use path, separated by a 5
foot landscape strip from the road, on the west side of Kersey Way for the length of the site frontage
along Kersey Way, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. The applicant shall construct Kersey Way to a modified city standard for a minor arterial road, to
include a 12 foot center turn lane, a 12 foot through northbound lane, a 12 foot through southbound
lane, appropriate right turns lane(s) at the intersection with 53rd Street SE, a 5 foot landscape strip
and a minimum 10 foot wide shared multi-use path on the west side. All other features about the road
such as vertical curb, storm drainage and lighting must meet city standards.
28. The applicant shall create a 50 foot right of way stubbing to the south plat boundary, through the
location of lots 27 and 28, Division 1, to align with 176th Ave. E.
29. A traffic impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South PUD shall be
paid at the time of building permits for individual homes.
30. A fire impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South PUD shall be
paid at the time of building permits for individual homes.
Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised
subsequent to the writing of this report.
Page 15 of 15
4
~;-: II/brr /
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
For a Rezone, a Planned Unit Development,)
a Preliminary Plat, and a Variance for )
Kersey III - Division I and Division II )
Lakeridge Development
by Wayne Jones
and
Landholdings LLC
by Daniel and Stormy Hayes
NO. REZ05-0001, REZ05-0002
PUD05-000 1, PUD 05-0002
PL T05-000 1, PL T05-0002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDA nON
BACKGROUND
In 2005, Lakeridge Development, through Wayne Jones, and Landholdings LLC, through Joyce
Bowles and Peter Bowles, (Applicants) requested approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit
Development, and preliminary plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III, a single-family
residential subdivision, and a variance from certain design standards.
The Applicants requested a rezone of three separate tax parcels from R-l Single Family
Residential to Planned Unit Development. The Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat
would have 169 lots in Division I and 204 lots in Division II. The requested variances would
reduce front yard setback and lot coverage requirements. The subject property totals 89.31 acres
and is located within the city limits of Auburn, on the west side of Kersey Way at 53rd Street SE,
extending southward to the King-Pierce County line.
An open record hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner for the City of
Auburn on August 9, 2005. The Hearing Examiner allowed the record to remain open for the
limited purpose of securing comments from the Auburn School District on impacts generated by
the proposed residential development. The School District's comments were received and the
record was officially closed on August 16, 2005. Following a review of the testimony and
exhibits, and based on the criteria established by the Auburn City Council, on September 2, 2005
the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation for approval of the rezone from R -1 Residential
to Planned Unit Development, approval of the Planned Unit Development, and approval of the
preliminary plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III, subject to 18 conditions. The
Hearing Examiner recommended that the Applicants' request for variances from the required
front yard setback and total lot coverage design requirements be denied.
On October 3, 2005 and October 17, 2005, the Auburn City Council conducted a hearing to
consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendations. At the close of the hearing, the City Council
asked the Applicants if they were willing to accept the additional time it would take for the
matter to be remanded to the Hearing Examiner for further review. The Applicants declined the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
remand offer and the City Council denied all of the applications. On November 10, 2005, the
Applicants rescinded its denial and asked that the applications be remanded to the Hearing
Examiner.
On November 15, 2005, the Auburn City Council issued Resolution Number 3947, remanding
. the matter to the Hearing Examiner to re-open the record and consider how the development
addressed or affected the following issues:
1. Open spaces and the protection of sensitive environmental features, such as steep slopes,
mature trees, wetlands, and scenic views.
2. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce potential traffic congestion,
particularly along Kersey Way, and promote alternative modes of travel. Consideration
should be given to applying the Lakeland PUD traffic impact fee structure in responding to
similar impacts areas located south of the White River.
3. The development of transitional areas between these projects and adjacent developments and
environmentally sensitive areas.
4. The building and structural designs that complement surrounding land uses and their
environment, reflecting quality site design, landscaping, and building architecture required
under the Auburn PUD ordinance.
5. The parks and open spaces, and the adequacy of parks and open spaces located under
Bonneville Power Administration power lines.
6. Incorporation of adequate notification to future lot owners of the adjacent surface mining
operations.
7. Protection of waterways and the development's proposed stormwater system.
8. Application of the Lakeland Fire Impact Fee to aid the City in developing fire facilities to
serve the area south of the White River.
On February 22, 2006, the Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn held a public hearing on the
matter as it was remanded from the City Council.
Testimony
At the February 22 hearing on remand, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Steve Pilcher, Planner, City of Auburn
2. Joseph Welsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Auburn
3. D. Scamporlina, Parks Department, City of Auburn
4. Dwayne Husky, Public Works, City of Auburn
5. Walt Wojeck, Development Review - Public Works, City of Auburn
6. Chris Ferko, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Applicants' representative
7. Rob Armstrong, Civil Engineer
8. Art Sidel, Landscape Architect
9. Pat McBride, Building Architect
10. John Norris, Norris Homes
11. Michele Fassbind, neighboring property owner
12. John Chaffee, neighboring property owner
13. Darryl Thompson, neighboring property owner
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMANDt
Page 2 of30
14. Pat Davis, neighboring property owner
15. Dale Huston, neighboring property owner
16. Erin Galeno, neighboring property owner
17. Chuck Gould, neighboring property owner
18. Janet Koch, neighboring property owner
19. Katrina Price, neighboring property owner
20. Donald Bykonen, neighboring property owner
21. William Remick, neighboring property owner
22. Kristi Knott, neighboring property owner
23. Bruce Koch, neighboring property owner
24. Jonie Brooke, neighboring property owner
25. Bill Anderson, neighboring property owner
Exhibits
At the February 22 hearing on remand, the following exhibits were admitted as part of the
official record:
1. Staff Report, dated February 16,2006
2. Project Vicinity Map
3. Auburn City Council Resolution 3947
4. Re-submittalletter from Barghausen Engineers, dated January 11,2006
5. Revised Preliminary Plat/PUD Site Plans - 12 sheets
6. Engineer's Responses to Auburn City Council Comments
7. Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, Architectural Design PowerPoint
Presentation Slides and Architect Narrative
8. Land Use Agreement - Bonneville Power Administration and Lakeridge Development,
dated August 30, 2005
9. Excerpts from Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to Geologic Hazards, Wildlife
and Habitat, and Wetlands and Streams, with maps
10. Notice of Public Hearing
11. Affidavit of Mailing of Legal Notice
12. Affidavit of Posting of Legal Notice
13. E-mail confirmation from King County Journal, Publication of Legal Notice, dated
February 7, 2006
14. Kersey III Divisions I and II Project Proposal, PowerPoint Presentation Slides
15. Preliminary Landscape Plan - 3 sheets
16. Correspondence from GMS Architectural Group, dated February 22, 2006
16A. Lot Coverage Drawings
17. Correspondence from Segale Properties, dated February 22, 2006
18. Statutory Warranty Deed - Tax Parcel 3221059039
19. Public Comment Letter: Perry and Trina Peters, dated February 22,2006
20. Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated October 15, 2005
21. Public Comment Letter: Pat and Gene Davis, dated February 21, 2006
22. Correspondence from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated August 16, 2004
23. Public Comment Letter: Michelle Fassbind, dated February 22,2006
24. Public Comment Letter: John Chaffee, dated February 22, 2006
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 3 of 30
25. Public Comment Letter: Erin and Paul Galeno, undated
26. Public Comment Letter: Erin Galeno, October 17, 2005
27. Public Comment Letter: Janet Koch, dated February 22,2006
28. "Where's the smoke..." Auburn Reporter, dated February 15,2006
29. Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Will
and Jean Julum, Rod and Judy Johannsen, Eric Padilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh,
Larry and Cathy Hansen, and Mark and Catherine Neubauer, undated
30. Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Mike
Bykonen, Eric Padilla, John and Cindy Flinchbaugh, Will and Jean Julum, Rod and Judy
Johannsen, undated
31. Public Comment Letter: Bruce Koch, dated February 22, 2006
32. Public Comment Letter: Bill Anderson, dated February 22,2006
33. Public Comment Letter with excerpts from Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Stan
Purdin, Kirk Anderson, Mike and MariLee Bykonen, Gary and Margaret Staples, undated
34. Public Comment Letter: Gary and Margaret Staples, February 21, 2006
35. Tax Assessor's Vicinity Map
36. Applicant's Response to Public Hearing Comments, dated March 3,2006
36A. Agency Comment Letter from Auburn School District, dated March 2, 2006
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing of August
9, 2005 and the February 22, 2006 Hearing on Remand, the Hearing Examiner enters the
following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL FINDINGS
1. The Applicants requested approval of a rezone of three parcels of land totaling
approximately 89.31 acres. The rezone would reclassify the property from R -1 Single
Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Applicants also requested
approval of a PUD and Preliminary Plat for Division I and Division II of Kersey III. The
property is located on the west side of Kersey Way at 53rd Street SE, extending
southward to the King-Pierce County line. All of the parcels are within the city limits of
Auburn and the boundaries of King County. General Finding of Fact No.1, Sept. 2005
FeR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3.
2. To reach a determination on the City Council's Order of Remand, the Hearing Examiner
reviewed all evidence, written and oral, submitted into the record of the Kersey III,
Division I and Division II hearings conducted on August 9, 2005 and February 22, 2006.
All Findings of Facts, both general and specific, provided for in the Hearing Examiner's
September 2, 2005 Decision are incorporated into the present decision by reference.
Findings from the August 2005 hearing are referenced as "Findings ..., Sept. 2005 FeR. "
Findings from the February 2006 hearing are referenced as "Findings ..., Feb. 2006
Remand Hearing. "
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 4 of30
3. In the original proposal heard by the Hearing Examiner in August 2005, the Applicants
proposed a two phase development with Division I containing 169 single-family
residential lots averaging 5,032 square feet, resulting in an average density of 3.34
dwelling units per acre (du/acre). Division II was to be developed with 205 single-family
lots averaging 4,863 square feet, resulting in an average density of 5.35 du/acre. The
overall project density is 4.17 du/acre for both divisions. At the February 2006 Hearing
on Remand (Remand Hearing), the Applicants submitted a revised proposal. The
Applicants are still proposing development of Kersey III in two phases, however,
Division I would now contain 167 single-family residential lots averaging 4,900 square
feet, and an average density of 3.28 du/acre. Division II would now contain 201 single-
family residential lots averaging 4,990 square feet, and an average density of 5.23
du/acre. The overall project density is 4.12 du/acre. General Finding of Fact No.2, Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 5,
Revised Preliminary PlatlPUD plans; Exhibit 14, Applicant's PowerPoint; Testimony of
Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
4. Three parcels of land comprise the proposal and all three parcels are within the city limits
of Auburn. Division I is includes two tax parcels - King County Parcel No. 322105-9015
and No. 322105-9017 which are owned by Wayne and Debra Jones (Lakeridge
Development). Division II is comprised of one tax parcel - King County Parcel No.
322105-9039 and was owned by Joyce and Elwood "Pete" Bowles (Landholdings LLC).
On December 14,2005, the Bowles executed a Statutory Warranty Deed conveying Tax
Parcel 3221050-9039 to Daniel and Stormy Hayes. The Hayes' have been substituted
for the Bowles as Applicants in the matter. General Finding of Fact No.4, Sept. 2005
FCR; Exhibit 19, Statutory Warranty Deed; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
5. Design standards for detached single-family residential development within a PUD
include: minimum lot size of 3,600 square feet, minimum lot width of 40 feet, maximum
lot coverage of 40%, maximum building height of 30 feet, and front, rear, and side yard
setbacks of 15-20 feet, 20 feet, and 5 feet, respectively. The Applicants proposal
conforms to these standards. ACC 18. 69. 070(A); Exhibit 5, Revised Plat.
6. At the August 2005 hearing, the Applicants requested a variance from certain design
requirements set forth in Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.69.070(A). The proposal at that
time was for the reduction in the front yard setback to 10 feet and an increase in the. total
allowable lot coverage to 50%. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of this
request. At the Remand Hearing, the Applicants revised the previous request, seeking an
increase in the total allowable lot coverage of up to 45%. The Applicants argue that
adherence to the 40% lot coverage maximum provided in ACC 18.69.070(A) would
create hardship and that increased lot coverage is needed to provide the flexibility that the
City's PUD guidelines require in order to prevent a 'cookie cutter' look. Approval of the
variance, according to the Applicants, would create balance and diversity within the
PUD. In addition, the Applicant argues that the use of smaller lots provides a
substantially larger amount of open/recreational space than normally is required. It
appears from the record that the Applicants have abandoned their request for a front yard
setback variance. Specific Finding of Fact No. 23, Recommendation, Sept. 2005 FCR;
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 5 of30
Exhibit 16, Correspondence from GMC Architectural; Exhibit 16A, Lot Coverage;
Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response; Testimony of Mr. McBride; Testimony of Mr. Norris.
7. At the Remand Hearing, the Hearing Examiner left the record open for the Applicants to
submit responses on all of the written and oral comments received into the record at the
February 2006 Remand Hearing. Bob Johns of Johns Monroe Mitsunaga, attorney for
the Applicants, submitted the required responses, along with comments from the Auburn
School District, to the City of Auburn on March 3, 2006. A copy of this letter was not
provided to the Hearing Examiner until March 14, 2006. On March 14, 2006, the
Hearing Examiner entered an Order setting the date of the issuance of the
recommendation to March 22, 2006.
8. Notice of the Remand Hearing was posted on the property and was mailed to all property
owners located within 300 feet of the affected site on February 10, 2006. Notice was
published in the King County Journal on February 10,2006. Exhibits 10, 11, 12, and 13.
9. The Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A, requires land within a city to be
classified as urban and that it must be developed at urban densities. The Applicants
submitted that this principle justifies the rezone request. The GMA itself does not assign
a quantitative value to the term "urban density" but prior case law from the Central Puget
Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, which has been applied, clarified, and
evolved over the years, has stated that urban density is equivalent to four dwelling units
per acre unless a reasonable exception applies (i.e. critical areas). (see City of Bremerton
et al v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0039c (1995), Litowitz v. City of
Federal Way, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0005 (1996)). The CPSGMHB's rule was
recently called into question by the Washington State Supreme Court in Viking v. Holm
when the court stated that the CPSGMHB did not have the authority to create such a
'bright line rule'. Viking v. Holm, 118 P.3d 322 (2005). Subsequent cases from the
CPSGMHB have the CPSGMHB re-characterizing the four dwelling units per acre
threshold as a 'safe harbor' rather than a 'bright line'. Furhiman v. City of Bothell,
CPSGMHB Case No. 05-0025c (2005). The subject property was designated as Single
Family Residential in 1995 and Auburn foresees the bulk of single-family residential
communities developed at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. RCW
36.70A.nO; Land Use Policy LU-14; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response. (See also
Finding of Fact Nos. 7-8, Sept. 2005 FCR (noting factors to satisfy change in
circumstances).
10. Auburn's Comprehensive Plan speaks to the development of residential housing at
single-family densities that establish a balanced mix of housing types appropriate for a
family-oriented community. When assigning the Comprehensive Plan's land use
designation for the subject property, the City Council was to evaluate the ability to buffer
the area by taking advantage of topographic variations, natural features, setbacks, and
other means. The development of new neighborhoods is to be governed by flexible
development standards that encourage compact urban development while protecting
critical areas. These flexible development regulations are intended to provide a variety of
housing types and site planning techniques so that a site can achieve its maximum
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 6 of 30
housing potential. Chapter 3, Land Use Goal 7; Land Use Policy LU-14; Land Use
Policy LU-17; Land Use Policy LU-20; Chapter 4, Housing Goal 7; Housing Objective
12.1; Housing Policy HO-34.
11. As required by ACC 18.68, ACC 18.69, and ACC 17.06, analysis of the proposal's
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was provided for in the DEIS. The DEIS
reviewed the goals and elements of the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to utilities,
transportation, the environment, natural resources, natural and manmade hazards, and
parks, recreation, and open space. The proposed PUD/plat was determined to be
generally consistent with the Single Family Residential designation. The City of
Auburn's Planning Director reviewed the rezone application for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and determined that it was consistent. Specific Findings of Fact
Nos. 4-6, Sept. 2005 FCR; ACC 18. 68.030(B)(1); ACC 18. 69. 150(B); ACC 17.06.070(B);
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 8-10.
12. As required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the City of
Auburn acted as lead agency for identification and review of environmental impacts
caused by the proposed PUD/plat. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Kersey III project was issued on February 11,2005. No appeals were filed. Specific
Findings of Fact No.9, Sept. 2005 FCR.
13. Public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regards to the adequacy of the
EIS at both the August 2005 hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing. Appeals of
an EIS must be submitted to the Auburn City Clerk 14-21 days after issuance of the Final
EIS. ACC 16.06.230. No appeal was filed and all challenges to the adequacy ofthe EIS
are time-barred. As noted in the September 2005 FCR, although a challenge to the
adequacy of the EIS can no longer be brought, the most important aspect of SEP A is the
consideration of environmental values. The key purpcse of an EIS is to ensure full
disclosure and consideration of environmental information prior to the construction of a
project. It is from the impacts disclosed in the EIS that the decision-maker can make an
informed decision about the proposal. Public comment, both written and oral, submitted
at the August 2005 hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing, provided further
detail in this regard and therefore is permitted. Specific Findings of Fact No. 10, Sept.
2005 FCR; Exhibit 22, Comments of Muckleshoot Tribe/; Exhibit 25, Comments of
Galeno; Exhibit 29, Comments of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 30, Comments of Bykonen et al;
Exhibit 33, Comments of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Page 2.
14. Agency and public comment, both written and oral, was submitted in regards to the
impact of the proposed plat on the Auburn School District at both the August 2005
hearing and the February 2006 Remand Hearing. The anticipated increase in student
population generated from the development was set at 0.59 students per dwelling unit, or
209 students. Submitted public comment stated that schools and the related
I Exhibit 22 is dated August 16,2004 and were comments submitted during the DEIS review process. The Tribe's
comments should have been taken into consideration when drafting the Final EIS. The Tribe's comments were not
challenging the adequacy of the Final EIS.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 7 of 30
transportation system were over capacity and that dangerous walking conditions were
present along Kersey Way. The Auburn School District responded that the recent
opening of Auburn Mountainview High School would provide capacity into the future to
accommodate growth at the high school level. Two new elementary schools, including
Lakeland Hills Elementary scheduled to open Fall 2006 and Elementary No. 14 (Lea
Hill) scheduled to open Fall 2007, would provide additional capacity at the elementary
level. The middle school level currently has capacity to accommodate growth but
enrollment projections indicate that an additional middle school would be needed in the
future and that the School District has begun planning for a new school. ACC 19.02
allows the City to collect school impact fees, approximately $4,500 per building permit,
on behalf of the school district. Conditions of approval require the Applicants to pay this
fee. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 14-15, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of
Peters; Exhibit 24, Comments of Chaffee; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments of Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments of Staples; Exhibit 36A, School District
Comments; Testimony of Mr. Chaffee; Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Price;
Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony
of Mr. Armstrong.
15. Bus transportation would be provided for the plat with bus pick up/drop off areas along
Evergreen Way. The Applicants would construct a lO-foot wide multi-use path along the
site's frontage with Kersey Way. This path, along with sidewalks and crosswalks within
the plat, would provide safe walking conditions for students to/from school. Specific
Findings of Fact Nos. 14-15, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 19, Comments of Peters; Exhibit
24, Comments of Chaffee; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32, Comments of
Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments of Staples; Exhibit 36A, School District Comments;
Testimony of Mr. Chaffee; Testimony of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Price; Testimony of
Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr.
Armstrong.
16. All lots are to be served with sanitary sewer service provided by the City of Auburn.
Public comment was submitted in regards to the capacity of the system to accommodate
additional sewage stemming from the proposed plat. Both the City and the Applicants
are constructing improvements to the sewer system, including an interim pump station.
A neighboring property owner asserted that the problem is not with the pump station but
with the force mains that carry sewage away from the pump station. The neighbor argues
that force mains at the Lakeland Hills pump station and the Ellingson pump station are
not functioning properly and thereby have less capacity. City Public Works Staff
testified that the sewer system is capable of handling the increased volume and, after
replacement, the force mains are operating adequately. Specific Findings of Fact No. 20,
Sept 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 3; Exhibit 25, Comments of Galena;
Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, page 5; Testimony of Ms. Galena; Testimony of Mr.
Husky.
17. Public comments, both written and oral, were submitted in regards to the impacts on
wildlife and their habitat. The EIS concluded that urbanization of the area would result in
impacts to wildlife and habitat that were unavoidable including loss of vegetation,
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 8 of30
fragmentation, and human encroachment. Public comments stated that several species of
animals have been sighted on the subject property that were not accounted for in the EIS
including Redheaded Woodpecker, Bald Eagle, Osprey, Pileated Woodpecker, and,
historically, Salmon. Conditions of approval require that the Applicants install
stormwater control technology that would eliminate/reduce sedimentation/erosion
impacts in Bowman Creek and, subsequently, the White River. A Hydraulic Permit
Approval (HP A) issued by Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife would be
required for construction near Bowman Creek and would address impacts to fishery
resources. Open space and parkland would provide habitat and a corridor for wildlife
species. Required fencing would delineate private property from open space/parkland
and prevent encroachment. Disturbed areas would be re-vegetated with native species.
Specific Finding of Fact No. 19, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7-9, 12;
Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 4; Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan; Exhibit 19,
Comments of Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments of Davis; Exhibit 22, Comments of
Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 29, Comments of Bykonen et al; Exhibit 30, Comments of
Bykonen et al; Exhibit 33, Comments of Bykonen et al; Testimony of Mr. Chaffee;
Testimony of Mr. Bykonen; Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony
of Mr. Husky; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S ISSUES ON REMAND:
In Resolution 3947, the Auburn City Council set forth eight specific issues for the Hearing
Examiner to review and to determine how the proposed development addressed or affected these
issues. Findings of Facts Numbers 18,19,20,21,22,23,24, and 25 address the City Council's
specific issues.
18. City Council Remand Issue Number 1: Open spaces and the protection of sensitive
environmental features, such as steep slopes, mature trees, wetlands, and scenic
views.
A. Steep Slopes The Applicants acknowledge that, as depicted in the DEIS (Figure 13),
Division I contains identified Class I Known Landslide Hazard Areas (defined as slopes greater
than 40%). However, the location of these areas on Figure 13 was based on a generalized map
that is utilized as a first indicator source that ground reconnaissance and survey are done to
further delineate the steep slopes. To supplement the slope information, the Applicants
conducted a field survey in which the location of the slopes is more accurately shown (see
Exhibit 5, Slope Exhibit Sheets I and 2). The slopes are primarily located with the open space
tracts B, I, and Q and would be impacted by the construction of Evergreen Way, the main
boulevard servicing the plat, and Kersey Way, the minor arterial from which access to the plat
would be obtained. Construction of Evergreen Way would require cutting through a ridge and
the construction of Kersey Way would require cutting of the slope to accommodate road
widening. All impacts would be at 2:1 slope ratio. The maximum grade of Evergreen Way, in
only two locations, would be 10%. Impacts to the steep slope areas are unavoidable, as these
roadways are necessary for access to the plat.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 9 000
.
B. Mature Trees On the subject property are four types of vegetative cover. Division I has
a mature mixed-species forest and Division II has a young deciduous forest, mature coniferous
forest, as well as a mature mixed-species forest. The BP A easement area is vegetated with
shrubs and grasses. The loss of forest areas is an unavoidable impact of urbanization. The
Applicants proposed the retention of native vegetation, including mature trees, in several tracts
including B, G, H, and I of Division I, totaling approximately 3.7 acres, and tracts A and F of
Division II, totaling approximately 1.4 acres. Some trees would need to be removed from Tracts
B and I to accommodate road construction and from Tracts A for construction of the drainage
facility. City construction standards require that no trees may project into the "clear zone" for
roads or sidewalks. Impacted areas would be revegetated with appropriate tree species.
C. Wetlands There are no wetlands located within Division I and Division II.
However, changes to existing surface and subsurface flows could affect the hydrology of off-site
wetlands including several wetlands located in proposed Division 3 and two off-site streams,
Bowman Creek and the White River, located NorthINorthwest of the plat. These impacts would
be addressed and mitigated via storm water drainage control design.
D. Scenic Views The residential portion of Kersey III is set back 200 to 600 feet from
Kersey Way with a 35 foot building setback provided from properties to the east (zoned Rural
Residential) and a 25 foot setback from properties to the south (zoned R-1 Residential). The
topography of the site, along with both retained and new vegetation, would provide screening of
the proposed PUD from existing low-density residential areas to the NorthINortheast. Setbacks,
along with a six-foot high solid wood fence constructed along the southern and eastern border of
the plat, would provide buffering from adjacent lower density residential areas. No scenic views
are anticipated to be obstructed.
E. Public Comments Public comments were received in regards to visual impacts
(primarily due to headlights from traffic exiting the plat, loss of vegetation, and storm water
drainage design). Neighboring property owners asserted that the headlights of vehicles exiting
the plat would shine directly into their homes and that construction of the Kersey Way/Evergreen
Way intersection would result in removal of vegetation and erosion, impacting views.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 18(A), 18(B), 18(C), 18(D), and 18(E) relied on
the following evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix;
Exhibit 9, Excerpts from DEIS; Exhibit 14, Applicants' Power Point; Exhibit 15, Landscape
Plan; Exhibit 23, Comments of Fassbind; Testimony of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong;
Testimony of Mr. Siedel; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Ms.
Fassbind
19. City Council Remand Issue Number 2: Use of traffic management and design
techniques to reduce potential traffic congestion, particularly along Kersey Way,
and promote alternative modes of travel. Consideration should be given to applying
the Lakeland pun traffic impact fee structure in responding to similar impacts
areas located south of the White River.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 10 of30
A. Traffic Management and Design Techniques Traffic Impacts (volume and safety) were
the most frequently cited issues of public comment and testimony received at both the August
2005 and the February 2006 hearings. The Applicants prepared a transportation impact analysis
(TIA) in March 2004 and amended this document in January 2005. The TIA Addendum
concluded that all corridors affected by the development are expected to meet or exceed the LOS
minimum threshold set by the City of Auburn, which is LOS-D with the proposed signalization
in place.
The TIA and the EIS set forth several traffic mitigation measures, both on-site and off-site. The
mitigation measures included: payment of impact fee; construction of half-street frontage
improvements along Kersey Way; re-alignment of 53rd Street SE and Kersey Way; three-lane
channelization (center turn lane) on Kersey Way; exclusive center left turn lanes on all legs of
the re-aligned Kersey Way/53rd Street SE/Evergreen Way intersection; deceleration lane along
Kersey Way at Evergreen Way; traffic signal and pedestrian crossings at re-aligned intersection
of Kersey Way/53rd Street/Evergreen Way; active traffic signal warning signage for southbound
Kersey Way; pedestrian treatments at the existing intersection crosswalk of Evergreen
Way/Olive Way; traffic controls (round-about) at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way and
Evergreen Way; and the construction of Evergreen way from Lakeland Hills to Kersey Way.
B. Road Safety and Aesthetics The revised plat added several additional amenities to
improve road safety and aesthetics. The additions included: safe pedestrian crossings (pavement
markings and advance warning signage) at three locations on Evergreen Way; three-lane
channelization on Evergreen Way including exclusive left-turn lanes at three locations; and
center median landscaped planter islands along Evergreen Way to improve aesthetics and
calm/slow. Conditions of approval would require that the Applicants extend the boulevard
design throughout the plat, continuing west to Lakeland Hills.
C. Traffic Impact Fees Pursuant to ACC 19.04, the City of Auburn may collect impact
fees for transportation facilities impacted by proposed development. In conjunction with the
revised plat, City Planning Staff recommended that the Applicants pay the $940.36 Lakeland
PUD Traffic Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard traffic impact fee of $677.71. The
Applicants submitted that they were not averse to paying the fee but requested that the Cit:l
identify what the fee pays for. The Applicants asserted that, as required by RCW 82.02.020 ,
prior to assessing the higher impact fee the City must demonstrate that the condition is necessary
to mitigate an adverse impact of the project (a "nexus") and the extent of mitigation is
proportional. (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v City of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)).
The Lakeland PUD Traffic Impact Fee was established through an agreement between the
developers of Lakeland Hills PUD and the Auburn City Council. The fee was assessed to
address the unique transportation impacts that would be generated by the PUD. The proposed
PUD/Plat is within the same geographic area as Lakeland Hills and the additional impact fee
2 RCW 82.02.020 authorizes local governments to impose permit conditions on development if the conditions are
reasonably related to the new development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 11 of30
would allow for the construction of road improvements to serve the area, thereby promoting
greater public safety and increased traffic flow.
D. Public Comments Public comments received on traffic impacts generated by the
proposal included: the inadequacy of infrastructure to handle the increase in traffic volumes,
noise and air pollution (exhaust emissions); safe walkinglbicycling; evacuation route; and the
impact of traffic controls (stop lights). Neighboring property owners argued that the proposed
bike path along Kersey Way was a "path to nowhere," that the proposed traffic signal at Kersey
Way/Evergreen Way/53rd Street would create backups during peak traffic times, and that
Applicants did not mitigate noise and air impacts. Neighboring property owners stated that the
existing neighborhood would be adversely impacted during construction of the proposed
improvements to Kersey Way and during construction of the plat itself. Neighboring property
owners asserted that Kersey Way is the main traffic corridor for the area, serving commuters,
school buses, and trucks from the gravel pit, and that limiting improvements to the plat's
frontage would create a funnel effect with negative impacts on traffic.
E. Applicants' Response to Public Comments In response to public concerns regarding
traffic, The Applicants submitted testimony on measures being taken as part of the development
to mitigate traffic impacts. The Applicants stated that the TIA concluded that the Kersey
Way/53rd Street/Evergreen Way intersection would operate at LOS B at full build-out of Kersey
III, well within an acceptable LOS range for the City. In addition, the TIA determined that an
appropriate mitigation for unacceptable levels of service is signalization. Evergreen Way would
provide an alternative route available to area residences during emergency situations. Conditions
of approval require the Applicants to construct a lO-foot wide walkway along the subject
property's frontage with Kersey Way. Although the walkway does not fully extend northward to
the site of an existing sidewalk, the Applicants assert that they are paying their "fair share" of the
development and that subsequent developments that are currently "in the pipeline' would be
responsible for additional segments.
F. Fassbind Driveway Neighboring property owner Ms. Fassbind stated that she was
uniquely affected by the proposed re-alignment of Kersey Way and 53rd Street due to the
location of her driveway at this intersection and has not been contacted by the Applicants in this
regard. Ms. Fassbind asserts that the proposed alignment would create an extremely dangerous
situation for her and her family entering and exiting their property especially with a truck/trailer
combination. The Applicants stated that the current re-alignment proposal for Kersey Way/53rd
Street is tentative and that they would be in contact with Ms. Fassbind to discuss the final
engineering design of the intersection and of the driveway, including alternative solutions such
as the use of two driveways.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 19(A), 19(B), 19(C), 19(D), 19(E), and 19(F)
relied on the following evidence: Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 5, 16-17, Sept. 2005 FCR;
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7, 21-25, 29; Exhibit 5, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheet 10; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages 2-3; Exhibit 14, Applicants' PowerPointl Exhibit 19,
Comments by Peters,' Exhibit 20, Comments by Davis; Exhibit 21, Comments by Davis; Exhibit
23, Comments by Fassbind; Exhibit 24, Comments by Chaffee; Exhibit 32, Comments by
Anderson; Exhibit 34, Comments by Staples; ; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Responses, Pages 3-4;
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 12 of30
Testimony of Ms. Fassbind; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony
of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
20. City Council Remand Issue Number 3: The development of transitional areas
between these projects and adjacent developments and environmentally sensitive
areas.
A. Zoning Surrounding land uses consist of residential development and vacant land.
Residential development is comprised of low (zoned Rl - 1 du/acre) and semi-rural (1 du/2.5 - 5
acres) densities to the east and south, with the possibility of higher density PUD development on
the vacant parcel to the west (Kersey III, Division III). Parcels west of the proposed Kersey III,
Division III site are comprised of Lakeland Hills, a high density PUD development. Parcels to
the north are a mixture of vacant land (zoned Rl) and natural (mineral) resource lands. The
subject property has been zoned R-l Single Family Residential (Rl) since 1987 and was
designated as Single Family Residential under the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The
Comprehensive Plan contemplates the bulk of single-family residential communities developed
at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. The Applicants proposed development at an
overall density of 4.12 du/acre with lot sizes ranging from 4,000 to 8,354 square feet and
averaging 4,990 square feet. The proposed density is consistent with City standards.
B. Comprehensive Plan Designation The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Auburn
addresses the issue of transition in the context of incompatible land uses and densities. Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan state the site design should utilize and preserve features, including
topography, open spaces, and vegetation, to separate densities and that landscaped buffers or
other measures should be utilized to separate uses.
C. Setbacks ACC 18.69.080(B) requires setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD that
correspond to the requirements of the adjoining zoning districts. ACC 18.08.040(E)(4) requires
a 35-foot rear yard building setback line (BSBL) within the RR zoning district and ACe
18.12.040(E)(4) requires a 25-foot rear BSBL within the Rl zoning district. Pierce County Code
(PC C), Table 18A.17.030(B)(2)(l), requires a lO-foot rear yard setback within the MSF zoning
district. The Applicants proposed a 35-foot BSBL on the eastern border of the site and a 25-foot
BSBL on the subject property's southern border with Pierce County. Proposed residential
development within the northern portion of the PUD/plat is set back 200 to 600 feet from Kersey
Way and is further screened by vegetation and topography. The Applicant intends to construct a
six-foot high solid wood fence along the southern and eastern borders to provide additional
screemng.
D. Public Comment Public comments were received on the issue of transition. Comments
submitted stated that the transition from the dense Lakeland Hills PUD to the neighboring rural
communities was to abrupt; that Kersey III should be a buffer zone between two extremes - the
higher density development of Lakeland Hills and the existing lower density development to the
east and south; and that the higher density would not blend with the existing rural neighborhood.
Neighboring property owners argued that Kersey III provides no transition between low density
(one acre lot), the proposed density (4,000 to 8,354 square feet), and the Lakeland Hills density
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page I3 000
(7,200 to 10,000 square feet). Neighboring property owners also asserted that a 25-35 foot
BSBL and/or a six foot high fence does not provide adequate buffering and/or screening of uses.
E. Environmental Sensitive Areas Environmentally sensitive areas are primarily contained
within open space tracts. Recommended conditions of approval require a three to four foot high
two-rail fence to separate all residential properties that border on an open space, park, or
stormwater drainage area. The purpose of the fence is to delineate private property from
common areas and to prevent encroachment by the property owner into the common areas.
Maintenance ofthis fence shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 20(A), 20(B), 20(C), 2Q(D), and 20 (E) relied on
the following evidence: General Findings of Fact No.5, Sept. 2005 FCR; Specific Finding of
Fact Nos. 2, 4, and 5; Sept. 2005 FCR; Chapter 3, Land Use Policies LU-26, LU-27, LU-28;
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7-9, 12; Exhibit 5, Preliminary Plat Cover Sheet; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 4; Exhibit 19, Comments by Peters; Exhibit 20, Comments
by Davis; Exhibit 27, Comments by Koch; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Pages 5-6;
Testimony of Mr. Gould; Testimony of Mr. Bykonen.
21. City Council Remand Issue Number 4: The building and structural designs that
complement surrounding land uses and their environment, reflecting quality site
design, landscaping, and building architecture required under the Auburn pun
ordinance.
A. Design Standards ACC 18.69.080(D) provides design standards requirements for PUDs
including building orientation, varied facades, continuity and compatibility of structures, colors,
screening, lighting, and landscaping. The Applicants' architect, Patrick McBride, stated that the
architectural intent behind Kersey III was to ensure consistent, compatible, and attractive
residences which portray a sense of architectural integrity, quality, durability, residential
character, and innovative design. Residences are to be designed on a pedestrian scale with
sensitivity to the site. Site design elements proposed for the development include variations in
footprint and/or orientation on the lot; front setbacks; driveway locations and materials; accent
materials such as natural stone, columns, and shutters; front porches that promote pedestrian
connectivity; decks and other architectural features; de-emphasis of garages by blending garage
doors with the character of the residence; differing roof types and window designs; and spacing
of homes with identical elevations. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Overall Landscape
Plan that depicts areas to maintained with native vegetation, park amenities, and street tree
landscaping.
B. Lot Coverage The Applicants assert that in order to meet (ACC 18.69) PUD standards
for quality site design and building architecture the lot coverage variance must be granted. The
Applicants stated that the five- percent increase in allowable lot coverage is to allow flexibility in
home design that would satisfy the PUD guidelines and prevent a "cookie cutter" look with all
homes sharing a similar footprint.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 14 of30
C. Public Comments Public comments were received on the issue of design. Neighboring
property owners stated that the Applicants' revised proposal reduces the total number of
residences by six and modifies the average lot sizes from 3,800 square feet to 8,400 square feet
to 4,000 square feet to 8,400 square feet with only 10 lots greater than 7,000 square feet.
Neighboring property owners argued that the proposed design does not create compatibility with
Lakeland Hills which has lots ranging from 7,200 square feet to 10,000 square feet nor does it
have the look and feel of sub-communities similar to Lakeland Hills. Neighboring property
owners assert that the proposed PUD/plat does not provide the quality of design required by
ACC 18.69.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 21(A), 21(B), and 21(C) relied on the following
evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 5 and 7; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages
4-5; Exhibit 7, Applicant's PowerPoint and Architect Narrative; Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan;
Exhibit 26, Comments by Galeno; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response, Page 6; Testimony of Mr.
McBride; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Mr. Norris; Testimony of Mr. Galeno.
22. City Council Remand Issue Number 5: The parks and open spaces, and the
adequacy of parks and open spaces located under Bonneville Power Administration
power lines.
A. Parks and Open Space Requirement ACC 18.69.080(A)(I) requires each PUD to set
aside 20% of the gross area of the PUD as open space, which amounts to 17.86 acres for the
Kersey III, Division I and II. Non-buildable areas (areas of greater than 25% slope, wetlands, or
floodways (ACC 18.6.030(0)) may be used to meet no more than 50 percent of the open space
area requirement. ACC 18.69.080(A)(2) provides that each PUD must meet the City's Park Plan
standards for park dedication. Current standards are 6.03 acres of unimproved park land for
every 1000 population of the plat. The City permits the required open space to meet all or a
portion of the required parkland. The Applicants proposed 368 single-family residences, or
approximately 920 people (based on 2.5 persons per residence), for a total requirement of 5.55
acres of park land.
As part of the Applicants' original proposal, all of the park space and a large percentage of open
space were being provided within Division 1. In the proposal for open space and parks, land
encumbered by the Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) easement is the only site for active
and passive recreation opportunities. Open space summary for the first proposal included 28.94
acres of open space (stormwater drainage, open space, parkland, entry signage, pedestrian
pathways) with 15.82 acres in areas ofless than 25%. Of the 15.82 acres, a total of 6.11 acres
was designated as park land. In the revised proposal, the Applicants increased both the amount
of open space and parkland, providing four new parks with two parks for active recreation and
two for passive recreation. Open space now includes 29.64 acres (33.19% of gross area) with
18.12 acres in areas of less than 25%. A total of 9.17 acres has been designated as parkland
(includes open space, parks, and pedestrian pathways but not acreage within the BP A easement)
with the parks dispersed throughout both Division I and Division II as opposed to centrally
located. The total park space is in excess of the amount required by the City's Park Plan. All of
the proposed park facilities would be built by the Applicants concurrently with the plat.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUDlPreliminary PlatlYariance - ON REMAND
Page 15 of30
B. BPA Easement The western 300 feet of Parcels 322105-9015 and 322105-9017
(Division I) are encumbered by an easement held by the BP A for a high-voltage power
transmission lines. The BPA easement encompasses approximately 12.51 acres. In both the
original and the revised proposals, the Applicants would utilize this area to satisfy both open
space and park requirements for the development. On August 30, 2005, the Applicants entered
into a Land Use Agreement with BPA allowing for the construction/installation of roads,
utilities, trails, landscaping, a park, and park appurtenances within the easement. BP A has
entered into similar relationships with other developers within the Puget Sound Area as it
provides an efficient use of land and assures maintenance of the BP A easement. The Land Use
Agreement contained 15 conditions including the location of structures in relationship to BP A
transmission line towers, landscaping, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
C. Revised Parks and Open Space Plan The revised proposal would retain the BP A
easement area in open space and provide a walking trail. The Applicants' drawings note the path
width as 12 feet as opposed to the 16 feet width required under the Land Use Agreement.
Walking trails would also be provided in Tract B (Division I) and Tract F (Division II). The
walking trail in Tract B would provide a par-course (exercise stations). A playground area
would be provided in Tract Q (Division I) and Tract P (Division II). Tract P would also have a
half-court sports court. Tract Q would have a sports field, including baseball diamond, a full
basketball court, open lawn area, and walking trail. All park areas would have picnic tables and
benches. On-street parking would be provided in the vicinity of the active recreations areas
(ballfield and playgrounds) including along Roads A, E, G, and K. Pedestrian pathways
throughout the plat allow for safe walking to and from park areas.
D. Vegetation All parks would retain existing vegetation when possible. Tree removal
would be required in Tract B and Tract I to accommodate road construction and in other open
space/park tracts to allow for the construction of recreational amenities (ballfields, playgrounds,
walking trails) and stormwater drainage.
E. City Review The City of Auburn Park's Department and City Parks and Recreation
Board reviewed the Applicants' proposal. Although the City did not grant full credit for the use
of land encumbered by the BP A easement, it determined that the Applicant's proposal conforms
to City standards.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 22 (A), 22(B), 22(C), 22(D), and 22(E) relied on
the following evidence: Specific Findings of Fact No. 21, Sept. 2005 FeR; Specific Findings of
Fact No. 22, Sept. 2005 FeR. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 4, 5, and 7; Exhibit 5, Preliminary
Plat, Sheets 3-5; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 7-8; Exhibit 8, BP A Land Use
Agreement; Exhibit 15, Preliminary PlatlPUD Plans; Exhibit 15, Landscaping Plan; Testimony
of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Scamporlina; Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Mr. Siedel.
23. City Council Remand Issue Number 6: Incorporation of adequate notification to
future lot owners of the adjacent surface mining operations.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 16000
A. Surface Mining At the August 2005 hearing, public comments were received with
regards to the impact on neighboring natural resource lands, a 664-acre gravel mining operation
owned by Segale Properties/ICON Materials lying north of the site. Segale/ICON expressed
concern that a dense residential development would have the potential for generating homeowner
complaints pertaining to air, noise, light, traffic, and safety. Furthermore, Segale/ICON
submitted the construction of Kersey III would generate traffic congestion and other safety
situations, impacting the mine's operation. Conditions of approval require that a notice be
placed on the final plat, all building permits, and all individual lot deeds as required by RCW
36.70A.060.
B. Modified Condition of Approval For the February 2006 Remand Hearing,
Segale/ICON Properties submitted additional co~ments, seeking to modify a condition to make
it more clear to potential buyers that mining activities are currently on-going at the site. This
condition would protect the mining activities as well as the interests of the City and the
developers. The wording proposed by Segale/ICON is acceptable to the Applicants and the City.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 23(A) and 23(B) relied on the following evidence:
Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 11; 12, and 13, Condition No. J, Sept. 2005 FCR; Exhibit 6,
Applicants' Response Matrix, Page 7; Exhibit 17, Correspondence from Segale; Testimony of
Mr. Pilcher.
24. City Council Remand Issue Number 7: Protection of waterways and the
development's proposed stormwater system.
A. Water Supply Water would be supplied by the City of Auburn - Valley Water System.
Existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the needs of the development. The Applicants
would be required to construct a booster pump station at the comer of Oravetz Road and Kersey
Way SE and extend a water line along Kersey Way and Evergreen Way, connecting to the
existing lines in the Lakeland Hills development. Although the PUD/Plat would be served by
City water, adjacent properties are served by private wells. Documentation was not submitted
as part of the record in regards to impacts on the sanitary control areas (SCA) for the private
wells.
B. Private Wells Neighboring property owners stated that wells in the area have gone dry
and the City has been forced to request supplemental water from the City of Bonney Lake. In
addition, the neighbors asserted that the City has given no assurance as to what impact the
PUD/Plat, or the recent sale of water rights, would have on the water level in Lake Tapps and,
subsequently, the City's aquifers.
C. Protection ofWaterwavs Bowman Creek lies north of the subject property and is a
tributary to the White River. The creek was a fish-bearing creek, supporting spawning grounds
for salmon and bull trout populations. As noted in the DEIS, the creation of impervious surface
within the project site would cause an increase in stormwater flow volumes that could cause
downstream channel and bank erosion. The Applicants proposed to collect and convey
stormwater to a standard two-cell wet/detention pond via catch basins and underground storm
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 17 of30
drainage pipes prior to discharge into Bowman Creek. The drainage facilities, designed to the
City's standards, are located on Tract A of both Division I and Division II and would operate as
a single unit. An energy dissipater would be installed to reduce erosion and the admission of
sediment into the creek system. The revised PUD/Plat contains modifications to the drainage
facilities which increase both pond volume and wetpond surface area. Recommended conditions
of approval incorporate high standards of design (IOO-year flood event) and enhanced erosion
control features. The drainage facilities would be landscaped to screen from adjacent residential
development.
D. Public Comments Public comments were received into the record pertaining to storm
water and water quality with many of the comments pertaining to impacts on Bowman Creek.
Testimony voiced concern for both sediment and pollutant run-off that could impact Bowman
Creek's water quality and fish and bird habitat. The Applicants asserted that while the
development of the Kersey III PUD would not be the cause of the salmon's departure,
development should not prevent restoration of water quality and the return of salmon. The
Applicants stated that the design of the stormwater system should not prevent restoration.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 24(A), 24(B), 24(C), and 24(D) relied on the
following evidence: Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 7; Exhibit 5, Preliminary Plat Map, Sheets 7,
9; Exhibit 6, Applicants' Response Matrix, Pages 7-8; Exhibit 14, Applicants' PowerPoint;
Exhibit 15, Landscape Plan; Exhibit 22, Comments of Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 23, Comments
of Fassbind; Exhibit 27, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 31, Comments of Koch; Exhibit 32,
Comments of Anderson; Exhibit 36, Applicant's Response, Page 5; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher;
Testimony of Mr. Armstrong; Testimony of Mr. Chaffee; Testimony of Mr. Bykonen; Testimony
of Ms. Koch; Testimony of Ms. Brooke.
25. City Council Remand Issue Number 8: Application of the Lakeland Fire Impact
Fee to aid the City in developing fire facilities to serve the area south of the White
River.
A. Impact Fees Comments from the Auburn Fire Department were not submitted into the
record for the August 2005 public hearing nor for the February 2006 Remand Hearing. Impacts
on the fire services were considered during environmental review (Exhibit 7, DEIS, Pages 117-
119, Sept. 2005 FCR). To mitigate these impacts, City Planning Staff recommended that the
Applicants pay a $470.16 Lakeland Fire Impact Fee in lieu of the City's standard fire impact fee
of $290.13.
The Applicants are not averse to paying the fire impact fee but requested that the City identi7
what is the reason for the fee. The Applicants asserted that, as required by RCW 82.02.020 ,
prior to assessing the higher impact fee the City must demonstrate that the condition is necessary
as mitigation for an adverse impact of the project (a "nexus") and the extent of mitigation is
3 RCW 82.02.020 authorizes local governments to impose permit conditions on development if the conditions are
reasonably related to the new development.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III RezonelPUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 18 of30
proportional. (Nol/an v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v City of
Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994)).
The Lakeland Fire Impact Fee was established through an agreement between the developers of
Lakeland Hills PUD and the Auburn City Council. The fee was assessed to address fire
department service in the remote location of the PUD and the lack of a fire station within close
proximity to the PUD. The proposed PUD/Plat is within the same geographic area as Lakeland
Hills and the additional impact fee would allow for the construction of additional facilities to
serve the area, thereby promoting greater public safety.
B. Public Comment Public comments were received on the issue. Neighboring
property owners stated that the City of Auburn is currently experiencing explosive growth that is
putting a strain on emergency services providers, such as police and fire. According to the
neighbors, the nearest fire station is by the SuperMall, some 12 minutes away from the plat.
Facts presented in Findings of Facts Numbers 25(A) and 25(B) relied on the following evidence:
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Pages 7 and 15; Exhibit 6, Applicant's Response Matrix, Page 8; Exhibit
28, "Sound the Alarm..."; Exhibit 36, Applicants' Response; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher;
Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearings Examiner is granted jurisdiction to
hear and make recommendations to the City Council. Jurisdiction for the Hearings Examiner to
make recommendations for an application for rezone is pursuant to ACe 14.03.040(D) and
18.68.030, for approval of an application for a PUD is pursuant to ACC 18.69.140, and for
approval of a preliminary plat is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(A) and 17.06.050.
Criteria for Review:
Along with the requirements set forth by the Washington State Supreme Court (rezones must be
based on a change in neighborhood conditions and bear a substantial relationship to the public
health, safety, and general welfare - Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978), in order to
APPROVE A REZONE, the Hearings Examiner must find that the following criteria, as set forth
in ACC 18.68, are satisfied:
1. The rezone shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezone was initiated by a party, other than the City, in order for the Hearing
Examiner to hold a public hearing and consider the request.
3. Any change or modification to the rezone request made by the Hearing Examiner or the
City Council shall not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 19 of30
In order to APPROVE A PUD, the Applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed
PUD achieves, or is consistent with, in whole or in part, desired public benefits and expectations.
Pursuant to ACC 18.69.150, the proposal must demonstrate sufficient findings of facts to support
the following:
1. The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for schools.
2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
3. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, provides for the public
benefits required of the development of PUDs by providing an improvement in the
quality, character, architectural and site design, housing choice and/or open space
protection over what would otherwise be attained through a development using the
existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or plans
which have been adopted by the City Council.
5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the surrounding
area than any other project would have if developed using the existing zoning standards
of the zoning district the PUD is located in.
6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood,
including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map designations, and the design
guidelines set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D).
In order to APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to ACC 17.06.070, the Applicants
must have provided support for the following:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for
open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary
wastes, parks, and sites for schools and school grounds.
2. Conformance to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, to the
general purpose of Title 17.02, and to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plan which have been adopted by the City Council.
3. Conformance to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning
or engineering standard and specifications.
4. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that the
proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or abate
public nuisances.
In order TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, pursuant to ACC 18.70.010, the Hearing Examiner
must find facts in support of the following:
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 20 of 30
1. Unique physical conditions or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions
peculiar to and inherent in the property which create practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardship.
2. Strict conformity with Title 18 would not allow a reasonable and harmonious use of the
property.
3. Variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to
surrounding properties.
4. Circumstances justifYing variance are not a result of the Applicants.
5. Literal interpretation of Title 18 would deprive Applicants of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the same zoning district.
6. Approval of the variance is consistent with the purpose of Title 18, the Comprehensive
Plan, and the zoning district in which property is located.
7. Variance would not allow for increased density.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. The rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, other applicable goals and policies of the City Council, and the ACC.
The Director of Planning correctly determined the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions in the EIS concurred with this result, finding several
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan satisfied by the development, including
improving the City's transportation network; creating and maintaining park land and
open space; developing diversity of architectural design; providing for adequate urban
density; improvement to the City's public utility (water/sewer) system; and protecting
streams and natural areas. The goals and policies of the City Council are embodied in the
City's Comprehensive Plan and ACC. The Applicants' proposal is consistent with the
City's Park Plan and Non-Motorized Plan. Proposed design standards comply with the
purpose and intent of ACC 18.69. General Findings of Fact Nos. 2 and 5, Sept 2005
FeR; Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, Sept 2005, FeR; Findings of
Fact Nos. 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
Rezone Criteria
2. The rezone was initiated by the Applicant-Property Owner and not the City.
Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030(B)(l), in order for the Hearing Examiner to consider a rezone
request, the City may not initiate the rezone. The Applicants are the owners of the
property subject to the rezone. Finding of Fact Nos. 1 and 3, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
3. Conditions in the area have substantially changed and the rezone bears a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
The Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have substantially
changed since the original zoning and that the rezone bears a substantial relationship to
the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 21 of30
(1978). A variety of factors may satisfy a change in circumstances, including changes in
public opinion, local land use patterns, and on the property itself. Bjarnson v. Kitsap
County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846 (Div. 1, 1995). The City and the Applicants stated that
the area where the subject property is located has experienced significant development as
a result of the Lakeland Hills PUD; population growth within the City of Auburn; overall
market conditions in Puget Sound which are creating a demand for smaller lots;
topography making the land more suitable for the flexibility of a PUD zoning district;
compliance with the urban density requirement of the GMA; and compatibility with the
existing PUD community. Development of the site would provide new homes for the
growing community and improvements to infrastructure. Changes in both land use
patterns and public opinion, along with the requirements of the GMA and the
Comprehensive Plan designation, provide justification for the rezone. General Findings
of Fact Nos. 2 and 5, Sept 2005 FCR; Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8,
Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 9, and 10, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
4. The Hearing Examiner is not recommending any change or modification to the
rezone request that will result in a more intense zone than the one requested by
the Applicant.
Planned Unit Development/Preliminarv Plat Criteria
5. The PUD/plat proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety,
and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schools.
The Applicants have made provisions for internal streets with sidewalks for pedestrian
safety, these include safe walking for school children and pedestrian passage ways for
park and open space access. The EIS mitigation measures and conditions of approval
would provide for traffic improvements and traffic control/calming devices to ensure
safety within and to the community. The development would be served by City water
and sanitary sewer. Storm water facilities would collect and convey run-off, utilizing an
energy dissipater to reduce sedimentation output. Applicants have provided for a total of
29.64 acres of open space, of which 9.17 acres are to be developed for both active and
passive recreation with an additional 12.51 acres of open/park space provided within the
BP A easement. The open/park space is generally provided in a contiguous block so as to
provide corridors for wildlife. The PUD would be served by City of Auburn water and
sanitary sewer, both of which have adequate capacity to serve the needs of the
community. School impact fees would mitigate the increase in student population.
Development of over 350 homes at varied price levels serves the general welfare and
growing housing needs of the community. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18,
20, 21, and 22, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18(B)-(C),
19(A)-(F), 21 (A)-(C), 22 (A)-(E), and 24(A)-(D), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
6. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, and provides for the
public benefits required of the development of PUDs such as preservation of
natural amenities, creation of pedestrian-oriented communities, efficient use of
land, development of transitional areas, innovative/aesthetic building and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 22 of 30
structural design, creation of parks and open spaces, provision for affordable
housing.
A PUD must provide certain public benefits. The Applicants proposed to preserve
natural amenities and sensitive areas through the use of open spaces and parkland. The
preliminary plat and its associated conceptual design demonstrate a pedestrian-oriented
community with sidewalks, pedestrian passageways, and parks for both active and
passive recreation that are dispersed throughout the development. The plat is structured
to utilize the property efficiently by layout, house design, and open space. Homes would
not be facing the residential collector, Evergreen Way SE, and would be separated from
the arterial collector, Kersey Way SE, by 200 to 600 feet of open space. Setbacks and
privacy fencing would separate the development from adjoining low-density residential
areas. The Applicants proposed a variety of architectural styles, providing a varied
streetscape, and have submitted landscape plans. The Applicants proposed over nine
acres of active and passive recreation parklands with additional acreage provided by the
BP A easement. Affordable housing is a concern within the entire Puget Sound area and .
the PUD/plat would provide homes ranging in price from $400,000 to $700,000,
providing a range of options for potential buyers. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 5, 14,
15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 5, 6, 18(A)-(D),
21(A)-(C), 22(A)-(E), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
7. The approval of the pun will have no more of an adverse impact upon the
surrounding area than any other project would have if developed using the
existing zoning standards.
The property is currently zoned R-I, which could allow for development of up to 89
dwelling units on site. However, probably only 60-65 dwelling units would be allowed to
be constructed due to the presence of non-buildable areas (steep slopes, BP A easement),
infrastructure, and park requirements. Applicants seek to develop 368 dwelling units.
Development of over 350 dwelling units would undoubtedly have more impact than the
existing zoning standard but the PUD is providing a significant amount of open space,
park land, and infrastructure improvements to the community. Connection to City water
and sewer would have less impact on groundwater quality and quantity then installation
of private wells and/or on-site septic systems. Location and design of open space would
provide a contiguous corridor for wildlife and scenic views. Development of the site
with homes on one acre lots would result in substantially more fragmentation, creating
greater impacts on wildlife and associated habitat along with scenic view corridors.
Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23,
Sept. 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 9,10,13,14,16,17, 18(D), 20(A), 20(E), and
22, Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
8. The pun is consistent with the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood.
Surrounding land use consists of natural resource land (gravel pit), low-density
residential development, and the Lakeland Hills PUD. The Comprehensive Plan
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 23 of30
designation for the area is Single-Family Residential which endeavors to develop land
with this designation at a density of four to six dwelling units per acre. Development
would be consistent with the character of the neighboring Lakeland Hills community and
with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The PUD would be screened from low-
density development in the north/northwest by the site's topography and the
retention/enhancement of vegetation. The Applicants would provide 25 to 35 foot rear
yard setbacks and privacy fencing to buffer low-density development to the east and
south. Conditions of approval would require a minimum of one tree per rear yard to
further buffer between adjacent uses. General Findings of Fact No.2, Sept 2005 FCR;
Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 3, and 8, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact Nos. 3, 4,
10, 11, 18(B), 20(A)-(E), 21 (A), 21 (C), Feb 2006 Remand Hearing.
9. The pun and Preliminary Plat conforms to the City of Auburn's zoning
ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and
specifications and to other applicable policies or plans adopted by the City
Council.
With conditions, the Applicants' proposal for the PUD complies with all related City
codes and standards. Specific Findings of Fact No. 23, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact
Nos. II, Feb 2005 Remand Hearing.
10. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that
the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the quality of the
environment.
According to the EIS, wildlife and their associated habitat would be directly affected and
no mitigation measures were available to ameliorate this impact. Wildlife would suffer
from loss of native vegetation, fragmentation of habitat, reduction in native populations,
and disturbance in retained habitat due to human encroachment. While these impacts can
not be adequately mitigated, none of the impacted species is listed as endangered,
threatened, or sensitive pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The design of
open/park space does provide habitat for wildlife in a contiguous, as opposed to
fragmented manner, and retention of native vegetation would assist in preserving habitat.
In addition to wildlife impacts, off-site streams would be effected by the increase in
impervious surface that would affect the hydrology of the area due to a change in
recharge patterns. The Applicant would be required to provide technology to control
sediment/erosion thereby lessening impacts to water resources and fisheries habitat.
Public Services - Police, Fire, Schools - would all be impacted by the increased
population generated by the development. Conditions of approval require the Applicants
to pay impacts fees to mitigate these public service impacts, including fire and traffic
impacts fees higher than those that are mandated under the ACC. Specific Findings of
Fact Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19,20, and 22, Sept 2005 FCR; Findings of Fact
Nos. 12, 13,14,15,16,17, 18(A)-(E), 19(A)-(F), 20(E), 22(A)-(E), 23 (A), 24(A)-(D), and
25(A)-(B).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III RezonelPUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 24 of 30
11. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent
or abate public nuisances.
Public Nuisances are addressed generally throughout the ACC and are addressed directly
in ACC 8.12. A public nuisance affects public health and property values by creating
visual blight, harboring rodents and/or pests, or creating unsafe pedestrian and traffic
situations. Compliance with City design standards for road safety (width, sidewalks, and
visibility) would ensure safe pedestrian and traffic access within the development. As
conditioned the development of a Homeowners' A~sociation and the associated
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions would ensure that visual blights and dangers to
public health are reduced/eliminated, thereby promoting both general public welfare and
property values. Specific Findings of Fact Nos. 16, Sept 2005 FCR
Variance Criteria
12. The subject property does not possess physical conditions or exceptional
topographic features that warrant deviating from the applicable design
requirements nor does strict conformity with ACC Title 18 fail to allow
reasonable and harmonious use of the property which would justify a variance.
Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 21(A)-(C), Feb 2006 FCR.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings of Facts and Conclusion of law, the Hearing Examiner recommends to the
Auburn City Council that the request for a variance from the required lot coverage be DENIED.
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the request for a rezone of 89.31 acres from R-l Single
Family Residential to PUD, approval of the PUD, and approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the following notice shall be placed on the final plat and on
all building permits and deeds issued within the Kersey III development (Division I and
Division II):
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral resource
lands on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that
are not compatible with residential development. The owner of
the mineral resource lands may, at any time, apply to the City for
a permit for mining-related activities including, but not limited
to, mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting,
transporting, and recycling of minerals.
2. Prior to the issuance of final plat approval for any phase containing an open space tract, the
Applicants shall submit, or enter into an agreement to submit, a Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions that conforms to the requirements of ACC 19.69.200.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 25 of 30
3. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted for the construction of interior
improvements to the subdivision, Applicant shall also submit engineering/construction
drawings for the construction of all park improvements as depicted on the drawings
submitted (Exhibit 5). The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn's
Parks Director prior to the approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any materials
supplied and installed for the parks must meet current City Parks Department standards and
be approved by the Parks Director prior to installation and final plat approval.
4. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future Kersey III
Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for review and approval by City Staff prior to
final plat approval. This document shall include architectural design criteria for new homes
and specify the financial means of maintenance of all common open spaces.
5. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I & II Conceptual Building
Design Guidelines dated January 9, 2006 and the submitted conceptual drawings and
photographs submitted with the application. The Architectural Design Guidelines shall be
incorporated into the CC&Rs for the project. The final design guidelines shall include a
color palette for proposed house exterior colors. In addition, the following conditions shall
apply.
a) Homes shall feature multiple roof pitches on their street-facing facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property
line. No more than a two-car garage shall be used; tandem parking is
acceptable.
c) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two homes sharing
the same floor plan are located adjacent to one another
6. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary Overall
Landscaping Plan, dated March 7, 2005, which was included with the Applicants'
resubmittal for rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat approval (Exhibit 5, Sheets 3-5). The
Applicants shall maximize the use of native and/or drought-resistant plants throughout the
plat, including park and landscaped open space areas. Emphasis should be on the use of
native vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native vegetation.
7. All lots abutting low-density residential development (Division I Lot numbers 19-62 and
Division II Lot numbers 17-49) shall have, at a minimum, one tree in the rear yard setback to
buffer the adjacent development from the PUD.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a low monument style with accenting landscaping. The number,
style, and placement of signs and associated landscaping shall be approved by the Planning
Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material, style, and color. The
Planning Director shall approve such fences, which shall be equivalent to a six foot high
solid wood fence. Any fencing to be erected adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 26 of30
pathways requires the approval of the Planning Director. All residential properties that
border on a native/open space, park, or drainage tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and I) shall be
separated from these areas by use of a two- rail wooden fence of approximately three to four
feet in height. This fence shall delineate the property line and prevent encroachment by the
property owner into the native/open space, park, or drainage tract.
10. Approval of the rezone and PUD are valid only upon approval and execution of the
associated preliminary plat.
11. Applicants shall comply with all of the mitigation measures as noted on pages 9-19 of the
Kersey III Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8 of the August 2005 Hearing), dated February
2005, and as otherwise noted throughout this recommendation.
12. Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey Way SE. This
traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbound Kersey Way SE in
advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way SE. This active warning
signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
14. Applicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial security for
traffic controls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the intersection of Lakeland Hills
Way and Evergreen Way SE. These traffic controls shall be designed and constructed as a
round-about unless the City Engineer determines, based on design, that a round-about is not
feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a round-about is not feasible, then the traffic
controls shall be designed and construction as a traffic signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct or post financial security for
traffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen Way SE, in the vicinity of the
park area near Olive Avenue. These traffic calming and pedestrian safety amenities must be
constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the environment, namely
impacts on wildlife populations and their associated habitat. Two main impacts pertain to
loss of native vegetation and fragmentation of habitat. Applicants shall endeavor to provide
for preservation of a wildlife habitat by creating a corridor containing native vegetation,
thereby mitigating these impacts.
18. Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Auburn School District.
Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the school district can provide
transportation, but that schools have the capacity to serve the students generated by the
proposal without burdening or creating overcapacity at any school. Applicants shall be
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 27 of 30
responsible for all school impact fees III a manner consistent with local and state law
requirements.
19. Prior to issuance of clearing or grading permits, a grading plan for grading and clearing
necessary for both the construction of infrastructure such as roads and utilities and for lot
grading shall be submitted and approved by the City of Auburn. The purpose of the plan
should be to accomplish the maximum amount of grading at one time to limit or avoid the
need for subsequent grading and disturbance, including grading of individual lots during
home construction. The plan shall identify the surveyed boundary of the crest slopes for the
site's 40% or greater slopes. This plan shall show quantities and locations of excavations, and
embankments, the design of temporary storm drainage detention system, and methods of
preventing drainage, erosion and sedimentation from impacting adjacent properties, natural
and public storm drainage systems and other near by sensitive areas. Temporary detention
facilities shall be designed with a 1.5 safety factor applied to the post-developed calculated
pond design volume for the 25-year, 24-hour post-developed storm event. All the measures
shall be implemented prior to beginning phased on-site filling, grading or construction
activities.
The grading plans shall be prepared in conjunction with and reviewed by a licensed
geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall develop and submit, for the City's
review, specific recommendations to mitigate grading activities, with particular attention to
developing a plan to minimize the extent and time soils are exposed and address grading and
related activities during wet weather periods (the period of greatest concern is October 1
through March 31). The plans shall show the type and the extent of geologic hazard area or
any other critical areas as required in chapters 16 and 18 of the International Building Code
(IBC) and/or the City's Critical Areas Ordinance.
Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall have a geo-technical
engineer re-analyze the site and determine if new or additional mitigation measures are
necessary. A revised geo-technical report shall be submitted to the City of Auburn for
review and approval by the City Engineer. Recommendations for areas where subsurface
water is known or discovered shall be given particular attention by the geotechnical engineer
and coordinated with the project engineer responsible for the storm drainage system design.
19. Prior to final plat approval, a supplemental evaluation of stream channel conditions along
Bowman Creek in vicinity of Stream Station 14+00 must be completed, including the off-site
erosion feature observed at the outlet of the culvert under Kersey Way and near Bowman
Creek. Appropriate mitigation shall be proposed to eliminate the observed erosion as well as
any erosion determined be present from the supplemental evaluation of stream channel
conditions along Bowman Creek.
20. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the
appearance of the site and serve as an amenity. The design of above ground storage and
conveyance facilities shall address or incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation,
minimal side slopes, safety, maintenance needs, and function.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary PlatlVariance - ON REMAND
Page 28 000
Prior to final plat approval, a landscaping plan with applicable cross-sections is required to
demonstrate that storm drainage pond aesthetic requirements consistent with City standards
can be accommodated on-site.
Storm drainage facilities shall be provided consistent with the City of Auburn Design
Standards. In order to achieve this, the following design elements must be incorporated into
the final design:
· Vehicle access for maintenance to all proposed storm drainage structures is required.
To provide an adequate and safe storm pond access, an appropriately designed pull-
off shall be provided from Kersey Way SE to serve the pond.
· All storm drainage conveyance lines required to manage upstream bypass surface
flows shall be routed through the project site and shall not be combined with the
proposed on-site storm drainage system. Maintenance access shall be provided to all
structures proposed to be in public ownership. The remaining portions of this system
shall be placed within a tract dedicated to the Homeowners Association for
maintenance and operation.
Given the steep slopes found on the site, appropriately designed energy dissipation features
are required at the end of long runs of pipe, at pipe intersections and at the outlet to the storm
drainage pond.
To enhance the water quality of the discharge leaving the site, appropriately designed
aeration shall be provided within the storm pond.
Given the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity of Kersey Way near 53rd Street
SE, and subsequent flooding of the intersection, an appropriately designed storm drainage
system shall be constructed to mitigate this condition.
21. The location and alignment of the force main and the proposed pump station shall be
coordinated with adjacent property owners and the City to ensure it provides service to the
desired basin. The public sanitary sewer pump station shall be located as directed by the City
Engineer in order to allow room for large vehicle turnarounds so City vehicles do not have to
back into public right-of-ways.
The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer stub to the south property line located between
Lots 27 and 28 of Division 1.
The applicant shall provide an easement for possible future extension of the sanitary sewer
system located at the SE comer of Tract D, Division 1.
22. All roads within the plat must be constructed to City standards (except where deviations
are granted by the City Engineer) and shall be dedicated as public right of way.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 29 of 30
23. The Applicants shall construct Evergreen Way to City standards for a residential collector
arterial including a 10 foot landscaped center median/turn lane area through the plat
boundaries.
24. The Applicants shall also construct median treatments to match the 10 foot center
median/turn lane within the plat on the existing roadway west to Lakeland Hills Way, to the
satisfaction of the city engineer.
25. The Applicants shall redesign pedestrian crossings at Road G and Evergreen Way and
Road A and Evergreen Way to provide additional pedestrian refuge, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
26. The Applicants shall construct a minimum 10-foot wide shared multi-use path, separated
by a five foot landscape strip from the road, on the west side of Kersey Way for the length of.
the site frontage along Kersey Way, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
27. The Applicants shall construct Kersey Way to a modified city standard for a minor
arterial road, to include a 12 foot center turn lane, a 12 foot through northbound lane, a 12
foot through southbound lane, appropriate right turns lane{s) at the intersection with 53rd
Street SE, a five foot landscape strip and a minimum lO-foot wide shared multi-use path on
the west side. All other features about the road such as vertical curb, storm drainage and
lighting must meet city standards.
28. The Applicants shall create a 50-foot right of way stubbing to the south plat boundary,
through the location of lots 27 and 28, Division I, to align with 176th Avenue East.
29. A traffic impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South
PUD shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual homes.
30. A fire impact fee equivalent to the fee being collected for the Lakeland Hills South PUD
shall be paid at the time of building permits for individual homes.
31. The Applicants shall comply with all conditions set forth in the Land Use Agreement
entered into by the Applicants with the Bonneville Power Administration (Exhibit 8). The
Land Use Agreement set forth 15 conditions, including, but not limited to landscaping,
distance from transmission line towers, and a minimum path width of 16 feet.
Decided this 2.L day of March, 2006.
J es Driscoll
earings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Kersey III Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat/Variance - ON REMAND
Page 30 of 30
, ~.11B~ .. /' e- ~
~ \\(II ~ I / .'~. >- J
:0--:.. I ~v ~~ ~~~ i
. ~~\I ~ I\)
~ ~ ~~~ T....pt; ~ ~ ~ L 1 j!: '\~:
:'~-~(:q /I-\~, ~~. X,~::1 ~~g;: .
i I PKWY E. 111'TII Sl -=1 n, ~ J \ '
I =91 I -::;::x.
f
~...
,~ ~'I
~ ~r~1J ij I
t=1' "'iI
,. l'=' ......
^ h ...... ... ..~
~ I.W _
~vq m
I~ .~m
I ~.
I
I
I
I
i~ =!IIRB/i
:];C- .7111.- C<; ffmrr..I./~:,,?-'':
I..J Ub --' ~r ~~~ <7:;-.<----
~~). (~r -
~, -1 ~~--- .
I "-"'/I -\. ... ,.
'{l .\
I ~~.:::!1!J.
I ~
I ~
t
ToCll_
~
'"~ I,
. .~'.-
'.""l~-t-;. ~}
':7'
/
/
~
~j;.
.\1~
BeUevu~
. ?-
.. ""- .", l
~~ II
~I\.
, M..-::::::'..!II Renton
Sea- T:cJ J
aI '~.Kent
rt
~
.. /+~~u, RN 1
\'. l"if':':-~ .,
· SUDlDer Enumdaw A
~'. . j PuyaHup fi
~ 1"/T.OIy...... _
....~~ -
-"
r:..-:. ~
~
. Covington
r--
--
531 D Islr. SI!-
~~ ~~ J J - i
",\j ,-~ --'-
+T /Y
wM
r-
r-
L-
~ -
-Jr
-Li
- I
I- -
I
Regional Map & Project Vicinity Map
Figure 1
-..,.-::-----_.,-,-,...""_."'"'~-----~-~,_.
Exhibit 2
RESOLUTION NO. 3947
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, REMANDING
THE APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
KNOWN AS KERSEY 11/ DIVISIONS 1 AND 2, AND
REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF THE PROPERTY
FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER
WHEREAS, on or about April 8, 2005, Wayne Jones on behalf of
Lakeridge Development and Joyce and Peter Bowles on behalf of landholdings,
LlC, applied to the City of Auburn, Washington for approval of Application Nos.
PL T05-0001, Pl T05-0002, REZ05-0001, REZ05-0002, PUD05-0001, and
PUD05-0002, requesting preliminary plat approvals for a 169 lot single family
residential subdivision known as "Kersey'" Division 1" and a 204 lot single family
residential subdivision known as "Kersey'" Division 2", and requesting approval
of a rezone for approximately 89.31 acres from R-1 Single Family Residential to
PUD Planned Unit Development along with approval of a Planned Unit
Development, in Auburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said applications were determined to be complete pursuant to
Auburn City Code on June 8, 2005; and
WHEREAS, said requests were referred to the Hearing Examiner for study
and public hearing thereon; and
--------.------
Resolution No. 3947
November 15, 2005
Page 1 of 4
fxH-1 fJ( T 3
WHEREAS, following staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said applications in the Council Chambers of the
Auburn City Hall on August 9, 2005; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, on September 2, 2005, the Hearing Examiner
submitted his recommendations to the City Council for approval of the
preliminary plats and rezone and planned unit development subject to conditions;
and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of September 19, 2005, the City Council
voted to conduct a closed record hearing on ,the Hearing Examiner's
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was held on October 3, 2005 and
continued on October 17, 2005, at which time the City Council considered the
Hearing Examiner's recommendations and the material presented to the Hearing
Examiner and the argument made to the City Council at the said closed record
hearing; and
WHEREAS, some of the arguments and comments received at the closed
record hearing concerning matters related to the record drew into question
significant portions of the Hearing Examiner's recommendations; and
WHEREAS, after the closed record hearing, the Council asked the
developers if they would be willing to accept the additional time it would take if
the requests were remanded back to the Hearing Examiner for further review and
consideration of issues raised by the Council, and the developers'
--...-------...--....-
Resolution No. 3947
November 15.2005
Page 2 of 4
representatives declined the offer, the City Council voted to deny the
applications; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2005, the applicants communicated to the
City a willingness to waive the 12O-day project review timetable otherwise
applicable for processing the applications and a willingness to have the
applications remanded to the Hearing Examiner.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The City Council remands the applications back to the
Hearing Examiner to re-open the record and. consider how the development
addresses or affects the following issues:
(1) Open spaces and the protection of sensitive environmental
features, such as steep slopes, mature trees, wetlands and scenic views.
(2) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce
potential traffic congestion, particularly along Kersey Way, and promote
alternative modes of travel. Consideration should be given to applying the
lakeland PUD traffic impact fee structure in responding to similar impact
areas located south of the White River.
(3) The development of transitional areas between these
projects and adjacent developments and environmentally sensitive areas.
(4) The building and structural designs that complement
surrounding land uses and their environment, reflecting quality site design,
landscaping and building architecture required under the Auburn PUD
ordinance.
--------------
Resolution No. 3947
November 15, 2005
Page 3 of 4
(5) The parks and open spaces, and the adequacy of parks and
open spaces located under Bonneville Power Administration power lines.
(6) Incorporation of adequate notification to future lots owners of
the adjacent surface mining operations.
(7) Protection of waterways and the development's proposed
storm water system.
(8) Application of the Lakeland Fire Impact Fee to aid the City in
developing fire facilities to serve the area south of the White River.
Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such
administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this
legislation.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect and be in force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
-I-
SIGNED and DATED this df... day of November, 2005.
~RN
PETER B. lEWIS
MAYOR
~
~
ArrEST:
~~
City Clerk
-----------.....
Resolution No. 3947
November 15, 2005
Page 4 of 5
_._-_.,._--_.~.~--
<l--GHAV~
IJJ~ ~/'~ ~
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
"'" . ~'
~" ~(f
I'VG ENG\tl~
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
January 11,2006
HAND DELIVERY
Steve Pilcher
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, W A 98001
RE: Submittal of Revised Preliminary Plat Application Documents to Address City Council Remand
to Hearing Examiner
Kersey III - Divisions 1 and 2
City File Nos. PLTOO-0040 and SEPOO-0040
Kersey Way N.E. and Evergreen Way N.E., Auburn, Washington
Our Job No. 11394
Dear Steve:
The preliminary plat plans have been revised pursuant to the City of Auburn's City Council Resolution
No. 3947 dated November 21,2005. Enclosed are the following documents for your review:
1. Six (6) copies of the revised preliminary plat plans, revision dated January 11, 2006
2. Six (6) copies of a comment/response matrix listing each of the eight (8) remand items from
City Council Resolution No. 3947
3. Six (6) copies of Auburn City Council Resolution No. 3947 remanding the preliminary plat
application to the Hearing Examiner for review of eight (8) specific items as listed in the
resolution
4. Six (6) copies of architectural renderings and conceptual building design guidelines
5. Six (6) copies of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Land Use Agreement dated
August 30, 2005 approving roads, utilities, and parks within the BP A easement
6. Six (6) copies of excerpts from the DEIS and PElS that follow the comment/response matrix
and described as follows:
a. DEIS Section 3.1.3 (pages 40 & 41)
b. DEIS Figure 13 RECBVED
c. DEIS Section 3.1.3.4 (page 47) JAN 1 1 2006
d. DE IS Section 3.3 (page 55) PLANNING DEPARTMENT
e. DEIS Figure 17
Exhibit 4
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES . OLYMPIA, WA . TEMECULA, CA . WALNUT CREEK, CA
www.barghausen.com
Steve Pilcher
City of Auburn
-2-
January 11, 2006
f. DEIS Section 3.4.1.7 (pages 64 - 66)
g. DEIS Figures 6, 7, and 8
h. PElS Section 3.2.1.3 (page 50)
1. Aerial Photo of site
j. Aerial Photo of site and surrounding area
We have met with the appropriate City staff to review the applicant responses to each of the eight remand
comments. The plan revisions were completed as a result of these meetings as described in the attached
comment/response matrix.
Should you have questions or require additional information, please contact me at (425) 251-6222. Thank
you for your assistance with this project.
Respectfull y,
Chris S. Ferko, AICP
Senior Planner
CSF/dm
11394c.016.doc
enc: As Noted
cc: Daryl Faber, City of Auburn (w/enc)
Dan ScamporIina, City of Auburn (w/enc)
Roger Nix, Land Holdings, LLC (w/enc)
Wayne Jones, Lakeridge Development (w/enc)
Dan Hayes, J.R. Hayes & Sons, Inc. (w/enc)
Tom Young, J.R. Hayes & Sons, Inc. (w/enc)
Robert J. Armstrong, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Barry J. Talkington, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Arthur M. Seidel, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
M
"1:l
1:1
tIS
....
,.,;
o
ZI:I=
1:1 0 C)
o'ti>l:I
.- 1:1 =
(I)..... 0
.S: .I:l U
S;O
~ ~.-
~ U
~ cf 1:1
~J..J..
4> = =
r:.::l.::l
4> = =
~<<
'"
4>
'"
1:1
o
l:l..
'"
4>
~
'"
-J..
4>
4>
1:1
-
bIl
1:1
~
-=
....
.~
'"
....
1:1
4>
S
S
o
U
<g Qj b ;>. Ci gpb~ ';i
..... -g ~ 1:: ......_ Q ~ .l:)
0..::: 0 o Qt:: 0"".....
0..... 0. O:::l H U
o .s -a 8 B ~ ~ ~ [
-5 0 ~ 0. & {/}E-<E-< ~
~ bl) +-f G,) "'-
<+-<en ~oo... <ll
o -0 ~.= v 0 ~ ;>. ",
.....eIl.D<+-<.............eIll.:
(<") ell :::l 0 en.~ > <ll
,.....;~CI.lenCl.ll1ep--G
M::r:~Oell:::l.DQts
o1il-BeO:::l~.....
Q-o HeIlOCl.l!-<.~
o ..... -0 0........ -0 <I) 01) ts
".;j tii ~ ~ ~ ~:.E t> {.~
~] ~-o e a..... >.~
Vl eIl...c: ~ CI.l ~<+-<p::j So
Q .....:l 0 Po ~ e 0 -0 .;;;
..... ~ ~ e 'H bI) ~ fa ts
-0 o~ 0. ell Q o.>>.~
or:; -0 Q CI.l.Q ell
9 ~ m ~.Q ell N~ ~
!:i................o.Nti..... c
o {/} 0 CI.l oQ.o 0 ~ ~
-0 CI.l...c: ell ... CI.l
..... ~ E-< ...c: 0 0 N ~ s:::
oU_ go-;;; B]~~::
a-o':.; 0 0 ell Cd..... l.,. s::
o III Q..... 0 0 III C
;>. J3 ~ >>.~ bb...... Q ~.t;
1:: 0 <ll...c:.2: H CI.l 0 .0 ~
8. -0 l.,. goo 0 o..g ~ ~
8] ~ bbrh!:i~ ;::l~t1
o.Cdl.,.8..08~,tjtski
......v c 0 g.~ CI.l g"SC;j
l=lgc:.~~ Pogo 0 ~?-.
>>N-'o~oeo~~
gb'o-~~vCl.l-E<ll~
H ::l b i:; 0 0..... ..... &0 10::
,~ :: .~ :::l 5h g. ~ tB '" ~
~v~cn .--.----- c:u,
o III . H CI.l ell CI.l r'\ ~
o ~ l.,. -0 0..... m..... ".. l.,.
-E-o-"o!:io ~~Ill
,-.... 8 l.>:: 0 ell 0 0..<-'" ~
Q Vl .- ...... 0 0 0. 0 &
O"""~"",,,HHO- <ll
~<ll Oell~en1O::~
en 0;:' . 0. :::: ~ .~ ~
"tl'-'ts~OellO"",,,,,,O'
a1:: wve-E~~1O::
~ 0 ~ 0 ~ en 0 5h ~ .~
...c:S~Oellell"'" ts....
o B '0 -5 Q {/} ~ !5 III g
.60 S 0' <+-< .~ ..8 ~ 1:: ~ h
OVl~01::o..HO:: ~
00 (<")OrlioO_c
Oell~""",OoenUenU
o .so..~ e 0 g. ~ o..~ ~
....::lQ........I''-O~.....
l.,.bI){/}en.....venl.,.
;,; ~ ~.- 0 ~ . 0 'Q; ,p
4> ~ ts~.g.... >>.....M-.,
l:l....... III Q BeIlo.~
~ ~ SoON eIl~ o~-Q
OOa -oQQ mM~
o '" 0 0 ..... >>.p Q ._
l:l.. . H ~ 0 .;;; B 0 ......8 c
4> -> ~.......... ell en ::l ..... ;:.
4> _Po>OH.....Ots
V1 & ~.g ~ 5h~ ~ ~ s
~~~e8~
o 0..::1 ::l......
NOti~<+-<~
- H.~ S 0 0
f'-oo'Vla
......>oti
>>oo...c:ovo
ell .......... 0 0
"'=::' Q Q tB...c: ell
~ 0..... Vl Po
"tl .~ -5 ~ '-' {/}
o ell..... 0 Q Q
~O~HeIlO
-0 ~o.~o.g.
:->OQbI)Q
o CI.l 0 0 Q.....
.EQ~O;';::M
o "'...c: .... v,
............... ~ ~ 5hell R
v, ..... 0..... '"
B:aQ~ b
.!:! g ~ "tl ?:> 0
goeB~s
en b1):::l eIl.S ~
en Q ..... .... 0 ".
~.... ell ~.s e
tiSo-
0.... I > 0.....
~~ti{/}ao
"tl ~ 0 .- Q
'0 ..... 0 0
eIlootBN~.~
~PJ"tlg g
>>"" 0._ ......
.D H .~ .~ 'd' P
o ~ > Q .~
-O..n l:l ..... EI.. Po
e+3..nO~H
ell..... +3 0 0
Po 0 .r;: .--:.. ..... 'H
OM....Vl::len
H . "tl '-' ~ .~
PoM 4> "tl e e
~ Q ~ d 1...-4
QO.....eIl.............
o .~ ~::o ~ bI)
~ ~ ~ ] c8 .~
o Q.~ {/} "tl 0
en ..... ...c: 0........
~ -g ~ .~.~ ~
{/} N 0 ~ S ~
~ .~ .;;; "tl -0 Q
S .S: 0 Q.....
..... S..... ~ cIl e
r:; eo..... -:..:::
<r:;:::l . ~~ e
,.]:~~iZO'
Cd .- ~ '-"" VJ
enU~]bI)E
d.~ 00..... Q ~
Cd "tl .... 1:: 5 {/}
.S:; Q ~ 0 >>..8
:: &Vl e ,.!.:-;:l
o o.~ 0 en
.Q.<.....~e:g
(-<. OotBo
VlQo N
;,; W 0 Q {/} _
~0"tl;:::500
.. OH::s......
-0.....0-0
~ .::1 ~ ~'o b
4> "tl {/} 0 0 :::l ..
J.. s..8 Po "tl ~ ~
.etB:;:::~..-::-go
tIS op..O~::::
~~a,:Q~"tltB
e 0
B~
e 0 cIl 0
:::l H e 0 e 9
~~BB,.!.ti
~ S Selle e
ti,.!..SotB
oen.....,.!.'H
H 0 ~ {/} {/} {/}
tBCiHe:::l5
-o'HtBtB8~
o "tl"tl"tl rB'H
.~ ~ 0 0 .- .a
S.~.~.~ g 8
CI.l l:l S e 0
o 0 0 {/}
5 5 ~ e 5 e
ell cIl g g cIl g
~li1f'-VlC"!N
NOciciO""";
~ C; ~i:L.:.-4 ~ ~
~....,....,.........., .......,
~ g g g g g
_ I-< H H H H
E-<E-<~E-<E-<E-<
,..:-:-:-~NN
Q Q Q Q Q Q
o 0 0 0 0 0
......c.......~............. "?""C
{/} {/} {/} {/} {/} {/}
.S: 'S: 'S: .S: .S: .S:
...... ....... ....... ....... .............
000000
Q{/}"tloo
~~fa-E-B .
o 0 ';:I d <+-< g
Q H 0.::1 0....
.~ 1;; > ~ ~ ~
+..>> ;>...... """:1 0
g "tl 0 ~ ~ ;:::
o fa -E "tl --d g;
.~ ~ <+-< ~ B ell
v fJ o.il g:a
0........000..........
00 "tlCl.l<+-<
N ~ "tl..... Q 0
r-: fa{/}8~
......._1=100.
>>CI.lf'- ~.D
eIlCi ~-o
"'=::'''tl\Oen:-;:l Q
~.E ~
"tl {/}..... .~
o 0 ~ 0 ~....
~ u 61~ ~ .s
-C;~ii:fJQM
00 ';:I~Q
.Eb .040
Vl "tl ~ 01)....
{/}- . 0 H.~
o -0 ~O 0 ...
..... Q 0 Z >....
.~ Cd i> p::j 0
0(1)300.....
~"tl{/}1il~0
<IJ m -0 ...c: Q
<l; ';:I fJ e ~.~
00 OMl:4
~~~~Q8..
"tl '" 0
o 'Q; ~ ..;;; S
<':! M g ;g.s: 0
P::; Q - 0'- '€
>>.8 "tl ..0 0 0
"Ooo~<+-<Q
"tlOl.>::OOO
OVl -eIl...c:
a 0.....
go ~ 3 ~ a .S
a~..o~]-g
COCl.l..........
'i-Q> I-< ell
Q..... ell "tl 0 0
O"tl...c:fJN.Q
~~{/}"tlQe
en .C .0 Q 0 ell
o cIl C Cd.;;; CI.l
{/} ~ eIl......._ ~
{/} "tl.....>
< Q ~....
"tl :::l?00
Q{/}OO _b
Cd .D ...c:...... {/}
';:I"tl...........Q-o
oQ~ooQ
~ Cd....... +J....... Cd
E> "" >>~.~ {/}
_HO.....>"tl
o ~ {/} {/}.- Q
~""'1 I-<::SO ell
""Ov~ .-.lI
Q~:-;:l<+-<o
o ..... 0 ::.
.. .... 0 ~ CI.l ....
'" .......... 0 0......
~ p. 'i3 S'C 0
1:1 < en (ij l.>::
tIS,^ Q en "tl .....
';:2~:aOQ~
4> hl ..... {/} :::l .....
:>.......... {/} 0 0
~O~<..o~
o
o
"'0
'<i
N
<:>
'<i
'"
r<)
<D
:!:::
.0
:2
x
w
I
......
I
Q
0 rIi
.....
..... 0
o _ 0..-0
Bello Q
81::~cIl i
0.0Q.{/}
o~o-O
o Q
-Eoti~ 0 <.0 ~
"tl .~ {/} v Cl I
Q > ell ~ W Cl
c--J
eIlQ...c: rh >
CI.l 0 0 rIi ..-i
o 0 :::l 0 ~ w 0
o > CJ) 0 0
~:B CI)--.b.> U ..-i i.!)
CI.l CJ) 0 0 w z Z
Q 5 s s.~
o CI.l .... ..... Q Cl.' <( Z
o.<+-< ell ell 0 ....., 3
OorBS~ VI
!;2
0.. '<t
,-.... --
...... N
'-'
5 S E .~ ~ 8 'C>
~~g t;:gp.g
<I) ~..... ~ Q "tl .~
;>'0 s b08 Q:a
~ ~ .s:rg ..... ~ Q
.~,+-<o ~~~8
H~~ :S:3~~
<I) Q 13 ,:Q 8; 0 !:i
~~N ~eIl-E~
VI ~ .....c 0 ~ Q
........ o."tl 1::...c: ell ~
:-;:lOe oE-<...c:o..
~oCd -0 ~o.
bO >...... ._. :::l
QO ~~<O{/}
.- 0 ~ ~ r--:.~ ell
go .8 ~ f'- g b
o . {/} \0 "tl 0..
.a ~ .S: ~ ~..... 0..
a tn t5 ~ .~:g ell
_ ..... ;>.,-.... :::l ]
'"<no. eIl"tl]cIl
~g~ Pofa{/}CI.l
btn'€ \Col:::::::l
~ 0 ~~s~
0"80.. ~.....:!enZ
~~ ~ ~'C> ~<O
Q "tlm ~ en O.D.J::
Cd ..... .- "tl :::l 0
..J" 8 0 'r;; < >
e~~ ~g'C>~
tBooell ...c:,-,>>
1< >>B ]Su.~ ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ] .~
..... 0 ........L..~
e >-.S: ~ .. ~
- 0 b1).S 0 bI)
it ~ .~ .s 0 0 Q
g.. ~~ gene ~ .r::
~ "'" 0 ell 0 ..... (ij
b1)d{/) H...c:g$
o 5>> <E >- 0......
S-~ ~ 8] .s .E
'+-<::...... ~~o.....
o .... 0 ...... ~ ell ...;
Q -~ S.,c; g ~ ~ -E ~
o <I) 1:: Po C 0-=
'.g dog 9 e.s" <I) 8
dQ ...........{/}QMO"
.::1 8 0 0 0 ell ~ tB l=l
-S<.i=iQ-EIE!5p..en"""
00......-0 cIl'H"tl >>>>
oo:-;:la?:oQeIlg
o '0' ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.. ~ .
~ aN .B g 0 ~ ~ ~
-0 en p.. eIlcll ~ 0
.. l=l Q::" Po.....:! ..... ..c::
"""""eIl~"tlS 0.....
~ .~ m.- ~ ~ M
.~~""""'........0..c::l=lc2
:> ~ ~ ~ ~ IE .~.=l ~
C) 0 0'1:: t';! ~..c:: 0 >
.... ~'r;; 0 ~ ..... 0 u:: 0
1:1 .~ ......6 0 o...c: tH H
00'" ...c: .....eIlO"
~-E~BE-<~B?:go
Q - 0
..... ~...c:
"'OoE-<
t) ".;j
.s~,..:"
eIlotn
1::tnPS
OQ~
00,-,
.~ .~ s::
vt:~
oOQ
00..0
N{/}]j
...c:fatl)
o H
aE-<o
::s >> cIl
..0 .so..
"tl"tl
o 0
~liS~
"tl 0......
:- e 5
o l:l.. 8
.E {/} a
-.U; 8
~b's:
o ell ....
.g ~ P.1
o~ta
tn g.s
g ft~
.;:: ..... ~
ell Q.....
t:o,+-<
0.;:: 0
0.. ell....
{/}t:.......
~ 8. ~ ..
?:{/};a~
;>. fa 5.g
..0 b 0.. ell
-0 S ~.~
~.g -o's
PoQOo
e .g .~ IE
Po "tl ..... ell
{/} ell Q b
.- 0 0
en,.qOO
b.....{/}-E
~ 't;j.... {/}
Cdfa:g~
o 00 ;? .J::
ell ..... ,.. ell
ft~ :: ~
.....0 ::l
QO?':>en
o-B~o
.~ :::l Q
~'C>fa~
o ~ ~ 5
g.K-obl)
Q;;:: B Q
cIl..... ell.....
bg'"d~
oo..J.Q
~~.E;B
Q
o
.-
~
t:
o
Po
{/} .
fa?
..... 0
..... .......
~&
.0\0
::lM
~ci
.....-q
00'1
~
Ob
u~
1:: ~
o en
t:: e
:::l 0..
0,-,
o 0
...c:o
::fa
o ::l
{/}
..... {/}
Q .-
0.....
~.-
ell ~
p..Po
......
-0 ~fI):g
e ell O::s ..... 0
Cdo _>-00 O....."tl
....oQP"O...c: eIlbl)O
c::so>>een O"Q......
o "tl -~ 0 Q 0 s.... ell U
8 0 en en 0 o...c:.... "tl 0 >
o H 0 ~ .2: .;:: ..... 0 Q .Q :.-1
~ B gp~ ~ ~ gplE 8. ~ ~
a ~ 8 bI) S .g .s:. ~ ~ e.B
e:::l Q E .- ........ ..... .... eIl:E
O'~ .Q as ~ 8;Q -s '0 ~
o '8 tH ell 0 0 ell ~ 0 ell
1E..a ~ >>.....u oil. M 0..0
ell 0""''''''' 0 ..... :::le...c:
b B ~ ~ s...... Q ] '0 .... .:;
'+-< Q.;:::::l 8 ~ 0 Cd 2 M 0
o .e.o g.~ 0. ~ .~ q) ti ~ -5
O{/}.....t:"tl..... ~oS:::l
~ 0 0 (ij e '+-< 0 ~ 0 ._ 0
......-0 0. 0. Cd O.D.....'H {/} {/}
,-....
N
'-'
bI)
.s
"tl
.....
]
~
....
.....
Q
o
"tl
....
{/}
e
'+-<
o
o
13
....
.....
~ 00 b1).S ~
{/}.s.s..... ::..
H Cl::: Q Q ....
~:aoo<+!.
{/}:g S 9
b1){/}~~.a
QOOcllbl).
~ ] B .e-.J:: ~
-oO~o"tli:
liS .s 4=< 0 1a E
]~~.g~8
tieo...c:~:::-
_O{/}t:Q'"
.~ 6 E 0 ~ ~
~ H.... Q 0 ~
t:o.{/}bI)HO
cIl eo Q g.il
H .;'.~ .t;.::l bI)
8 ell 8 .~--J::
..... ~ 0. 0 ~ bI)
~ >-S~.g.E
- 0 .....:a {/}
S ~ ~ -g "tl .~
:::l 0 .A ..... _ 0
..0 ,~ ~ 0 '"
:::l""'o>>enO
~ .{/} ~.8 ~ -E
.....~Obl)ogp
o .. -E Q > ....
0.--:.. 0 .S.S ~
U 01:: 0 {/}-
:-;:: -.-4 :-sa :a 0
.Ee-B~E-<~
v:::l..... .0
o . o:::l .
.....O{/}O~"tl
{/}'-'H-Eoe
1:: v 0._ M.....
o~..g~ug.
50cE~fae
> g >-.g 13 0
~~'f~o~~
.13 fa >>~,:Q ~
o-Eg eIl'C> a
b1)or-.eoo
.g H,~ ..... 0 Q
Qg"'" 8 Q"tl
OQ'+-<r-.Cd_
~.....Oti-eg
oO~oB~
o 0 ._..n {/}
bOJ::+3:a~
{/}Qo'+-< ...c:
<+!.Cd.....Oo::..
_tiQ'+-<H....
]:a8]~]
'+-<eIlQo 0
o {/}.8 ..... "tl >-
s::...... ~...... -.-.4 G)
o{/}o~O.D
.-.- 2 0. > Q
0.Q..... 0.. ell 0
2(-< ~ 0 B.~
t) .oor-.~
Q~o-Eo;a
Uo>~....."8 0
p>-.....OO-o
.E
.....
ell
.....
o
~
tH
o
Q
.-
o
rB
.....
o
tQ
ft
.-
N
o 0
.....~
a-e
o 0
.B g
o .
~w
Boo
.s >-
ell
~~
:: Q
-g ~
.!:2 60
........ H
tQ 0
6i;>
.- ~
{/} ~
Q 0
:::l Q
gp-B
.~ .~
.....
~ {/}
oa
fJ~
,-,ell
Q~
o...c:
.- .....
.....
~~
~ ~
~ 8
.::1 Po
~go
tn ~
o
>>~
tQ {/}
~ 8
>-60
o 0
~""9
~c
~liS
tn"3
..... 0
0.....
o"tl Q
b g 0
tn fr...; '~N-
"tloc
~ Po.<3 ;:::
Vlbg ~o
'+-<o~
0.2: 0
~niCi i3
Q............ 0
aoeoo fa
eIl~ .....
I .
.... 0..., 0
- ~::J 0
~ e <E ~
~ 0 cIl E-<
(<") o:i
~
tn
>-
ell
~
~
~
o
~
Q
o
,-....
o
fa
.-.
S
B
t
~
o
'-'
......
.-.
ell
s::
o
CI.l
o
]
~
..... .
~g
0....
:lJ
B ~
Q 0
81::
.-
~~
. r;; 00
~>>
o ell
&j~
VI
Q
o
o
~
~
~
~
tn
.....
o
o
b
tn
"8
M
VI
-...
~
tn
>>
ell
~
>>
o
~
~
"tl
o
a
.....
~
~
o
...c:
.....
.....
o
CI.l
bI)
o
......
~
tn
~
~
>-
o
{/}
r-.
o
~
bI)
Q
o
as
o
~
.-.
Q
o
....
~
......
v
o
.g
"tl
S .
ow
.0 .
titn
o >>
~ cIl
o~
..... c
"tlO
S 0
o~
.D~
-Ew
:::l"tl
g 1a
ell .
.....w
o .
tn
Q>-
.8 ell
o~
S>>
{/} 0
Q ~
8~
r-.
:::l
tB
\0
.....
o
Q
o
.-
.....
o
o
{/}
~
.s
~
tn
~
~
o
o
.",
~
-i
0\
....
Q
o
o
H
~
o
~
~
tn
o
...c:
.....
~
o
e
.....
tn
"tl
M
M
lr)
-...
~
tn
~
~
~
{/}
H
o
~
"tl
o
a
....
~
e v.i
o gp
-E 'r;;
{/}
~ 8
o
~m
.~.E
{/} {/}
o
0-0
lE8.
ell bI)
b~
ell ::s
.....-
o g
.-
Q -
o Q
".g .8
gg
en ~
gE
u.S
.
N
I
f'-
on
o
~
N
-,
ell >>
...c: ell
.~~
~ >>
"tl 0
o en
..... '-<
a 0
o.~
S 0
0-5
o,+-<
g 0
5t8
.r;; a
- >
- "tl
gfell
~.s
cIl .
......W
~.
QVl
o >>
...c: ell
~~
0..>>
o 0
..... tI)
Vl M
o 0
.....~
"tl-o
e Q
ell :::l
fr2
M-5
p..:::l
o 0
,:Q{/}
:: '-<
~tB
...c:bI)
o Q
:::l .-
{/}.s
~.:: ci
""'ell 0
a$ 5t.';::
5t.... ~
"Cii ~ ~
b1)'>> 0
S ..0 1::
.~ "tl .....
o .
~p::j
~>oo
........a ;>-.
cIl 0 ell
.~ :~
{/} 0 Q
000
!acllO
ti-i05h
ell ..0 '-<
bbl)o
o Q >
>.- p::j
..g ~ ~
~~oo
.....
ell
~
Vl
>>
ell
~
5
o
.....
bI)
'-<
~ 8
W:::l
,+-<"tl
o 5
~:g
~ ell
~~
5 0
...c:
Q.....
0.....
""::: 0
o Q
g 0
......-
20
.s g
b1)::
Q ~
..~~
.~ 5
~~
..... '-<
~ ~
{/}W
1::1
o >>
E~
ell ell
eVl
.....::
fa~
.5 ;;
en .-
.g-o
o 0
.0
o...\::
..... 0
o <I)
0..0
o"tl
'-< {/}
o..cIl
'+-< .
OW
Qoo
.8 >>
o ell
c~
..... 0
tI) >
5;:::
uo
0'1
o 0
.0 .a
....
o Q
.... 0
....c:
~.....
VlQ)'
>>::0
cIl.-
~ ~
rB
Q....
o 0
o Q
5hCl.l
t.-4
> .....
w:::l
o
"tl~
a Q
>>:::l
ell 8
~ ell
~td
ffi-E
{/} .
"tlg~
~.a.~
o t:: {/}
~20
.....:l.gs
'+-<,-<~
00.....
Q g ell
.8.6'0 ~
oQ-o
oW 0
{/} ....
~e~
~ .~ J:1
.8U {/}
o 0 g
...c:-Eo
.....{/}"tl
~ ~ fa
{/}l:l"tl
0:::l0
~ +.t 5t
Q :::l....
82 ~
cIl-o
o "tl "'
SEj15
ell 0::::
b '-< ell
,+-<cIl~
o~~
Q 0
o "tl b
..;:: 0 Q
000
~~~
QQti-i
o 0 ell
Uob
o
......
o +-' 01)
...c:OQ
......., v........
b 0.
~ en.\::
{/} "tl ti
:::l .... Q
Q ~ 0
................. ......
@~ ~
Boo~
o
a ~ ~
~~...c:
ell >> 0
000
b1)~-O
o ::s
.8~0
..... Q
"~~"1-4
~ 0 {/}
o 6h i:i
J1:=: Q.)
.- ~ s
s ..... ~
000
~ -E a
- 0 13
M ~.......
0..... .
ol=lw
..2 >>00
o~>>
o U ell
-o~~
0..... Q
000
-E{/}o
o Q ~.
.DO~
...c:.... 0
b1).~ >
.0.2: ~
Q "tl 0
eIl~~
~.s ci
....... 0
tI.)~..a
>>...c: 0
ell 00 0
> :::l ~
>>00
~1::
Q..t:l.....
0.....
e ~~
bI) c;f .
'-<"tlVl
~=>>
w::Sell
.....2~
o en Q .
.......()C,.f)
Q:-;:l 0 g
.8::r: 5h Cd
o"tl~-
S~&5~
a~':-:3
Oellw,-<
U.....:lvitB
......
......
CI.l
.~
.....
o
-5
{/}
o
ell
"tl
fa
>>
.....
rB
ell
{/}
o
>
o
M
s-
.....
::r:
"tl
ell
o
~
"tl
fa
0"
"tl
ell
o
r:x:
<i
"tl
ell
~
o
...c:
.....
.....
ell V
"tlbl)
o ell
~6h
5t.r;;
..... bI)
~ Q
"tl . 8
{/} c;f
g ~
..~ 8
g fa
........>
o"tl
o ell
~~
ell CI.l
enbl)
.s>]
~ a
8 13
0.....
a 5
.5 ~
{/} >
.gell
o 0..
0..0
rB~
cIl.~
00 >
o
.....
{/}
.!2
....
'S
o
~
bI)
Q
.~
.Q
Jl
o
...c:
....
{/}
"tl
-0
ell
~
0.
~
Q
's
.....
"E
0..
"tl
o
CI.l
.S:
e
o
-E
d"
o
.....
.....
:.a
]
.E
......
...c:
.....
.f;
CI.l
Q
.8
.....
o
o
en
.....
o
1::
.....
~
en
~
~
Q
o
o
'-<
e.o
o
&i
Q
o
Q rn
o Q
.~ 0
.~ ..~
...... 0
~~
...c: .8
~::r:
fa"tl
.. ~
~~
~~
N
0"
"tl
ell
o
r:x:
~-
"tl
ell
o
~
-5
~
<I)
]
a
:::l
.....
I
<t::
..2
o
.2:
en
:::l
......
o
~
o
bI)
Q
:.a
:::l
o
.8
o
>
o
.....
.g
o
.....
{/}
bI)
Q
.a .
Q tI)
0.0
00
"tl:E
fa ~
{/} >>
"tl0
a 5
3ft
~~
....
~ .....
atB
o >>
.::::..t::
('\S:-;::
-E~
.- ~
~ >
.:::l
~~
Vl S
>>0
;~
>
Q 0
o '-<
00..
'-<"tl
fta
> -
we
b1)rB
Q ell
o CI.l
~~
en 0
-0.....
~.g
.~ 0
.....
~ 0
....!a
a~
~.b
.~~
"tl 0
o _
e.~
tot)
........c:
5ti
U ~
M
<>
o
-0
..f
'"
o
..f
'"
""
,-....
o
......
.....
o
M
.....
o
o
...c:
Vl
'-'
fa
.....
0.
o
go
o
CI.l
"tl
a
.....
.
M
.
i
's
.-
"E
0..
o
-E
o
.....
'-<
rB
e
o
{/}
ell
o
s:;
."
o
~
--
'"
l=l~Sgo
...... . 0 Q-5
>>tn <l:: 0
0..... "tlo
(I) O.l< ....
~OO>>H
,.... b eIl.D rB
""tn..o 0
o "tl ..... "tl .....
-5H~Bo
'+-<~Oell~
O---aaO
...c: ~~. fr s:;
~ .,.. {/}
Otn-o .
Q~1aGf~
g~......rB.E
'~ >> a 0 1a
...... 0 0........
CI.l ~.8 \0 0.
'€ ,~ .~ B ~
Q) ~...... t.f-.4
o..~ 00 :::l
0':<:1_0..0
a '+-< l=l N ~
00>>130
...c:'t;OoQ
..... ~ ~.H H
0;00.....0
Cd bI) ~ bI) ti
::E.9 Q.S 0
;>...... bI) H
bI) - -E 1a tB
.S :l.r;: H-o
Q.-.... 0
o ~ {/} 0 d
N 000.::1
"tl g....... M s
fa a.s.~ e
fao.....-o~
........-5Oell-5
p.. -o:::j o. v
~ fa <l.; .s 0
-fii .. . ~..o
Q ~~,-.... ~::::
GJ..... cd.......
...c: ..... :>:>.
05'-'~""8
H-o........<+:.+.>.....
g..-.~ <(].....
Q:l1::..........0
OHO-a{/}M
u ~ -0 .... 0 .....
d :::: -;; J...4 ro to)
t:i d", . H 0
:::lQ"'u.:!........c:
..o~~ .Otn
::s I ~tn 0'-'
~ih~>>[1a
.....S-'cIl{/}-
~ .(1) ~ ~ 5 ~
........... 0 .... 0.. 0..
.-,oJ Q ....... 0 cIl
U,""",oo 0
"tlN~Q{/}
o 0.....-0
-E go '" -5 d
o 0 liS ~.....~
.....Ndbl)~~
bI) 0 O.S d
_9 liS..... ..... 0
:a ..... 0 .~ .;::: .s
Ci g ~ ~ ~.s
g '2' E 0 ~ e
~ o...S -E > 0..
;~
'~;
,!
-I'
o
l;j)
o
(I)
o
-5
1:1 0
o .:::
o .....
~ .r;;
'+-<0 0 ~ Q
..0 0"'..... 0
..... {/} ell .... rn
5Z:.o-fab
13 liS ell 11]
00.. ........ "tl Q Q
o~faso
>0(1)0.8
0..... .... 0 a
"tl.~ ~........ 8 CI.l
o Q .0' ~.;;: ell
cE~OQe
.. .... o."tl 0 ell
,-....
(<")
'-'
~-5 ~
.~:a OS::
5 ~ 2
"tl
.r;; ~ 00
0'10::
~o .-
00 .S
~~.c
~ 0\ ~
:::l \0 ts
~~ III
~u"S
u'Q>
-g~..,
QO....
0..... 10::
N.....~
.~ m ~
:::l ._
~~~
0.::S1ll
0..1..
Q 00 III
o:g..s
'r;; 0\
'S: .,; ~
o~~
~~~
- (<") ~
~ . III
o 0 t:
~ Z C>
,~........ U
""0-..
~~~
.....p..~
.....
O!i~
......0::5
~cIlQ.,
o rn
~O III
-'I~':S
00....
~...c: &
:a.....
001..
~ ~ ~
o III
...c: l::
.- ~ .t:
b1).....:l III
l,:Q ~
......tnlll
00,:Q"S
:go~
O\tBc
J...<t;
~~J2
NeIlu
N ts
M~;9
o'S ~ ~
z O'~ ~
o e <Ii.~
o 0'::'
H -0 ~ ..,
~1ati~
00..... "tl ..........
...c:..dtB fa ~~
f-c'::: Q .0' "5'
00 -5 H....
~ ...d .~ :::l 0. 0.
tn-gell 0 00
~ ~.~ :; -5 -5
"tl bI) ~ -5 bI) . S
~ .S 0 ~ .S "tl
0>>0 ..0 QO
N........eIl ell :;3]
.....rn_ {/} ::s........
d .~ Po. . 0 0 .8
Cdt:O~"""" _
>> &.::: c> N :g .~
.....oaOOQ 0.....
S a 0 ~ .8 N 5
o ...c:O'IC1.l ....-d
U g e ~ 'S: ...., Q
oo..oo~ ......g
8...c: e......~ >>0
~ E-<o U -0 ell "tl
A:ti~~fa ~~
dO ........... "tl~
.::1 '0' 05 ~ Q 0
.... ._..0 0 ~
-g 0. ~ -0 'r;; rh "tl ~
..... t::! 0 .- 0 -
~ ~ ~-.~.:::.€ 1:: 0..
.9 ~ lo:j &0 0 0 ?':>
0<l;0008~
e t ~ ~ 05 '-< g.s
ell", cIlo 013
N "" o.....:l ~ "tl ;:::
"0 0 ....,:Q..d.2 {/} e
Qo5Otn~Obl)o..
Cd..... ,.,.. .DQ.....
o fa..... ~...c: .... ....
...... ~.D 0 '5 .... ] 1a
{/} ..':::o..oOl.>::o
g >-''7oQ Q
'r;; Q e VI.D S ] 2
."... :::l :::l N:::: 0 ell 0
;> 0.0 ell..... <l:: H
o..o::so~ 00
05 ~ ~ 0 Q .::: ;:J
S 5 '+-< 5 g.s ~ Po.
<l)OHrBO~o
~ ~o.. e<<l...c:
~ ~.~ o"tl 0 Q..... .
H-;:lu....O{/}.....HVI
,~bI) {/} ~ ~ 0 tB ,~
"" Q.8 ~ .... Q .~ ..... ~p
.....0.....0"tl00t)
o ~ d 0..;::: +:l atS
...c: rn.::I 8 o:a ..... W
..... 9 05 0.. {/}"O ell O_{/}
5 e'r; 0 ~. :: "tl {/} ~
{/}o o:aoo~~
bI) d e '0' . t,::; liS.::I.
Q:B ell H 0 {/} 0.. "tl
.>. CI.l ..... 0.. 0 .0 e Q ~
-.~ ~ 0'7 ~ o..l.>::~
rn s.=...c: \0 "tl "tl bI)
,0;::: 8 E-< ell S m 1a .Q
E>>o..oO-o oQc
o .~ t::! 0 g.D ;::: 0 ~
g. 0 ~ 'a -.p ..... l:l...;:::::r:
H +.> ~ 0 .... cIl 0.. l:l..
0.. ~ ~ N:g - eIl'5 ~
~r::&>......eIlti~{/}O
E-<5~~.E~E-<.gt2
"tl(l)O -....."tl0....-0......
Qi:i...c:gr.8Q...c:eIl"Ol=l
ct$ +""" Cd.......---4O
~'+-< ell .....:::lo;>.
~ Q 0 p...c <Ii 0 .~ g
.9 0.0 - 0 bI) t 0 H
:.a .Q...... g.~ .S ~ (ij 05 ~
Q~...c:05"tl00.
.... b1)N QHdbl)O
tl::o:::leol.>::o...::lQ...c:
..... 0 o.,....c: 0. ..........
OJ .......... - ell . N
o .... l:! 0 ?':> ............. ~
~~~~]~g ~ ~~
-o"tl ~ 8 ~ gp.. 8:~ 0
"tlObl)o.. rnoellCl.l?':>
O~eIlgol1.....""',+-< ~
"tl p.. OO-O{/)~
..... '-< 0 ell Q
>::.' ..9.= {/}.- {/} 0
o~ {/}..... 0 01:: Q._
H QeIl'-<bI)oO{/}:::l
0...8 .8.r:: 0.. cIl -0 .~..8 {/}
VI ......~ 0 N o.......:a 0 0
o -0..... O~QQ>
o ~ Q .5 "tl N H 0 O.~
N 0 Q ~OOell
_........ 00 Cd {/}_ ~
M cIl _ -0 0 .- "tl -0 <<l
> ell o......:OFloOQ
ti85uaS:Jg]~...c:
So 8: ~ 0.8 8 0 ~o ~ .~
::s ~ 0....... {/} 0.._ "tl ~
~ cIl U 'S: In bI) .....
{/}- "tl ~.- O.S 0 0 ~
-otio OO{/}O"tlo.
E 0 "tl N...... e.s:
~&53SN~Q2~
,-<e~"""'>>Hd~o..Q
o 0 0 0 Q..... .~
QO ..n{/}.Do...c:f'-l:l.
.S Q 0 +3 U 13 <l::bI)..... ;::: ~
~ 2 ~ ~ ~ E o.v e >
~OH o.Qo...c:0..8
W H Q.~ ~ 4>- 0 ..... ~-o 0..
bl)0 ~ ~....tn &j '00 fa go
Q...c:<t::~~"tlHO.B H
.~ .::: l.>:: fa 0 ~ ~:g 6 tB
00 o"tl...c:"tl.... CI.lM;:JeIl
::r: ~ ::0 ~ ~ t: ~ ~ ..... Po. .~
> ..... 0 ........ -.....
o . 0 ell Q 0. - 0. <I) 0 .c
-5 8:E' v.8 e ~ ?':> ~ g 0
O'::s"tl..... O~eIlNO
o g. {/} 0 ~ _{/} H Q 0.. 0 ...c:
.... '" {/} "tl.- H 0....... H .....
~ -0 ~ .S: ~ g go 13 ~ 0 cQ
o 0 0. 0 Q.- ;::: 0 05 {/}
e-] c a~ ~.g ~ e-~ .~
~ S. ~ 15"tlW s~ {/}~ 11
ti g'S fr fa ~ 13 ~ -&> 5 g
0'- H ..... 0 Q H.=
F 0 0 1M ~ .~ 0 0..... 0.. e
3 H a~o.o e~ ~ goo..
..o-ooti ::r:"tl6~~N
~ 1ao5:g q~ fa aWtB]
..... - "tl 0 S E-< - 0.. bI) 11
o a Q N.e a ~ '5 Q......
.... 0 Cd - ..... . 0 "tl 0 fI1
0.... - M 0 ~.- 1:1 13 Q
U .E ~ ti a 5.E ~ ~ .g .~
o g @ So "tl ago :::l 'S:
~ 8e:,~ m go8~.s e~
.~ ~
o.~ -0
....... o5~"tle
ell "tl::S 0....
!::.....QO'Cd:::l
~ 5 Cd bI) bI) g-@
o d <I) Q S H
2 Q 0 .~ '0.. 0
.....O~Oell.....p..
rn........--oo:::l
"tl S' "tl t+:l ~ '0 e
fa 0 fa ~ fa..g.5
bI) 0 - ...r_...c: ::s
Q~gfo -B~
;;:; -B..... o~ !;b ell 0 0
:-;:l ,^ -g .~ bI)..d 0
:::l v,..... v, Q ..... Q
.D 5h15 8.g;;:;..... ~
o ..... ~ .>.... ........ ~ .-
...c: {/} H 0......... "tl
E-< .g ~ 5.-;;;.5 s Ci
,-....
v
'-'
0.....(1)
liS~ ell
0.. .~
~~::O
..ge::s
o
.r1i:i~
Q..... H
o 0
S ~ Q
~ E 0
000
aQ-5
S 0,-;::
.......c: .....
oJ: g
S "tl 0
.....:::l.D
o ....
2~]
t)O-+J
ell {/}
<l::{/}.....
Q.....Q
._ ~ 0
o 13
o 0
:..::: 0 >
..0(1)0
::s 0 H
0..05
o
o
."
-.i
C'l
C>
-.i
'"
.....
13
~ ..............
1a~
0.....
l.>:: Q
..... E:a
!;bOH
.- Q 0
{/} 0 cIl
{/}b
.gell~
.S:~ 0
op..~
a ...
rh
.r1~i:l
~.9 0
"5'0
M t.t=I._
o..~g
N -0
{/}.-
"tlti-o
1a 8 m
,
V
I
...... -0 <Ii
rnEi:i
Q ell 0
.8 13 13
rn.- 0
'S: ti >
..... 0 0
o H
....:Ee
.... ~.....
- 0
>>-0 S
~o.....
'-< N 0
o'~ 2
~e't;
oS~
...c::::lQ
f-c {/}._
on
C>
:!
--
'"
....
Q
o
13
o
~
.....
tn
{/}
Q
.8
....
:a
Q
o
o
"tl
o
-0
Q
~ .
o~
o >
o 0
H H
0..
-~ g-
o.....
.g ~
ell Q
>< .8
w.~
b1)-O
Q Q
.~ 8
o e
::r::::l
o {/}
...c: ell
..... 0
~s
..0 Q
"tl . 8
0.....
H ell
.- bI)
:::l.-
[.m
o 000009
OVlOOOOO
ONOOOOO
6..o66r-l"60
OOON\OIt)O
NN\ON......OO\O
N~......-~~~N
~ ~
~
o ."
~ 1::
-0 ~ 0
s 6b ~
o .....
~ rn,e 8
>>l1oQ go
eIlQY::O ..=l
~:g~5
Q~H> ~.
0>E-<0
OO>>H tn
5hHeIlgo .....
~ i~ ..=l e
> QO cZi
~ 2. ~ .~
>>-Htn "E
ell S e.o~ M
~~~o ~
~~w{/} ~
5:-;:l>>~5 ~
ti::r:Cdello Q
~]~~~ ~
H_OOOC/.l5h
Bo{/}{/}o~l-<~
ell ~ ~ ~.~ liS ~ 0
~.....:l~~::Ep..w E-<
~C'iM..q:V)\Clr--:
o
VI
N
0\
(<")
00
f'-
~
~~~u
..... > H 0
ell.... eIl.O'
~~p..1-<
H 1:: _ 0..
ell 0\00
o..CI.lo...c:
o eo.....
...c: o.N _
..... 0 - {/}
HHVO
tB~~~
~ S :::l 0
o.~m~
o 0....... {/}
goo ~]
o ..... Cd
~~bI)
Q ell Q -
Cd p.. .- ~
- "tl 'C
~~~ti
......0 Q I-<
.::: :::l..... 0
.s ~ '^ ~
--50......
e..... ~ 0..
o..~ _
ell rn ~~
"tl gp ~ ~
~.~ ~ ~
8:g.....~
......Q-o{/}
'+-<~~o
00.. g-
~ .~ VI 0
.'.........0."
.....goo
~QNO
...c: Q H b
tnOOtl)
'-'-o"S"tl
~ g 0 a
...... ell 0 "tl
0. ..0 0 fa
o "tl 0 ..... .-
g..eQrn~
o ell .- 0 .~
{/} fir ell ..... .S
"tlHdQO
fa 0.:3 0 Fl
...... Q H -_ ~
.-. t) o:~
~ 0 o."tl......
H..o Fl ~ .!:!
o 0 ~ 0
~~~.E~
c~ fa . gp
~ 0\ 0 b1)._
.~..... .s ~
l;:lo-oo.Q
:=:v>av-t
0-0 dtB
H H Q
o..faoo~
"'d-+~o.....
t>...., . ~ fJ)
.~ 11 ;.~ .g
.......c: ~ 00
~ eo u.s
-
o
~
a
0..
bI)
.s
.....
o
o
S
o
o .
{/}
{/}~
..... 0
g Q
H 0
......0
~"tl
ell Q
~c:
~~
~~
~bO
.- Q
b.a
{/} ell
o 0
-o{/}
o"tl
o..~
~........
o -
o~
~~
~ ~
......
o
o
4S
S
CI.l
-0
a
...c:
-5
.~
CI.l
.....
o
o
b
{/}
~
.....
Q
o
-0
.-
{/}
o
H
~
o
.Q
{/}
Q
o
....
.....
o
o
S
o
o
~
~
ell
~
fa
-j;
{/}
o
"tl
o
0-
~o
O"tl
.~ ~
:gu
ell {/}
1-<0
5 ~
~E-<
C'i
Q
.....
........
~
~ ~
gpe
.... .....
.D"tl
.E fa
ObO
"tlQ
fJ .g.
- 0
s~
8]
s<Ii
~ ~ ::::
........ ell ell
td -: ..0
S ~ 0
rn...c: ~
ell 0 ell
V ~ .0
H.D ell
B - .....-
0>> .....
S ell 5
{/}~ 0
>>~
~~
0..0
o g-
b1)0
~~
-E a
.- ...c:
~ >>
Q..o
O"tl
;g.g
:Es
o 0
H t::
o :::l
gpCl.l
:::l ell
~~
H
tB~
~o..
liS 8
Q4S
.8 S
~ CI.l
e"tl
o 0
e 8:
p..:E
..... 0
o ....
al 0
?:~
ell
~
-
.~
b
o
...c:
.....
o
.....
{/}
....
o
e
.....
{/}
......
.!:!
.....
Q
o
"tl
.r;;
o
....
~
o
.Q
o
...c:
.....
S
o
~
M ..q:
o
bI)
a en
........ 0
cIl 0
I-<
-.....
-0-0
om
l.>::
_bO
~.s
;gg-
o 0
{/} {/}
"tl
cIl fa
...c:......
.....
.~~
eIl~
0.....
a.~
Q e
0.-
~D 0..
cIl -
o Q
H ~
o ell
e........
0'&1'
........c:
o 0
~ Q
E-<.8
{/}-
~
~
~
~
....
o .
~~ {/}
E-< a ell
o 0. 8
05 ~ .>
..... 0 I-.
:::l 0 g
~ g 0
>>>> ::0
0:c1 ::s
-5 Q 0
o "tl
e~
o ,
...c: Q
~.t! ~
w ti 0
-g-8 ~
~ & .e
o .....
"tl.J:l
~~
~;;
"tl......
~ ~
~o
H t:l
tBo
Q"tl
0.....
.~]
0.....
g!1
"tl~
~:g
I-< rn
"tle
o .....
~tB
~bI)
~]
g:>a
J;40..
aB
0.. ell
........"'d
o 0
~~
liS 0
0.0
o g
o 0
b.....
rn.14
~ liS
00.
o
g-
o
{/}
"tl
liS
...c:
0:
o
o
...c:
t:
o
0..
{/}
VI \0
"tl
Q
o
0..
0'
bI)
Q
J;4
-
ell
~
ell
.....
tB
~
"tl
~
6
U
{/}
.....
e
E-< 0
"tl rh ell
E ~ -s
." ~ ell
e.54 ..a
tB tii <
o ~
...c:o
..... 0
...c:4S
~s
o ."
-B~
b1)...c:
.s 0
0..13
g ~ ~
:: -0 e
:-;:: ~ ~
~ - .....
..... ~ .~
0-
s~
..... .....
ell 0
Q.a ell
o 0 ~
0.- "tl
4S 0. Q
S <Ii ~
." ~ 0
~ 0 ~
o ~ 0
tn..o 0
{/}
.....
o
ell
?:
...c:
bI)
:::l
o
..a
.....
b1)-
Q ~
.0.8
o 0
o al
- 0
~~
~ Q
~~
0.. ....
~ ~
o Q
.,,~
op..
:g,:Q
~"tl
15 ~
tBE
I :::l
No
...... I-<
f'- 00
o
.0
o
~
bI)
"tl
e
o
>
o
o
05
.~
ell
o
a
o
o
"tl
-.i
N
o
-.i
'"
:l
Q
o
~
rn
~
0.
~
"tl
Q
ell
tIl
~
o
....
>
S
o
~
.....
o
~
.....
o
...c:
.....
Q
o
o
.....
o
rn
o
.....
."
-0
Q
o
.....
o
ell
?:
~
.....
"tl
Q
:::l
o
a
.
It)
.
Q
....
on
o
~
N
~
.8
~
o
5
{/}
Q
o
o
;>.
ell
~
U
o
H
bI)
$-0
o
>
W
"tl
~
~
~
~
{/}
H
o
~
S
o
<t::
01)
.s
.....
;i
CI.l
e
{/}
o
0..
o
-
{/}
.....
:::l
o
Q
o
<I)
o
g
i
"tl 13
m 't)
b1)~
.~ N
Q ~
~ 0
.N g
o 'g
{/} 0
1:1 ~
o 0
o ~
0'\
rh
o
g
..c . "tl I 0 -0 rn
0210 oaQ~
:a~~ <8o~liS
~ .O'.S · M '+-< 0.
_ ..... ..... 0 0 0 M
Q o..~ o...c: 0 0
o M"":{/}-B
tONrh o~::so
Q"tlo -BP-'~bI)
.... Q Q .....
...c: Cd .- Q ~ o.s
<I) ..-. .~ 00.0 ~
ell ...... .g '+:l ".
~ CI.l..... ......sS b
-QSo ~1::0~
...c:o "tlOo::::
ell..... Q 0 {/} H._
:::l.~ bI) {/} eo{/}
g'.::: .;;; 0 0. 13 0
~o.gtig.eellO
...... :::l H _ {/}...c:
d l=l ~ "tl 0.. Q._ 0..
-::I""" ..... 0 ~ ~.~ ~
~ ~.g H .~ 0 .q .1::
0.~~G>.~;::: of-< 0
~~:E~..g~ ai ~
o C\l ........ 0 ....
~oliS:::l]~liSeIl
E-< ...c: Cd ". "tl
o~"tlell p.."tlO
...d""Orn<liOQ{/}
+3 0 {/}.... -0 ..... ;:j 0
"" <H .S:...c: cIl bI) 0 '0
O"tlOOOdtnQ
q:: 0 $-o:a "".::1 ..... W
ell <I) "tl:> - "tl 0
"tlOQ....~!5b1).
o o..Cdci a o:::l i:i
'0 8 00 1:1.3 p.. 0
"tl 0. 0.0 n ....... 0 13
o eIl-"'..no
dOOO...c: .+3{/}
QliS{/}O.....>>QeIl
o 0 f'- H 1::.... 0
.D{/}0~<80{/}~
o cG ~ B --1 g. i:i p..
.....{/} eIlHO,..,...
"tl-B 00> 0..13.....
0"tl...c:88soo
~ .~ .::: ci 0.. ~ -5
0. 0 0 g.>> 0 .8
8"tl{/}'<:t gH;.t:l
0.. e b1)~ g H 0 .....
Cd t:l 13 :::l 0 ~....
.~ <1)'1:: 0 -0 ~ 0 ~
o 0 0 <t:: e 0 0.. "tl
g..~] 0 .5 05 < fa
o e n{/}p....-.
{/}..... Q"'o,:Qo
OO"tlCdo5{/} 050
g;;: ~ ~ -0 8.S..... 5
~o{/}""'gO:@Od
Oo...c:-grnCd~OU
S gp g. ~ .~ ...c: 0 rn
o Cd $-0 g >>.....-g fa ~
o $-0 b1). -0..... 0.. 1:1
.~oB8~u02~
...c:FiO ""d'OQp..
~ tii...c: 0 -::: Q > ..... ,:Q
ell {/} 0...... ." 0 0 ell
bI) 0 ell {/} ~ "tl S ,S
Q]liSrn]oxa{/}o5
~ :: "tl .8 ~ ~ tii ~.~
.S Q ~ P-.,:Q 0.. {/} "tl
"D .~ 0 0 ,:Q 0 >>~ B
01::'0 S 0-0 Q"tl ell
~ 8&~~.~ S fa~
-0 Q
fa 8.
-0 {/}
{/} "tl 0
g~ ]
0.. <I) ""
{/}~ H 0
e a 0 ~
g.~] ~ 8-
-oO"tlog
Q >> 0 P-. ._
CdO~o~
{/}~O::::b
~ O'.Q'S:.~
a.g ~ g.S
cG 0 Q a
~.s ~~ ~
c>
......
,-....
VI
'-'
>>{/}
..... ell
..... 0
U H
ell
or)~
g a
~o.
N""@
..... Q
{/} 0
So.~
:::l.....
<:g
o ell
05 ~
>>~
"Dtl-<
"tl 0
~ ~
o 0
M Q
o.~
g.fJ
o.~
H ..-.
o 0..
~ g.
.....
1J 0
.....05
~t
fl) 0
o 1:1.
0.0
8 .....
o.{/}
CI.l -H
1:: g
0.....
S ~
o ~
6~
M
o..bI)
.~ '~
~ 0
[::r:
O'VI
0..
"tlO{/}
eN ~
Cd - 0
_N ......
P-.",,;:s
~ 0
0..0",
oj;
{/} 0.. 0
..... 0 13
g tn 0
r:: 0 {/}
"...c:eIl
0.....0
..c"tl~
.....ep..
BCd,:Q
Qt:o
00...c:
.;:: ~ ~
..... 0 0
"tl""-o
"g!::::.E
d ell :::l
>::ltio
,-....
.....
~
~
0..
o
0.
o
o
0..
VI
N
@)
Q
o
.-
~
;i
p.
o
0..
o
o
q
......
H
o
0..
tn
o
H
o
ell
(<")
o
\0
'-'
tn
.....
.Q
00
\0
(<")
Q
o
-0
o
.~
..0
cIl
~
~
P.
-0
e
'g.
o
~
"O{/}
o e
.!:: 0
= ell
O"VI
4> VI
~ori
ell
~
~'-""~:::;'r-..~'-""~N~""'-"''-'''''''-'''~
................... ..................N NNNN C\l
QCQgQQQcgQQQQp..
.8.8.8.;;;.8.8.8.8';;;,8.8.8.8 -0
.~.~ ~ .... ,~.~ {/} {/}.....~ {/}.~.~ 0
> ;>.;>.::: > ;>.S:'S:.::: > .S: > ;> fI)
BBBBBaaaBBaB8 ~
,:Q O'.....:l ::E Z 0 p.. ~ ::E z p.. ~.....:l p..
..................".......~.......~.....................................~
000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
"0 <I)
ole
~ g g
go or) N '<:t M f'- f'- f'- 0 00 00 00 '<:t M t"-
J..ln\OOOOOOf'-OOf'-OO ......
~MNC>C>C>C>C>""";C>C>C>C>C> 0'\
o
o
.",
-.i
N
o
-.i
'"
....
,
\0
,
'"
e
~
N
,-....
......
Q
o
.-
{/}
.-
>
~
'-'
~
.....
o
~
..-::
......
Q
o
.....
{/}
.;;
o
'-'
o
....
o
~
J..E-<
~..-::
.... ......
OQ
fI'J.8
tIS {/}
e-;;
<~ "3
.,:,,: '-' 0
;U ~
..., ....0 -0
- ~.
- ~ I-<
~E-< 0
o
....
:a ~CI.l e
"0..... 0
< cIl ell
00
'" f'- \0.
=0\
S::M N
Q
:E
.....
.~
-g ~~~ gp~ ~~~
...c: 0 .0..... ..... ~ 0 ..... ~
.....\O:::l-o ""d1O::.....~~
oOo.Q t;~"'~.f
.S ...... ""d ell 0 'Ill '"
F1.......H...... o-titsu~
@go. ~lO::lll~
>< .00 O;;-'t::l.,lll
U.l~ ~z E t::l.,~C) ~
b1)~] g ~ ~~~~
Q U CI.l._ Q '" ~
..... 0..... 0. ~ ,~
~~o:g .Q~~~~
.....0 0 0..... III ts 0
..........on >~""'SO'.-
o oU O'>ts"'=:::::
...c:dO,+-< -0 'C~
E-<CdNO S~~""'~
~ ~f'-~s o~cSo8
.g g .~ 5.:: :0 ~ ~ ~.~ ~
ell ..... 1:: Q 0 Ci Q, ts ~ ~
o ell 0 o.g:> ..... C III '"
H : 0..- ..... i) .=:.... ~~ .-
~~P~OOH g"'bll t1:::
H"'~O O....~c s::
.~ p.. l.>:: !5 ..... ~ .-1:: ~ ~ 0
o 0 0..... 0 Q tI) '" '" ts ~ ....
.2: t ~ 0 05 .~ -0 0 .~::::: 10:: ~
~ ~ bI) Q ..... l:l cIl 2< I>> .... ~ I..
ell 0 0 b1)~ ell g. 10.;. III ~ ", ~
0..-0 Vl .Q ""d .s ~~ -ti ~ ~
{/} ~ ~.8 ~ E ..... III '- ... III S
ell -::s Q tI) 0 & ~ ;:. ,
-o{/}""dO"~o ~"S.....g,lll~
o..8Be;:::g. ~SO'~~~u
o..OCl.l_o..o Q"'=ullll::SO'
OQO......O"H 1::~''''S6
oog..eIl{/} q-.:::,~~"'~
>.0 0 0 0 .~ - ..... "'" _
.gv.l~HZ-Bt CI.l(Uc~~t;
:-'{/}Q 0 B~lr)~lll~
0<;1.....0.....0. g:s...ts-.t:lll;;-'~
,... H Q.... 0 0 ......... _..........."
- ..... 0 ..... I-< .~ 7: ~ ~ '-' ...
ooS=B1::p.. :;:::;O;;ts c~
.....geQ~~ e~~~""",
{/} <;:.:i ..... 0 Q ell 0 ,,~~ ~
ell S :::l U 0 bI) .....1.. ~ -.:::, ~ .-
e v.l 0"...... 0 O.S ""d III III ts I..
ell4=: ~ ~ oVl"8 ~ ~~ ~1.:'~
~OQO...c:-:'OO~~tsts-..
..... {/} 0 ..... .... .0 :>..;1 .~ ~ III .~
ell . ..... o....c: .... ~ ..... III ,- U ;:.......
0. ..... 0...... ..... ~ ""d u -, '" I 10::
Q ell ~..... :::l H Q l::S ~ ._ lr) III
~ .d ~ ~ 0 -0 0 ~ Q ~ C
"~ ..... ~ V) U B 0 ~ _~ 1.:' r'\
""d ..... ........... 0 >>{/} Q '^ ...., 0; ... .....
Q 0 0 p.. -- ..... 0 o::~..... ~ '" III
cIl 0 Q >,. 1:: u..... :::l 0' :;:: c ~ "S
o 0 1_. 0 .0 _ ~._ l
,:Q-o-BeIlg.ce{/}~ ~c~
Q QH~ eIl......c"'-.~
11 ell o.~ p.. :::l ~...c: . c ~ III ~
Ov.l....l:l .D~.....N\'o..C~1ll
ecllCl.l;:::0300M~">"""
L...OOP~...........o ...001..-"
.. ~ 0 ~. .= ~ ~ .....
ell .... p.. a:f 0 rn 0 Q ts .... '-c .~
O-obl) ...c:i:iMO-......-.,....
...c: 0 eIl...c: Vl ..... 0 0....;1 00 .~ '" '"
...............t.....O{/}>-<O~>-:1ll1ll
Q~Qt8OSQl=lO ~~~
.~ S rs 0 ti ~ 8 ~ Vl ~ ~ 10.;. 10.;.
..... <H ;::: {/} 0.0 ..... rn r':; ._ ~ ~ ~^
;> 0.. :::l Q H"'~ ..... 10:: C """
~.S g.q if ~bI) ~ ,~~ ~ .:s ~.~
..... ell H' ..... ~ H - ~..!< --
o.~ 0 0 0 ...... 0 ~ ~ ts u
>~~..!::...c:~ ..a0~;:.1ll~
? 0.. ell.......... eIlE-<......... III t::l.,'>
b/)
Q
~
.....
o
~
CI.l
o
.-
....
.....
Q
o
~
o
o
~
2 {/} S
ell.....{/}
:::l .Q i:i
0"0'-
o H ~
-gBgrh
'+-<,z:a'Q
o eIl.8
Q 0 0 ~
o ........c: ~
..... Q ..... 0
..... 0 '+-< 0.
~ .~ 0 0
g,rs~b/)
....-l.>:: 0 Q
0..... Q.d
o 0 ~ .....
.EQOS
]~
rn 0
>>0..
ell 0
~ a .
o rn S
~+..-B
:> Q CI.l
.... 0 >>
'+-<Elm
o 0. ~
Q 0 B
0........ ell
..;1 ~ ~
o 0 H
B ""d I::
000
~...c: .....
p... .... m
,-....
\0
'-'
..-...
f'-
'-'
CI.lO""dO~"" -~'"
g ~ fa ~ O.S ~ 10:: ~
._ Q .. t;:::1 0 ~ 0 0
{/} .... ,A< 0. ~ t::l.,:::::
";; ell ....... uj Ci 0 '-' 10:: ts
.- .a..... - <H b1)..... C '"
o gVloa~.-I::~
~E~>.~...c:s~E-:;
"""0" eIlH 00"",
>>.... ~ > O.~ ..... ~ ~
O{/}......P".....-oell'>-..
v.l -0 >> {/} ..... '" III
..... Q Q 0 0 ~ Vl .- .::
O:::lO{/}>H-o"S....
~ 0.;;; ~:..::: Bell, ~
H H..... ~ Q Cd 0. C ~
t8 ~.2: 0 1:1 Q ~ '"
o "" 0.... 0..=1 10:: ~
""d""dH....~..n......C'
o Q ..... ~ +3 l'd'- ..
a :::l.S ~ 0 0 ~ ~ Q is
0. ""d ""d 0 ""d ..... 0 g s::: :-s
~ Q O.~ ""d 11 8 -.. .- U
0. ell ~""d Q~ a ~nO'-ts
Q{/}Ol'dCd.....Ots.....-.,
o SO..... ..... o:::l.~ ._ ~ 10::
o . {/}........ 0 Q >1.. IO::.~
..0 cIl -0 .~ EO -0 r~ g.. l::S ~
CI.l..oQ8 Q..... 'v III
eIl_O,.......O_r'\ ....
...c:'O o.......v o..cIl 9:s::: III
VI ~ Q ..8 b O.S ts .0 ~
o 0 0 ..... bCl~ ~ n ~
o ..... .- '+-< .0 ~ 0 ~ ..... -S
N 0 1:: 0;':::.::1 05 ~ 1Y c
ooe~-g~~.....~:::::l:
...... 0.-t5 ..... 0" -0 0 '"I:l -... '-
;>......~ 0 I-< l=lVl.....~ (U
~~~'E~S~~~~
.... 0:>..... Q .....0 10::
""d 0 Q.... {/} 0 "" ~ .~
o 0 ""d H 0 .- ~ .... I..
~m~~t8...c:o~~~
""d >>..... +3 E-< 0 ._ ~ '"
,-.... 0 .0 ..... 0 Vl 0 .JJ -
0\ > 13 ell ~o Q~T1.~
'+-< Q 0 >. H > ..... - C) '"
o 8 o.~ B 0 ,:Q <Ii Or) III
\O-o~]{/}.gi:iB~-S
..... Q 0 - -0 ._ ell ... <...
OellQ~l'd""do""''>O'
o 00tl..{/}~
...c:QeIl""d""dQ Vl'~~
en 0 0 .- {/} ...... "-' '"
'-'..... 0 Q -g +:: ell W -.. .--1::
....... ~....-t i-lI ::S""'tj. ,
fa~ .DOOo~.QO
......:::: ~ S o..{/}l.>:: o~ ~
0. 0 0 0 ..... ell ._..a ts '"
OOliSO~""d1::(-<~:i::
bI) ""d 0......... 0 .-....
cIl.....-o......rnell""d,n){?-,
.s ~ & ~.g ] .;;; 0 ~ ~
~ Q.9 .~ .;; .s .... ~ ~ ~
-o.sOellOtl)...c:~~c
""d tI) > H.... .8 ~
~cIlO~o..eIl.s:l .~o
b1)-o -o~~e~~
""d d 0 ~ 0 I -..0 C .....'
ell .::1 ..n ..... 0 0 ~ 0 ~ .;;:
o ~ +:l 0 0..0 0 ~ ts ~
H H b1)eIl 0...... e""d u ~
~ ~ .s?:: ~.B U 2 ~ c
.S S .~ N.~ 0 fa ~ ~ ~
.EJ N^ -a g.a'::: E ~ I..
~ - ..... EO.... N ..... ~
'" v{/}{/} b 0 Ill.....
a ~ 8..;; 0 Q ,:Q ~ -.: ~
~ ...... 's. 0 ti 8 B a 5 ts
Q~~2
~~~""d
10:: U ts 0
ts~~6h
.. ts ....
V ~ ~ ~
~.. ~ ~ ""d
O.t:;bCl
.:::2Q:l",Q
10:: .....
.01Y~ ~
Q.,~~e
s .~~ ell
'" ..... III rn
~ ~ U-o
c '" u 0
~ ~ ~-e-
~~Oo.
.--1:: ~~N
.g III 8 ""d
~"S~m
~ S So......
u 10::.- {/}
.- '" Q
~ ~ ~.8
..- ...... c:s en
ti ~ ~.;;
.l:) .... ~.....
~ III 10::0
"'~tst::!
Oo~~~
.a (U -~ ~
.~ ';i ~ ~
t1 ~ . ~
~ s::: ~ rh
"S c ~..8-;;;
u III ..... .....
~ .- ~
o~~..ci'~
<t;5~gCd
~~~{/}O
~ ~ ~ < .~
~ ~ - ~
lll.- -'-0
"S~~~Vl
'0>1.. "'~~
.or~ ~ ~p~
._ "V U I.. 0
_~ s::: ~ ~o5
t1'.0 I.. ~ '0
~Q.,~~m
ts .....
~~~~g
.." .... ",.,g e
~~1ll""0
.~ ~ ~ .~ 05
~i:"S:So5
I.. Oo~ ~.~
~ .~ ~ 10:: >>
~"t~.~"""
'- III 10:: '" g.
~ .:: ts ~ 8
::: Q"SIllO
<.>
o
"0
..,f
N
C>
..,f
'"
<<)
I..
ts
~
u
'"
~
C
10::
~
I..
-..
ts
~
C
.-
.....
~
ts
III
~
l
f'-
,
<Ii
o
.!:l
:::l
o
.....
M
......
N
M
Q
o
.-
.....
o
o
en
Vl
......
~
o
o
{/}
~
V)
!2
'"
---
N
~t:U~~~
~ ~..... ~ ~
t:U N ~ t:U U
~ III -.. :::!
~ ~ ~ ~h
,~~c~
~.::::-. ~ u C
~ ~ :::! t:U <;J
'C.~",-Q~
-lC~tsc::.~
t:U~.....c:.~
III " ~ +
r'" ?-, ~ """ ":s
'-Jt:U..........t:U
1O::~":s~SO
~ ~~ ~ .C .t;
1':-"1O::.,:::t:U
~~lll.l:!'"ti
~t:U~Vj.Q
~..., E::.,.:..
I.. C C I': t:U
~~U~~
~~~Js~
~ t:U .... <..
10::~.... O'~
~""~.Q~
6' ~ ki 'E ~
~ .... C;j '0 .~
~ ........,
~t:U?-,;:'~
~ E::~ III <;J
'~~ ';S ~
~ ~ ~.::; ~
~?~-lCc
..... '" - III <;J
~'"ti ~~ III _
~t:U-..,1O::-.
III ~ III U.,g 10::
-Q ......::; 10:: ~ .,g
~';SE~1O::<;J
~ .~ III ~ C ~
.....,.."'=S,..<;JC
:::!....~cb.o~
<;J~:::!~1O::"'"
t:U t:U "^ ::::: -lC
~t:C~...,~
..... :::! ..... ... .- ~
~<;J~~t1-Q
C1O:::::::ts ~
~8~~.s~
..... ....c -..
:::!~ c."::: I.. t:U
C ~ ~~ ~ ~
t:U l::S III 10:: ~
"S .gp ';S C ~ ~
......... '" <;J._ <;J
ts~ts~~E::
~ lll~ 10::.~~
~.l:)~~~~
t:U ~ 10:: ii ~ '"
..., :::! :::! ":s
.l:)c'~ .10::
c~~ ts Sots
III '" III III ._ I..
'=--~.t:;~~
ac:.t:U"''"ti~
tsc:.,~ r'\
t:U + U C -.. .::::<
~~.::; 10:: ~ ~
~...... -'" .~<+:::..~
~~~~b.o"'"
't; ',,::: .t:U ~.::; ~
C~O>ts:"t:U
,~ I.. ;:..2! 10::
t:U -~ ~ t:U ~ III
o~........ ........'+-<<'/ bO
...c:::::: g .!:! 0 Q
c:: ~ l.>:: 1:: ~].t::
O~o .g"tlCd~
Q lll.I:l .;;; .S ...... ::r:
0.::(-< O~{/}O
.,a........ ~~Q~
ell Ill:::: 0 0 +3
g -Q Ir) ..... H ..... .....
....... C c:. 0 O.~]
"tl....., 0 -5 .2: .....
0""'0.. 13 HO 0
>> III ";' ..... ,p tI)
~o ~lr) ..........l=l.....
ts":s .....Cl>-<8
~ t:U ell 0 .....
{/}U..... O~OCl)
o.....~ ............{/}>>
...c:ts ~g~[
-: ~ ~ >> g..~ 0
o '- 0 ell Q 0
...... ~ ~ o.~ ~ ~
e ,i::: - 0 ..... .....
ti t:U ~.~ 0 g
:::lb()~qj '~""'o..
::::1O::'l::80ellOd
...... -.:::: .~ .fJ t' II' V Q
VI '" <;J cIl V '" 'T. - .
o .- C 0 Ifi > .... 0-
O r~ '" ti=< ~ .... H cIl>
~..., ;>...... 0.-
N:::: "",~-.....eIl~O
~ .... Q 1:: 0 0..-0 H
~ <Ii ~.8 0 Q Q Q 8:
-ot:{/}l:::{/}~Cdcll
b ~ ,t:U 8 ;:i 8 0 0 .....
:::l ......,... 0 0 "tl .~ ~ 0
..... ~, CI.l ~,Q
"tl...c: t:U d ....;>. - 0
o ..... ~.::I "' ';j -0 0 .~
..... ..... '" Q Q...c:.-
ell B .::?~ 13 0 Cd ..... "tl
"tl 0-" >< 0 1::0..... Q
,-....Q~O...c::::l..!o<lcllO
0\ ~ 0 0 'cIl...c: 0
<+-< 6h ""...c: >>.0.....:1 ~ ~
o.~ (- c:: =a.- 0 cO i:i
\0 0 ~ 0 a U ...c:._ 0
..... "tl :::!.;a t+-:< 0 ..... i:i 13
~?->~ cb~gp.g~
...c: ~:::: 0 bh '>.'_ 0..
Vl~OOHd ._"tlo..
'-' . -0 .::1 0 p.. _ ::s
d ~ornot:l.:::l{/)
Cd;...... ,:-;:lelllflaSOcll
0. e:::: -S 1-.0 0 {l b
oo.."""oOQ.....~O"
bI) ~ "tl <H ..... tI) <+-i 0..
eIlell;:::cIlooij-SeIl
.S -E ~ 0 0 rB 0 {/} "tl
~ .~ ~ -g ~ ~ ~ ~ &
-0 1ll-.....+30 3{/}
"tl......:::::So o..o:::l
~ ~ i:... [g ~ ~ ~
",o1alll:;::,S"tlO.....z
~..d~~ ~;:::o>-
o 0..... 0 ell 0...........
I-. ...... ~ .!:l.D 0...:::;'.....
?-> g 10::'- ~ ..... ell U ~
~ 0 ts ~ .a 0 >
Q .~ -lC "tl ] t::.I:l ~ fa
's 8 g Q ...... ~ (-< f-. 0
..... 0 '.c ~ .....
] b1)~ Ocll si-.ri ~
0...3 ~ ~ .....:l :0 U ~ '8
o {/} "'.- 0:;::: .= ~
.Q .~ i: Q ..d :::l 0 e ><
(-< 0 U 0 E-< t:O -5 0.. W
o
o
"0
~
C>
-.i
0-
M
,
00
,
00
"tl ..... .....
&U {/} 0
...... ~.,3...c:
t> .,..Jrro-t -1""4 ~
~....._'+-<
.....
"tlOO
.....:l.~ ~o5
o 0 0 :::l
...c:........o
..... 0 tt: {/}
'+-<0
o~gp~~
Q......- .... 0
00 0.. ell >
.~ ell 00......
ell o.o...c:~
.~ S > ..... 0
-........(1)CO.......
g;e"tli:;:B
~l.>::.s ~~
........
00
'-'
VI
S2
"'"
<::i
l
Architectural Design Guidelines for,
Kersey III.
RECE4VED
JAN 1 1 2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
January 9, 2006
GMS # 0528
Purpose
. Establish flexible design review criteria for new single-family detached homes
within the Kersey III. Plat.
Architectural Intent
· Ensure home design is based on a consistent, compatible, and attractive
architecture.
· Ensure the homes portray a sense of architectural integrity, building on market
acceptable architectural themes.
· Ensure that new homes are designed with sensitivity to the site, as well as
pedestrian scale, and reflect a strong residential character for the neighborhood.
· Ensure that new homes use building materials and architectural finishes in a
manner that exemplifies quality, durability, and encourage innovative and
imaginative architecture.
Architecture DesiQn Criteria
General:
· Provide variety, compatibility, and visual interest by using assorted combinations of
building elements, features, and treatments.
· Homes with "identical elevation" type should be separated by at least two homes with
different elevations. Homes with identical elevations should not be across the street
from one another.
· Differing roof types and articulation, window designs, surface materials, entryway
treatments, and bay window treatments should be utilized in abutting homes along street
frontages to achieve variety.
· Entrances: Entrance to home areas should include an architectural feature such as a
porch, stoop or other prominent entry feature. Specifically, a minimum of approximately
30 square-foot area that is oriented toward the front street. The transition area may
include a porch, patio, deck, or garden with entry, walkway with arbor, lamp post, or
other features that creates a progression of spaces from the public way to the individual
private residence.
· Variety of Home DesiQn: A combination of building elements, features and treatments
should be repeated for continuity throughout the development.
Exhibit 7
..
Architectural Design Guidelines
Page 2
· DwellinQ Units: Dwelling units should be designed to have living space as the dominant
feature from the street and to de-emphasize the garages.
.
· GaraQe Doors: Garage doors that face the street should feature windows, recesses, or
moldings to help blend the doors with the character of the home.
· GaraQe Placement: Garages facing the front street should be set back (approximately
four feet) from the front elevation of the dwelling, or otherwise designed and placed in a
manner that meets the intent of this section. (An example of such an alternative design
would be recessing the garage face under a second-story or a projecting roofline, or
placing an Architectural arbor, trellis or element to de-emphasize the garage doors.)
Garages that face a direction other than the front street, such as side-loaded garages,
are exempt from this requirement.
Site DesiQn Elements that Provide Variety and Visual Interest:
· Variation in home footprint and/or orientation on the lot
· Consistent variation in front setbacks
· Variation in driveway location, materials, and treatment patterns
· Variation in type of driveway style (e.g., single or shared driveways).
· Variation in porches, patios, arbors, trellises, low fences walls and/or landscape hedges.
· Accent materials consisting of masonry, shingles, stone, fencing, and/or cultured
products.
Proposed Materials:
· Home building materials should be selected to compliment and blend with the
surrounding natural area.
· Roof materials may vary in type and color.
· Roof material should display three-dimensional visual texture. Acceptable materials
include wood, tile, slate, metal, or high definition composition shingles.
· Siding materials should vary in architectural style or color. Materials may include wood,
stucco, masonry, or natural-looking synthetic materials.
· Building materials and finishes that create glare impacts on adjacent properties should
be avoided.
· Optional chimneys on the exterior of the house are encouraged.
Colors:
· Exterior color palate should consist of earth tones "with complimentary trim and accents
where appropriate. Accent colors should be used to provide emphasis to such elements
as entry doors, dormers, building modulation, shutters, and trim elements. These colors
may be bolder, but should compliment the earth tones of the home.
Architectural Design Guidelines
Page 3 .
Roof Pitches and Materials
· Primary roof pitch should range generally from 4: 12 to 12: 12. Pitches may be reduced
or increased where potential views or individual architectural styles are proposed.
. Variation of roof treatments, like roof eave brackets, gable end accents
. Dormers at varying shapes and styles.
. Other design features approved by the Code Administrator that provide variety and
visual interest.
. Gables, hips and/or other roof style variations with i.e. parapets, secondary roofs,
dormers etc. facing the street are encouraged.
Windows:
. Solar access, through the positioning and sizing of windows will be encouraged.
Skylights will be allowed to provide natural lighting with the home.
. Reflective glass is not encouraged. Windows frames should be colored (white, beige,
brown, etc.) Windows visible from the street or public open space should be trimmed to
complement the front fayade of the residence.
· Bay windows of various sizes, shapes and styles should be encouraged.
LivinQ Space Orientation. Intent:
. Building elevations and streetscapes should promote a pedestrian friendly and enjoyable
neighborhood experience for residents. Dwellings, site, and streetscape design should
incorporate features that bring living areas toward the street.
. Entry door enhancement, such as a well-detailed door (multi-panel or doors with
transom windows or glass side panels).
. Variations of fascia and barge board combinations.
. Residential/human proportions of both vertical and horizontal modulation of the house
facades and composition.
,I
jj: \\s<\L)
Department of Energy
Bonneville Power Administration
28401 Covington Way
Kent, WA 98042
August 30, 2005
f li!,.1;",l[~ :.~~, t1 \~~ :-':-f:-'i
: I"
I; ...
!.q SEP 0 62005 : '
L~r'4T~i
In reply refer to: TRFN/Covington
TRACT No. C-RE-150
CASE No. 20050350
LINE:
Covington- White River No. I and 2 (blwn towers 8/2 and 8/5) &
Chehalis- Covington (Btwn towers 63/1 and 63/4)
CERTIFIED - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RECBVED
JAN 1 I 2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mr. and Mrs. William and Debbie Jones
Lakeridge Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 146
Renton, W A 98057
LAND USE AGREEMENT
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) hereby agrees to your use of BPA's easement area for
the construction/installation, use, and maintenance of roads, utilities (including storm drainage,
sewer, water, gas, telephone, and cable), trails! roadways, landscaping to include trees, a park and
park appurtenances all related to the development of the Kersey Plat.
The location of your use is partially within the NW Y4 SW Y4 and SW Y4 SE ~ of Section 32,
Township 20 North, Range 5, East Willamette Meridian, King County, State of Washington, as
shown on the attached segment of BP A Drawing No. 15863, marked as Exhibit A and sheets 1-9
of Kersey Plat preliminary plat drawings submitted by the deveJoperand hereby referred to as
Exhibits B through J.
PLEASE NOTE: BP A is not the owner of this property. If you are not the oWner, you must
obtain the owner(s)'permission to use this property. There may also be other uses of the property
which might be located within the same area as.your project. This agreement is subject to those
other rights.
This agreement is entered into with the express understanding that it is not assignable or
transferable to other parties without the prior written consent of BP A.
BPA'S AGREEMENT IS CONTINGENT ON THE FOLJ"OWING CONDmONS:
1. Underground utilities such as gas, water, electric service and storm drains,
shaH not come closer to the lattice steel tower leg.<; than 50 feet.
Exhibit 8
"
2. Irrigation shall not be located directly under the BPA conductors (wires).
Pressure of irrigation lines should ~ot be great enough to spray water on the
conductors, including in the event of a broken sprinkler head.
3. Design the pedestrian trail to withstand HS-20 loading from BP A's heavy
vehicles. BP A will need to use this pedestrian path to access structures. The
path must be J 6 feet in width.
4. Access to transmission Ijne structures by BPA's maintenance crews shall not
be interfered with or obstructed.
5. Provide an approach off edge of road wide enough to turn into. A minimum
width of approach of 16 feet is required. '
6. Fences shall have adequate gates of not less than 16 feet in width for the
passage, of BP A's maintenance vehicles. Gates can be kept locked provided
BPA is also permitted to install its own lock thereon.
7. Maintain a minimum distance of at least 50 feet between your facilities and
the point where the transmission line steel lattice structure enters the earth. If
this clearance cannot be met, install guard devices such as barriers,
guardrails, or post,>, for the protection of BP A's structures. Specifications
and installation plans for these protective Structures must be submitted to and
approved by BP A prior to construction.
8. Maintain a minimum distance of20 feet between construction equipment and
transmission line conductors (wires).
9. Grading, a.. shown on plans, is acceptable. There will be no grading within
50 feet from the point where the closest tower leg enters the earth.
.10. Trees (landscaping) shall not exceed 10 feet in height, obstruct access to
structures, or be planted within 25 feet of any structure. Trees (landscaping)
which violate this permit may be removed by BPA personnel at any time.
11. Luminairs on the right of way shall not be closer to the conductors of the
. power lines, at maximum sag, than 20 feet.
12. Nuisance shocks may occur within the right-of-way,. Grounding metal
objects helps to reduce the level of shock.
13. Storage of flammable materials or refueling of vehicles/equipment is
prohibited.
14. No vehicles larger than a pickup with camper Dlc'lY be parked within the right
of way.
15. Construction/installation, use, and maintenance of the trail shall be at no cost
to BPA.
Other uses and utilities on the right-of-way must be applied for separately.
2
Case No. 20050350
Tract No. C-RE-S 10
v
Yon ,shall not make any changes or additions to the permitted use of the right-of-
way without BP A's review and written approval.
IN ADDITION. TIIE FOLLOWING IS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATIENTION AND MUST
ALSO BE COMPLffiD WITII:
Hazard or Interference: The subject use of this easement area has been determined not to be a
hazard to, nor an interference with, BP A's present use of this easement for electric transmission
line purposes. Accordingly, there is no present objection to such use. However, if such use
should, at any time, become a hazard to the presently installed electrical facilities ofBPA, or any
facilities added or constructed in the future, or if such use should interfere with the inspection,
maintenance, or repair of the same, or with the access along such easement, you will be required
to remove such hazard or interference at no expense to BP A
Liability: You will have to assume risk of loss, damage, or injury which may result from your
use of the easement area, except for such loss, damage, or injury for which BP A may be'
responsible under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 62 Stat. 982, as amended. It is
understood that any damage to BP A's property caused by or resulting from your use of the
easement area may be repaired by BP A, and the actual cost of such repair shall be charged against
and be paid by you.
This Land Use Agreement becomes effective upon the commencement of use as set forth in the
Agreement. If you have any questions or concerns, please notify us. This Agreement is a permit,
revocable at wiU by the U.S., and does not convey any easement, estate, or interest in the land.
IF WE DO NOT HEAR FROM YOU WITmN 30 DAYS FROM TIlE RECEIPT OF THE
AGREEMENT, THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WILL BE ASSUMED TO BE
ACCEPTABLE. TIIE AGREEMENT WILL THEN BECOME A PART OF OUR
PERMANENT FILE AND MAPPING SYSTEM.
You may direct any communication to this office, Bonneville Power Administration, Real Estate
Field Services (fRFN/Covington) 2840] Covington Way, Kent, W A 98042, or by telephoning
Paul B. Woolson, at 253-63f-9154.
~:p
Paul B. Woolson
Realty Specialist
Cc:
Barry J. Talkington, P.E.
Barghau.~n Consulting Engineers, Inc.
J8215 12M Ave. So.
Kent, W A 98032
3
Case No. 20050350
Tract No. C-RE-5JO
;:Ez
~,~
'w ~
10-
cr:ili
z~
to"
'''' I-
IfS '~
N8
....,
'0
lOa:
.,
1fSa:
, '" l-
It)"
',",
UJ_
0"
W'\
Cf)
e~
J<(
<(J
~~
11I:1:
rrO
'<( z
,oi.
~.
O2!;
,CI) CI)
, x. llf--
po.
zOo
o~
a.
(I)
Zz
00
!i;::
1-'<(
(l)Q
lI..
I- -
(.) 1-,
<(z
0:11I
1-'9
, J .Il:
Jo
<(...
.i CI'~
.c(~~
..-
t; :tt!
X~:
::>~....
II: i:.
~Z :
<<8::
:So:: 4lC 4(
o.g l.t;;
\
\
\
o
::i
<(
I-
...
"
II:
W
CD
Q "',
:.: ..
'N: :..
:;t;~ ...
~'.... t
~ >C .../i!
fI)~g :J:
~d ~ :S
31;<< 0 ....4
~Jt>S
.~
"
11:'
, .~
<;;
.0
w,".
.1 C
:il;;b
!!
i'
clj
.~+~ Nt'
' "<l-.;rJ
, ~
I
e
~
i-
...
"-
II:
o
><0
~'~:..rn 'is' 3\4"
'Wj:!
.~.=t
b4IJ.t.t!
.:1 ~ =_
" .tl?
...~l!! "'f
~:i~:= ~.
~::t, g. ~= ~
u~_.... ~
..--
z
o
~
CJ
o
...
w
~
==
><
o
0::
a.
a.
~
~
'(\$
, cG
z _
g ~
hi a:
it;: ....
HI>
.~r -
~~ .0:... .
I"M- ld .' .z
~..'r ....~:;! .
:,~ :r~o'
':2~.~ ~~,
:' : '.ii~"
::!~ z !!'"'!: '
. - a o:it::E 'ol'
s~i F- i.a !:li~l
j i (!).;r;~: '.
o Z >AO ,
-. S;"w i
o ~ d I ...~ J~
U ..::E 'lti....
~
......
o ,
Z.......
o ~
"'Q~oo
.....,,;>
<~~~]
c.......QUNf"'l
~ U Q .~....... >-
N.cOOv
f90 .~~~
=ZZ~~~
~t~ ~E
<<.~ ~
~Uo-
C"" u e
~
5,
dWI1Y1d .l.lMft'l3\/d
GN
'0"" SONKJ'lOHCMf1
...
........ .... -..,.
_"xtrt...IOIIaJ.uD_ ft.ll'l .. .
.
~" il
'I/o _
-- , II
>~
A, /J~ <J
~i 21
w
~,'
;,
.05
I~
~ 0 a: 0;- : wr,l V~i!
... ~ i~ iJ '
r.>~~ ~ ________ '~' ,~
C'O'bO -'~ m
~~~~t ,/ -J ~, !i ~r~ t> ~~: &1 ~ 6 5l~~r:r~r=r~ t~~~~
~ ~ 3 j ~J/ ~)~ '\" ~ ~ :<mr;;~' ~;~ ~ ~~ ~ '~~it!~~ ~~~, . -i' I
~. ~ ~,~ I. 1- , , - . ,'-i'
I;r; ~~... , i ~ !l ! lllw, ! f$~ , ~~ ~ ~ !2 ~ ~ '---~
' , ~,.: ' r.r r! i:':, ~ ~ ~
' dl$~ ,~, a a ~-~ ~~~a i ~ 'a'~ ~ ~ ~~.~~', I
V '$" '" '" '" .. '" ... ... ..., '" '" ... .. - l?"
i~ /f; it ~~:,~; ~_'~ ~ $~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ B IHr, I~ ~L_~
, R' · . . .. . ~ e
-""-"-,,- ' ~ ~:.! . ~~ '~~!,m>B.a~~ ~ ~a . . ""!' . cj ~
~, .~. .. ~ ...,........~ ~l. . . ii,~:\! ~ II
" "-1 ~ J!1 '.>t- ~, I_~- I I' m' d,
" ~......o!~ a ,- -.. '.S oN
"- · ' :r ....' ... ,
, "-, ~ ~';'r~"'''':r~''':~~~~~i:l~~I2:r':I~l>\ll III ~
~ r : ~\: ~ DO ~ J).' f '
~ - : :1= ...:
J -, ~\, ~ ! I~. ~Ii
\ ' ~ JIM", ~ ~r
I" 'j.... Ie.
/!mFI/l~ ll~ ft 8r~ Al~~ ' }.~ ~ ..~ .. .... ~~:~ .. '~~.~ :~i~~: ~--
'. e~-r~ ii; ~ ._~IMI;," $ll
..:::';:; ~ ~ · . · ~ .2 I
~ '-a ;:;, Ii"".. it' ll~, -o., .. a_, ~ ,'.
., '-ii' iii ;'" ~... ~ ,0, IL. 11 ..... 1:1_ ~ ~_, ~
'-li ,,'~ .. t- .'61' ll_ l:i 13_ " ~ ~
!.....!L a. i"',j l~-t 0 - . tL i II _ ~-Ii. . _ ~ ~__
"-I~ "'-J .,1. g rf).;'i~ - lL l! ~ ll_ ~,.~ t ~ ·
s ... lL l!! a_ l(! ~..!!
........../ ~;-. jL. ~ lii-.:! ~
11 - L 12 l! . R' ~ I
I,IIII~ 11.11.1 ;&1' : I' I":.': I ~ . r J! ' a ~...<: ~
III I" r 15 fl lis r -I i!!., li' ,,_ II
· I "'if I I II UP ),' : I ~ ~_, .15 ~ 6
JI~ B~!' I I II:;! I !-m. ,:jI~ l! :: 8 7: fI __
!II;I'II 'III~I ~ -,-- ",' li l8 _9 i
Il!," If. I , S Z ~~~
,.' :ii[ I iii-I: i I . s~ .. ~~
,~I:t~~i~. ... I~ ~ --- ~tl.\, ~ : i. d-I
f~~f:~ .~ ~IPlml'I~!~iy __b..J :f' ~-.I
!II~ I I ~i 1III it MI' ul .~! ~ of '., ~
1\5' l i ~!'!q 9 L~.. ~'_ '. ;; ,"0 .~. .f-:~
il~5!'I', !. . ;. l!~~!!!'~<>t ~ ~\ ~r I
i
.,1 .,
If I
",,-
"-
"'-
"- ,
"-'
"'-
"-
"-,,-
...
\r
NY1cl9clvo9cJNv-J Tl\IISAo JJMwlt'1aY.I!
'lIIL
ON
'OT1~
M :::~=l
~"""!ND
HlnOS ::nG\Y CIIU $\z:g,
~
I
~
I
,.."IIlI:....
0:-
....
o
0> -.~
::::;;E:r
.as ~"Cl
Q~~~~., I
~'g-5 '
I~. ~... ,9 -a ---------~
~~;el
t~'"
~~J=
~
!
I,
I
I
l
I
I-
11'11 t ~
1111'1.!Jd l,
1111111l~I'I' 'Ii
if ~f ~ !I if " I I 1:1
Q&G$$-liJ'<Ag,
. .
f~!~
I
.l>>-J
~
-
NV1d)lllVd All'9'NII'lr8l:
. CJNV
'011 SONIO'1OHCMr1
""':::;:l
....... """
tunOS :JfIGW 'DIU SJDI
-
5 5 I
JH
IB II
I
i ~
, . ~ II
.~ GI "
I
a
II
O<lt>>
i
I
HI
Il
~
I,
~
'" 1;j
~~ii:~
""a S' '0
J;r;l~V1a'V
l::~~~].r
o . e~
z~/>..lii
t-'ro:IM-
Io1VIl.l>.'"
~~!~
'-
...
-----..
-----ctlY
.0" stlNlCJ1OHCJIV1
XYJ :~=~
lrOIIf Wl 'JJrGlI
HI1lOS 3flNlN 0NtL SlU~
~~
")')i..
t6l:II
NV1d'~ Al:l'1'NI'r13l:
_"=-_.-mADlBIf_ WI
-
Me OW
- ...
, ,
.....
~ .0;-
~~A:~
'.., i'"
100 .. ..
t:~:g. ~
u......,
~ ....:!:!~
OOfj
ZZl>. <>.
>< GIol M ""
Iol~BJ~
I
i
IJ
,
t
N\I'1d 3OVIIIVI!O CI'lV OVOll .I.ll'o'NII"n3
"'IU.
GIY
'0/1 SONlCT1ClHC:tlV1
""...
-
....... "Nt .....
..,........llIID'I.w::I..,....... )/I'" 1.1 ,
~
>'r_
~::=~
..... VA .,...
Hlf)OS 3nfBW GNU 9~lIl
~?*i
""Ho-P
t6tIl
G;'
....
_ 0
... ..",
~ ~ E: -~
t-'~~ i~
~~~]J ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ,t ----------
~ ~ g-.fj
(:UB<Ill
~]
~
I
I
,I 'I
L_
I
J
I
i
J
~~~J
lEIMiI8 .uiV.IfMl J.lI\'NII'I"BY
(]IN
'OTlllONlCJ'l6Ha-.r
rtJ lILIl-1R(m;)
m.-t~}
tro9f .,.. 'JHlV
H.1nOS~ONl'l91Q'
-
-
,--_Am'"
"" ~-~---~--------
\. I "
'" I "
~ "
I" "
, " "
I" "
" "
I '" "
! "" "
I ""
, "
I "
I
I
I
,
------+
. -------
i
i
I
I
.. ..
.. -
... ..
, .
~
~=.!i...
"'l'lllooO
~~~.fi
=c~;......
~z~J:~
I<lti~;i
~u~~
\
1i6l:II
'"Ill
CHIt
'0." 00NCr10HcJ.lY1
)W ==::t:~ ~iItt>
HlOOS ~o:.: ~~ ~~ . tew
N'tld l:i3lVM JJlVNt"I"BId
- '" ~
....._~_Jm...__ W JtI,... l I
aN
ll'1VJ30 OVOll.llMlll"il13Y, 'O'T1 lltlNICTlOHCJIY
..
....... .,. .......
-..----.....-... .. .. .
I ~
II" ~
- I
. ~ ~ 'J
I -I ~
j . J
.. ~I ~ ~
I
~ . ~ . ! ,!
I ~.
~ ' i
"
n .1 I~
- !
1i I II II
.
,I J !~! li r ! .5. .5.
Ll I i -( ~ I~ ; If I;;:; ·
J :::;: I
~I ~
~
5
I
"
! I~
!51!
ill.
h.
3""
t"!~
c .'! 0:-
:!to.......
. ~ i 0
.. 0 Q\
I-o~:g, ;0
I-oU:;:.S:E.
~:t~~,!l
101t)~';.~
:Su~~
l:: :<:~
'\
l'8eIl
-',",
~f-
"0
i~
~~
im I
i~ =
'OT1~ . ~ml=. t-"::I, xY'JiJr~ ~~ ~
. ~~I ..... . (:=-....., HIJ)OS3tlG\Y0HUS'~' ~~H#.I::'
- -- ....... ... .
_.........I8&Zn.UD.......W1I-TriT_"""jiilliiif1 I II n Ii' l b
· I .1 il~ &. ~ ~ . :1'; ::::::::::::::::::: ~
; ~I J d~ - I' immmmmmmuu(
I I' , " I 1I1111 tl.l ~ I. ! HUmUmmmmH!! i
~. ii /l~~ 'll ~~~J: .' . ',1 ! mmnmimllmnm
I (I Ii J · I J J. J~ . _ ~ ~ .nnUU!=~~=!HH!;;~e!! .
/; · l'" .U.laf " I: !:;iiUmU.mmnU,I.lil,I.J.,I,..,.
"'- " if ij' t,.,.' .... I. ..~IIir. i, . t-O- .. ".' ....
~ ~ '\ (L 'I~ I. ~allifll" I ~ ~"Hn.....'..n......... ..
B "'-'1 '\ ~. ~~.. .1.j.1~1 ~~I"I i "' ! i ~!mmmmumn~'u -
:,~...~",-,,-"/:d ....'+1.."':1'."... ,~ 1-'
.....~"" ""I' 1"'1"" "., 401(1 !i lii=:Ulnli:UIS;2~:I.suun::~~~1!
.
) ii, J1f i mmmnnmmmm
. .
I ~ii I~~~' IIII I " . " i.l. '. ! ...........,...........'..
I ~i ~i# q 'I,: ; , ;' · I : !~:'~II~.::~:~:::::::::::
~4J._. ..' -- ~I :, ~ : '
~l: ! : i 1. " .\-----T' ,I .."
:,1 ;/ .~ ~ ~~_~~ "'1: .: . _~.
1lL------1-_~._,L~__~_ " ~ '" I ..:.'~. -=. !
T----~ " ,'1'
I I
_ ~"a , I
=~.---=-~=~-~~=~=~~~. - -----'---~-~.- .
, Q) iJ-.~-----~--=--~-= --- ~
. '~~ /[
.1 r~~ . ~ I ~ ~/; T ' "."".......<<0......
1"91 ! I I v /
fii~a~1 ~I\nlfl rrrnml~~ll_~~IJ.IIJJJ J I r~~'. iwmmmnmmm
rr \1'~1/7 Lf~I~~~'Rfl1i:l~ 1IIIIlJr:~I~ ! ....mm............i_
~),' Zh rrfu77j(/ ~~~ I ~~Y-'\~ ,'<;;;:1II1f!l~ i mummmmmm
t\\rJ.fl~ :; I!lM, ~ ~~ QPf(~~~ f71 ! i.m...................
" I I;". ,Iurnp~~sm i; ~~.ur.~~m.. i 5 .!
'I !l msmi\U~UU a: j~eU'liHnU!:; ; i~
· ". ...! . · ~ \:' I .i
" · - ! q~1 ~: ~~~I~m~mim . i lie!!~IUmu! I.; i~ U
I fnll"" _.e - - . '1 ~5
I ,-.I~! I. j! 1111!llmn 1~."lllii!liiirl. Iii
~; j I ~ I'S n 1= -iHfUfrlllllll !Ii rUIII"11 Ii II
, ~ 5 ~} ~ ; c . ~ ~ i ;~~~!~!~~!~!m..: =~!~!~!~!~~....! : ;; !!
=-=
!
JL : I
,.,;. ia
,.~ 0 ~
~>- ;0;
~g~
fIJ~i
~;8
tc: N.CJ
.~~
~
~
i
...
.133HS lBAOO l.Vld AllVNII'n3!/d
~e!S'
~ ~ I>.f'O
llliilO -
t::0g, ~
~ ....:::l~
~~!:"il
!-< l!
~u~.tt"IGO
~ "-' >- ~
-<" "
~u~~
.... ~u
~ ~
IJ,~!;~I
I!!!!!!!!!
l
~ ! ~ I
I. ~ ~
i ..
~i
uI
'"
I
%
N
'"IIlI.
.1
!~
,
;'-'
i
. ij
immmmmmm ~
i' !!;!!i=;~.!!,!;!Uiiill tIi
.
. mmmnmmmm!
.., i
- !
~ !!H!!;!.!!5"f!g;~n~~!j'g! I
i mmmmmmnm
r
t
; !!!!:!!:~!!!;!!~i!l!a!!!=
-
iummmmUlmm
! ! H!!!..~;!!~!'!!.!e!!!~!
i i ummHmnu.mm..
9 ~ ','
C'f ! :::.:u;;.z!i!i!!fn!-!iH~~~:;
i i ummmmuimni .
;mummmmmm
9 ~......."'...,._.!:::::!:::~~:.e:JIiJ;;A;t
~
g I !
t I .
~ iel' I I~ i~ i'l Ii.
1M ~~ ii! il', iM I,,!
fi!fi li~ raii liti I~& ,~&
I I Ii' f
\
<: A:iIS'?:l'ilJI
J..,l\j3Y'l'dCYl3,>\3iJ 3DaiL-+j~'V"
ONV
N\fld :3d'1'JS\JNV"1 TT'lfH3AO AtiVNW~i-E1Bd
~-.l
.::)--T; SON1CJlOHONV'1
fA ;:Ji 1l; 1~lt1 : 'J.
~
...........
k
...........
~;' QJ
-.......
:t:
~
4J
\~, , 0!
; ,n : il'
UJ
~
.J
"
"--
: ~
m~
~~ ~~-
~:~H
~
~
<:
'"
~
~;
<t
ill
~
GO
8
?
"
o
~
h >3 If /1-
,
~
~
"
~
<
~
~
.
· J" ~ ~: ~ .!~,'
f-. l f : at .~~. ~-
.. ,.t. f. g M .
, ..l{
. ~
.."
.it
,~__it.... it''''. 4::~
I:: A.aSR;jl}1
.1.:..~-jr"k-i':::';13!l3a :?:-)(H;::EJ>l'\,.ri
\i'o'~l-d :;dVJSON\r) TT\fi:Ej,\C ).j:r".;Nij"'~rEjHd
UN'lt
::,,-: S':;t~!(Jlot-;Ot;JY"l
': .__ i ",'
~:0:;f:;i~:]) D~, f;;
'~:-~1Ir :4.
't :;;: ~J:;o_~ P_~ i! ,1;" '$ ,it!
t ,,8 "3' Of ;:, 'P '!j ~ 'J 'i :; .: ;:j t
1._. __ .. .. _< ~.___-1
.. .'--~.""~"~7\~
2l' 2 ;.\ B : " 8 z:lh :: !'! " ;; :;;
"',"'" ",;:",g'~" :'!'it,
""".~~,
"~+'
~ ~'~:+
o;'.."'f'*
'~J
.~
N
r:':
f,"'>
UJ
~
c:
.J
<:
x:
~!
'<
'"
z:
~
~
if:!
~
~
r A;JfS?I:iDI
.L"\EJV'kKYI3A3C ~j(J1d3)i~"1
aN\'
'~:rl-l SONKJlOHON'c;
It)
""
a::
1-'.
o
<C
a::
I-
..;~M
..:y>....,.
--
.t......................,.M.,........"".'
,,- <<_1l
:".-~f- ,
;.:., W
~." .
I ~
I a:
~
I ~
I ~
I' 0
i 2 w
I t;~
j ~ti:i
I CJ...l
i :::;<
l~..__~_"___~_._____._.~.___...._..~._:::. il... ____~._.
a
t
I
.
(
I
N
CX3SH:iDI
IN:3~''3A.=30 3O(]~3)''V'l
ON\!
:) --'1 SONiG10!.KlNVl
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
,
I
I
I
i
,
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
,
I
i
i
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
,.
< ',\ i\
,
"
,
"
,
'ii.'
"-
:g: (') ',!,:~y
-:::t 1.1I\~,
".--4
: "'\:
~
.4
'- ,
(Q
o
OJ
><:;j
00
".t'
....l
.q:
a:
w
I-
.q:
~
.....
:z
:s
0..
Cl
w
m~
"w
Cl--.J
:J<(
(f) 0..
~
~
ON\'
l~ ~_,...
)
,&-c$
i ;....;.:)'i.,,-J',.' '::::d\.~f__
(lJ~'t
S AmnlaJl
.1JBIHX3 3dO"lS tlNWlI)(3
lN3I'lcI013fI3Cl ~
(NY
'0" sa<<:rlClHCtlY1
-
"""
.-, "PCI .lit
"1,~,:,1' ',';"\ .....,."." ~~:;;. .>!O>S ~~:!Ii ",:.'(>:;),,' (~'~""i!'~J .,~o ,~."", '.~n' \'.....,,",.....,\,"'~ :\<<;'">1. 1\',1 "',
W.U"" ON S3:MB"M.IOI'IIDIIWG ~ i:
.IN 1MWfld OM ~ 'WQ
- ',...--
-".-- )(VJ ZUL8-HiZ(Sl.)
nZ9-l~Z(gz.J
Zr09S 'tM 'J.N3)4 P6l:ll
...-- H.UlOS 3f'lN3I\V omL ~aZln
"
~i ~el;; I
!l~ U .'. i ,
,. @2~ I
~I Ci~l'j
~~ <:I"".. .
t;"'- - ,
B ~.. ~ I.
I H I :
. . I";'
, - I "
,. .. ". ~1ll "
.,
-l'
".,
,
.. #
$
./
,.
--"--_._-.~...._-,~ --'-~-I*..--.~-----,-.-----..._---:----_._-----t~.,.-----
4' f #
f
~
$
..
'"
%
'1'-'
!
I
..
..
....
!~
'-r
!
i
'",
'"
.".
...
o
~~
.,
'"
...
..
z Zo I
g <(0 ~o I C-
O ..J.... N o;~ 0 ;q
;;; 0 ;;
>- i:i l1.W .. tr.tb ,
W~ .. N E
~ !:i C> <N N ~
W 1::< m C> ~, ~i 0 ;;
t (l)z Q !:i I "
(f) 5 z :t 1 0 ..J~ 0 N
'" Co:: --=: --=: .c I >=:i 0 j,
a:: :> WW ..l W I ;!!; '" .e
<: (1)1- ~ l- e: ~15 i ~I..... 0
U. W . u) lJ) "
W 0 O..J --=: 3: l- i !I.l ,.:.:
~ '" c u e
l1.<( Q oc oc e I- \!j
~ 5 0 Z <1.1 Ig 0
c wo wo 0 0
0:: ::> z !!;i; ~:g ,..; '" c
0 g;
l1. III --=: I-U I-U I~ Vl c. Iii
..l z.!! z.2 UJ Vl
w Iii w 0 x
I- W.. W.. a: u; ~
in 3: c- o- II. '" I- ... ~
;lie ;;Se 0 <0 < 0 ..:
I- (!) ..J I- [j 0 '"
0 z ffi~ ffil '" ,~~ Vl 0 "- "
w ~ II. <N Vl is
... c. o- W WN Vl I ,;.:
0 w'" w"- "'- <:
13 ~! --=:Q. l!: ~~ U) Q) g~
e: b::J,
II. e:$. UJ ON U.i
;i " z H
U.i ~ '"
I II 0
~4f w <:
~ i ,-:,:""\ I'-~ < <: n: ~~
1\ ;,:'"'\ <0 "'I 0 0
:0:: I <I) Ii
o
III
?-
m
w
e:
o
lI.
o
W
II.
o
....
w
>
III
Q
Z
::>
I
I
I
i
I
II
I I
I !
OMP'OOL Wi - 17 a.mc!,j\-.vo-zt-<; !'?~\H1 t\;;sJa)j ~lO-LGOl\sp'3fo.Jd\s~u~wn300 Ai^!\::) :awDN QljJ !
vole; Old... 'l.U~i.J'<f ~ .Slid -Si3G i.OO-LlO-WOl 1'1::;
i
- -------1--
J
~ A3SIli3)I
.lIBHlI3 OICMIO a:
-
SNOS CJlV BaI.'IH II'
CJlV
'ON 'S3I'lOH SHlON
~..,.-~
1lIUIM:lQlM~-....:I
~ """',....:... 'R' '''''"-S .", 9il.'~Ii,fa ,......,/"', ~......._\....'l>O\'KIt\'W)"\'" :..~
"'"
XV.:lZlllll-t'iZ(\;nj
UZ9-t;Z(Sl:t)
lrollG.'!Nlll
H.U\OS3I'\HYIYQNU'>lZlll
~. -IT
~~} -
~..~~ ~
{{II
/
---- . i
--::-~--- '
'---- - ----.!!i
-., /
7
i
'''.6'''''-
li,.;;-. ,,__
.ii;~ ,:::.":.
"
. ~~~-;.~r!r,
~~~; i .....-- .!
i~~~~~~ ~~!
n::'.t....._, Ji
".--,1
---1-
.....- "
lil'C"
~~;: Ii
" ~ '
. -..--=;--
I :.
II "
\"
~--I,
I'
,I
Ji
!
"
iJI
[
.....
F-'
!!,.~
'~':,~,
;H~;~;
'!
i
4:.':' -
I'~~-
lll!!lli
i,H;:
~~
-;;;,-.;::n;.---
~
'. ~
~:!~
,I,.
"
,
L ,~..':.':.
"l'iM
r''':''~j'.
!hlo,d
iIH;:,
f".-"-'
!~H~=
~a~~.. ~
lht'" I
I, l ~~:':.
~
--
III
;
I"
l: A3SlI3)I
'If't NOlI.03S
I
._,~;~*~L'Sr
~:~
r-xXt-
I
i
oed:
~
r;il,'
't;;J
-
i
!ii
i 1i
f,~
j1 ~
il
SNOS aw S3A\IH II'
pull
'ON! 'S3t'tOH SlllllON
I
I'
i
i
! !
I'
+
;JO,l
~
~ :
~
~
-..-........
wu-n- -.u SJ:WOS b'JNlI'INCIWoIG ~
'flHlNIMdlJl'f'l'tlNlllDCtG1W:l
X'iJ ZIWI-U;Z(C;;Zt)
ZZl9-lsz(SZ..)
ZrOS6 WM "J.H1>l
HJJlOS ~ ONU Slzal
~
~
~
.-
......
<(
I
<(
z
.800
o i~
~..
--
J:>
~
~
~
~
~
~
~".i~;.o ~~, ,~, ~','..<;;:" -.~;" \-"""'\:(.; \"""H 1\ J
'."~;:""~."
: ::;--,~
~.~ ;p
""'HO+
'1- T
I>til:ll
C A3SlEi
sa NOll03S
-
;~-I'
~- .-'-..;.","""" -
~:m~ ·
m
,
--L_
,
SNOB (JIIV S3A VH llr
"...
'ON 'sartOH SH:ION
/
/
/
.//
't;;;ll' "''"'., ,,,,,(~.",,,,,q ,., -1'", ,\"~, ."\C,',,':!':~J ""!if"",) .~:."".m<",,,,...,~,\;.,_.,.~\,;;q
"""
~-
~
~
1'liiT !
,[
1
(i L
-'L t
-:i'!
<f /
,~. I
\~. !
lD
I
lD
Z
o
F= ~8-
o.~.:
~H
':j I
/f
-'L.
TiMiT
r:'l
u~
~
~-
~
~
fIIfIfm_ S3:.'WDS....!IGJIlClIIIIfO~
~(JM~"W)
...--
X'iJ Z9LB-l~(~7)
U;Z9-~lil(s:z.}
tr085 WM '.lN3)I
H1I1OS 3llN:MY ONzt. !;IZIJl
~-
!il
!il
..,........".
,. .
, .
" ~
i~M;:;
T-T
V6f:Il
C A3SI:8ll
00 NOU.::>3S
SNOS ~ S3I.'IfH llf'
pull
'ON 's3noH SH:ION
..
oJO,j
~
~
~
fio/Wf."'S3:lWI3S'W~~
-:;,: lJr_ ~QJM'~"'U3
X\lJ mi-l\fG(sZ't}
ZZl9-lSl(SZt)
Zt086 VM. '.lfG)l
...- ~ KUlOS 3nN3l\Y ONlL !ilZ81
~
~
~
~
o
I
o
Z
S'
o ~~
W....
en",
~
~
~
~
~"".'.'. .. '<,
.'1> ,... "'..
f ~~ ~~~
~. ,l
'lyH~
MltU
I-
:::>
001-
Q)wZ
<(NW
0:.:J2
Z<(W
:::>z>
000
0::::U)g:
30::::2
wO-
Z
,
'"
(])
Q 0
'" :c >-
(]) g; 0
12(])6-:s:
.c=cOc
g; ~Q1 6' (])
() - (])
o8~ES:
(j)+=-o",(])
..o()c(])..r;
E ~ 0 0
au~.
I Q ,!; 'E ~'.
o ~ .~ 8 oi'~.
~Q31:EQ
O>'-cQ.
-0 o Olo.fjj'
<( .= 2 en <t: i..
. . '..
>-
W
(/)
Q:::
w
~
C/)
I-
Z
LU
~
LU
>
o
l2:::
(L
~
z
o
-
~
t-:
Q:::
o
CL
CI)
Z
<(
Q:::
I-
,,"~NO" '.
.:);- , ~ v\
< .. --V-~ "i
't,-" '.:;'
'0 .../
.y~a- co"-'v
SA3lS8D
.IJ8I.iX3 .1N3rNlI'1V~ NOI103SlalN
3SA'IM~
{3S A'IM J.3QSlI{3S .lS QlC!; _
SNOB CNY S3A"'" II'
CNY
'ON 'S3nOH SIlIlON
~Al ~- ~~~ .'b":~1f/<f)tt;JD"'/""}"
:: :--= lCtJ Z9l9-1SZ(Slto} !~:. -\
~! - ... -0 ~:-:~= '\ ~., Jt WSW
, _ lI'Il-""'-' H1IlOS]nN3oW' ONU Sll9l .""H'O~
-Tr
-, '1'lO .Ii _ ...,.
c.jCJ
()IL-J
~~
:~ f;~
I
I
I
I
I
I
[,:;::-J
~) <I)
ix':O
<( 0\
:~. ~~
~~ ~j
~ _ r':
.t.#
j
~f~
G~ ~~
~: r J
~( r..i
r-t':
"
~
//
/
01
~
I
SNOB ClN\1 S3A'tH l::Ir'
'ON! 'S3Y<<>H SItI:lON
.IN
i07iVf ~
liV-
t\\!)M3 D+
S3OtAH3S lVllGftNOHWG .3Nt.I.3tlHt\S ~~">.-l '.J),
~ 0NY1'~ 1v.IO ~~~.. .'}.
~ . ,', 0
XVJ ZBLB-ISZ(~Zt) ~ i ~
ZZZ9-I~Z(~Zt)~ fJJ
2mB6 VM 'lN3~ ~ . . . . .A;
HlI10S 3nN3AV GNZL ~IZal ~1)"'Hg+
:JO:l
""""^
vi.
"'1filI*l*lO
SNOI103S avo~
ur--
.,,-
:81111
"l""
.......
....
.
I
I
~I''Z
V>~
" 2i
~ ~
:/'5
-,5
I
,.
'"
;"
~
~
o
. z
~ 5 ~
~
Sl
:;
"-
~ '"
~
"-
z z
'"
;? 0
t3
"
~
z
8
15
z
~
5 ......
CJ)
W
Z
'" <(
~ V> -I
~
~ t')
,. !~
1,j
!;!a::
-w
~li:
gs<(
~a:: ~
i~ g
: _ JOOYi3llVd ~o "':::! ~
-\,. -:r.:xl3 X3
SJlij'o'^ 3Nn IA/H
--
V6W
-....
L:
mMlS lfOOnHOHNG '~ns ~~~11o\~N3 f)"".(>., ~
wIN Wiffl ""'"
~~-~~
"""'" Ji'iI_ ~ '-,', Q
o ~ ......
XV; ZIlLIl-tSZ(SZt):.. . ' . ~
WiN Ji'iI_ ZZZ9-tSZ(SZt)~ :f
.....- ~...... ZrOS6 VII- 'lN3~ ~ V6m
""'" lNf~ HlJ10S 3I1N3AV ONZL Stzet "1)"'Ht)~ -""1Wl'N qor
SNOS ClN\f S3A \fH ~
'ON! 'S3nOH SII:I:ION
:.10::1
SNOLI.03S C1V0l:I
:eRU
.......
3NIl M/~
N...J
~ ~
I
I
w
:z
:5
~g
g
'"
w
io~
c..
'"
;,,~
3NIl M/~
--
;
~
0:
~
a::
g
o
w
:J
o
o
..J
lI!<(
i~ w
Iw f5
0",
Wg
W~
a::g
f: A:lSllD
Al3:Ml1M:ll.S3Cl3d
.IJ8IHX3 .1IBSMltIdN 31l''' 3IIIlO _
:IS AYM N33IDl3I\3/3S ..... ~ ~ _ .~
~.
i j
SNOS Q.IV saJ.\IH lI'
Q.IV
'OM 'S3noH SH:lON
J/C Iv( I
(/..... / .,~ :
I I ,"- ,
-1-.._.. ~~SE -... :....: .,' --il'~--~ '~?_~:;;:__
-~--~_. -...- -- . .----------------'---~----
----- ,
~ I ./:":.-__--,...___~
----I' ): '/J-'~ - /)
~. : I
f'i. "'Ir;!:~ i. '- --, .-.......... .1
X Ii i'!~I':;! ! ,
- h I I i, ',' I I
: I, 'rr--t-lJ II · I
'Jm),,\.I\ \\. . ~1. 'I I' ~~\\k~1- -....L ........._./
;~ \ \ :., I
; jj;~\ '~'\
'. .-' ""'';;;'" o. \ "'\
~it'~/ ; '~\"\ ..___--- \
~. ..' .'~. ... ~---,.' ,VI", -- ,
....::..,,"" ",,"",. ,.".., . ~-----:,-'~... '. ~y{~\\\..,.. .... /\
_//~~ f '~'\,\, . \
-. "':"';,;cC--' · \":" x\'\
...._~ \\ \\;
';\\. '" \.\,
\\"..~.~ \,\
\;;\',\\// /
\,\, '\ /)~:\
\. '\. ./.(c\ '::-\"
' -'\, .' '",
\\\'. .... '\. \':''\...
/ \\ ...... ' '\>"''''-
\~\. '.., \.........\.;J~
"~.. ~."'2
"',,\,,~> ""'",- .....
~
..\
\
e AmnmJl
l&-IX3 .IIlOB-V--<:NlQI
3S J.VM!l'T-.-l ~/3S J.VM ~
-
l<<Il
".~ i'" -HI" , \l''''''''''"~;:,, \,.=, : \.~
...-
licVrl't-S3::lWf3Sl'f~~
'~IIf'fI'~'Io\IJ
I'
SNOB ONV S3J.VH II'
ONV
'ON 'S3nQH SIIll:lON
"..-
xv.:! Z9LQ-Lgz{C;Ztr) _
UZ9-lSZ(~Z")
trOS6 ~ '!N3)1
H.1flOS lI1N3AY ONZl SllSI
'\\\ '\,
\; ,.\.\, ..~
''\<\.\; /' .~".'" "'~:;""
\. '\ ,',~ "'" 0" ;:"';A.:.C.,
" /' "'., ~\\ '<d-,~;':?:/'
,.,'\, '~~~~\~(~~~~~ ~_~'~~-~7~:;Y~ _.-----
/" ' ';~, ,\()~~~~,~i'",-~:.""-'"t;8l::;;\/"". _
-~\J \:~t!!j/ \~
"~ '>"l i
Ii! 7~~" . !"!\
c' \"\~ II.. . ii;,
, ....1<' .' ,~~:\. ' . '
,- 'i\ti '~~
, .: ~//>\' <~~~" (\ .', \0
/f _~/_~-e- , . , , ~ '\ \." .?-~
-- 'Xf'_"//~(1;",~-~z,.<"(~~.1 '~
E~~.:)\ '-.r<'-:~~'------;~<--=-~"l\\\~.~,~\ '\. \)\.' ",~,'~_
E<~,.-</ . J' B "-- >\'"
/5/' ~/? -: ' ~. , f ~ ',' "~.,.. \ --',
- ,/ 0/ -,/'/;;/-7 - -- "." ""'-~. ~ "~4''''''0;';~~\~\.</
/. ;/" '/'^" - !-_.-=. ~Y', "x \v
:/r -/' ~ \.\\:,\ '\
1;/ />Y . _ , , '/""'"'~
'~,;/.7 ' !~~\. '\~;<."\'\'
_/ if \. '.... " \<"
:/ . \. \"'\ \~~~
\\...........
"',
\
/
! I
;,;S:
,
u '
W' a - R: '19
t
'::;"
:',
.1::
'N,
Ai,
~
g
,-,,- "~
~-'-
~, :-~-
~~ -----
~ ,'- :-~-
'-~
""-~
--"-
i',
!,'ei!
f
j
"t5 '~,_~IT ~
L~i :'";"\ lOl
;:__E a; "I":,,,!;;; i':l
:....!.>,.:",'"",
r,;~~.~!~
,,' .--;~,~J:j
,,"
;;0<, ",<
-"'.i~ $ ~ a; r:JJ '"
, ~ "'"
,
'm
,--"----
,--'----
; ",--""
it' 0'--
f-~ ~ .~ :~ 101 i:): ~.}i '~Wl-- fij,,@
--- tl [2, I~ i,t;1'~ Iii! l ] ,~';-'.kl e !~ '(1'
--~~' ' , ,
_~~ :1~1:~~r~. ~,~,t ~.,~ f:J~_!~
,~I~IBi!ilil~J&i fS gj,~ m ~ f g: ~,~
~ ~ 8 ~m j& ~
.-; !~,!~-I:~ ~~
g: III l:
i:l " ~ I<J
'ill 18 ~g 2 S ~ li1
'" t~l8; i~ ,Ill !!I 1R:!19 1:18:!8: !!] ~ :g:
, I nj
"
~_1,
~
III I' ~,~.~1.~~.-~
;~; ~~~~ &:::
i'll ~~~. ~
Ii I ~
-".- GHA.u
~394 ~<I'~_" ~\,
---;;;;;-- 'i. ," "
"e. jI~,,,
3 d 10 '~/"" ;M~\"~-"~
--,
16215 72ND AVfNuE SOUTH tIo.oIo_ No!\l '><~,.
KENT, WA 98002 -... ~
(425)251--6222
(42S)251--BIS2f^X
CI<.<<'''' El.(I" ,-~''''''
,-,,-,!.Vf ".....,'
,"
CML (N(;;NUlllWC, l.I.i'C rtmNINC.
SU'MY'NG. HMilCNllnrr..... S(fl'II!CfS lMo ~/7M
~*
~
I n ~
~ 'I....,........ ~
-:: ~-1ij! ~~ fir!; ;i I;i; ii I~r;rp~ ~
~l e ~ ~~ ~ ~ I~ I~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~.~ a~ ~ ~
~ i !~; ~ ~ ~ 5~ i i ~~ ~ ~
! r~i I' ~ ~ ~
Mi, I I ~
~,~I~ ;
~ li,~1
! :/: ~
:
f
r
t ~,
'i
I,,"lif'
1'::I1!-
'7
I'
;j
'>/
!!~
"""
'-;;+;;;.-+.;i<d;,;;:-l--------------.--=-------
-
PREUMlNARY OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN
LANDHOLDINGS LLC,
AND
LAKERlDGE DEVELOPMENT
KERSEY 3
[fHIE; r /S'"
.'''1 I -urn
:r>c
r~
~~
0 z .. R 0 <l! ;0; ~~ ~~ 8~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ z~ ~ 0
I ~: ~~ 5~ !jl~~Ul I~ ~! ~~ ~5
~ ~;~~ ~~ ~~ o"l ~~ ~~ ,,~ "
~ o~ fii c~ ;;,~ '0 ~~ ~~ !<l~ ~~ "~ ~ ~
o~ n ~a F;~ ~'il
00 0 0 ~>I~ ~ ~ ~~ g~ ~~ ~~ lh ~~ ~
! ~~ !~ ~ ~~ n~ g; 8
~ a;
i'1 ~~~ ~~ ;o:a ~~ ~:t1 :a::l ~::I ~::I "
~~ ~~ 01'1 t' ~M 0::1 ~ 3::
~ i~ ~ ~, ' I iill'1 1'8 1'8 86
w ~ ~~~ ~ ~ cO! ~- z ~
~il :a :a >-
z ~~;ji 3 n ~;'l f'1 ;'l ~~ ~
{;;o ~ ~ :c
8 i>
r
Ii
-'i
~:D,
. ~,;t:>, .
~r'\"
\v ~,\-J .
, ''1%'"
,~
, " ,,\.,,:
.-,
"
I';,
, (
,
.
~.
'-J
---"
,,<~'--LJ.LL'--.T'
<, , '-J
Ie u,~'
,
(J)
00
_~l:"..!LJ__d.~L_..Lf
C5>
'-J
, ,
~, i
~el; ~
~II ~~~~
I" eZ"
tl ~~~.
!'
-----~----~
11394
~GHA.~,
(~-
\:!~~"
KERSEY 3
"""
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
(425)251-6-222
(4-25)2S1-8782 FAX
-
-
'"
LANDHOLDINGS LLC,
AN)
LAKERJDGE DEVaOPMENT
PREUMINARY PARK ENLARGEMENT
LANDSCAPE PlAN - lRACTS 'S' AND '0'
CMl EHCINf.lRINC, tNIOPlN;NflG.
SURVnlh'G, EN\II~OM.l[~Al. stFM:XS 1>0\. '/'J/ll&
4 10
bill l>i~I'~
'M.- ,.., /;1'
i:m ~ ·
~ I ~
~f~
..~~'
g
I
~
~
g
I ~''''.~-''I ~i
~~ ~~o@.g ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ gi ~~ ~~ l>i ~~ zi ~
@ ~I~: ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~! ~.~ ~~ i'~ ~!1~!1 ~ ~
~ ~~~r.1 ~ ~ =<~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~Il ~~ ~~ ;~ h ~ ~
~ ~~~ m > 8~ 8~ ~f< ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 8~ ~ ~
~ ~n ; ~ ~ I ~~ ~ m I~ ~ ~
11 ~ ffi (!:.
Ii
.
~~
~"
~o
~~
~
~
z
.
5~
~;'i
r~
ill
~~
i~
182IS72NDAiO(NU[$OUTH ~,...
KENT, VIA 96032 nro.o NIIJ
{oI-25-)251-6222:
(425)251-fl762rt..X
"""
m.
LANDHOLDINOS LLC,
AND
LAKEflIDQE DEVELoPMeNT
f'REUMINARY PARK El>URGEMENT
LANOBcA/'e f'LAN - TRACTS 'F' AND 'P'
VM;ooo
CMl f~"etRiljG. lAi'tO I'lNUIJlill, ~/'
~ll'M:Tl"IC.~lIfNTAL$ElMCrs llolo T/13/9ll
KERSEY 3
1804 136th PI. N.E., Suite #1
Bellevue, W A 98005
(425) 644-1446 FAX: 644-1921
February 22, 2006
Steven Pilcher, Development Services Coordinator
City of Auburn
25 West Main St.
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
SUBJECT: Application Nos. REl05-0001, PUD05-0001, PL T05-0001; REl05-0002, PUD05-
0002, and PL T05-0002
Dear Mr. Pilcher:
We are writing to request that the lot coverage for Kersey III be increased to 45% of lot area.
This will provide the adequate flexibility in positioning the upscale homes upon the 40' Ft. and
50' ft. wide lots.
The typical front-loaded garage style homes located upon these smaller width lots requires a
larger allowable lot coverage for the primary building foot print. The 2, 3, and 4-bedroom 2-story
homes require this lot coverage area allowances to be increased to this level to provide
reasonable flexibility and balance with the proposed design standard previously submitted..
cBride, AlA, Principal
GMS Architectural Group, AlA, P.S.
Architecture. Design. Planning
Member of the American Institute of Architects
EXHIBIT / b
-
Sr-- ((01
cf~ )
~'_(!)II
4(!)'-(!)1I
~
Q
I
in
Q
I
~
PATIO
S'_(!)II
S'_(!)II
S'_(!)II
,..,...,..AI LDI" A
_Pr.X_Pr.LDI'_ .~..
'I'lPIC.\L LDI' ~ . _..
..-:::eel' at' IRE . D .
_I'f.X_I'f.LDI'_
'I'lPIC.\L LDI' ~
-""-
Q
I
Q
~
__.M WCMI!
--..
tJ
Q
I
Q
~
-;
.----'.-------1-
~ WCMI!
--..
I ...16
PATIO
Q
I
Q
N
Q
I
Q~T
N
_T
Q
I
611lEET
--
TYPICAL 'VN1T TYPBI
040" Fr. 'W"JDB LOJ:'B
LOr c::x:JYBBAaBS
1804136thPlaceNE Ste.l, Bellevue, WA98005 (425) 644-1446 & Fax 644-1921
E-mail: OFFICE@GMSARCH.COMArchitectureDesign.P1annin.MembersofA.LA. .
Ex.h~.bi+ lb tL-
S E GAL E PRO P E RT< I E S
A LA PIANTA LLC TRADE NAME
INDUSTRIAL' COMMERCIAL' AGRICULTURAL' NATURAL RESOURCES
February 22, 2006
Mr. James Driscoll
Hearing Examiner
City of Auburn
25 West Main
Auburn, W A 9800 I
RE: Kersey III, Divisions 1 & 2
Dear Mr. Driscoll:
We very much appreciate your support, and that from staff and the Kersey III developers, of our
request at your August 9,2005 hearing for a Mineral Resource Lands notice to be placed on the
Kersey III final plats, in the building permits, and in the individual lot deeds. The proposed
language in Condition # 1 of your Decision from that hearing, and in the current staff report
tonight, is exactly that from the RCW that requires the notice (RCW 36.70A.060), which is more
for housing that is proposed adjacent to designated mineral lands that could be mined at some
time in the future after the homes are built. In our situation, the mining activities are currently
ongoing so we would like to propose to restructure the language, to more clearly indicate this
mining activity to the new home buyers. We would like to suggest the following:
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral resource lands on which a variety of
commercial activities occur that may not be compatible with residential development,
including, but not limited to, mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling,
transporting, concrete and asphalt production, recycling of materials, and their related and
supporting activities.
This notice would hopefully make the situation more clear to the buyers, and better protect the
mining activities as well as the interests of the City and Kersey III developers. I submitted this
language at the City Council hearing in October, and both staff and the developers seemed OK
with it at that time. Hopefully they will confirm that to you.
I apologize for not attending the hearing this evening, but gum surgery today has precluded that.
Thank you again for your consideration of our concerns.
Very truly yours,
SEGALE PROPERTIES
tA~
Mark Hancock
cc: Steve Pilcher
PO BOX 88028 . TUKWILA, WA 98138 .5811 SEGALE PARK ORIVE C . TUKWILA, WA 98188
P 206,575.2000 . F 206,575,1837 . www.segaleproperties.com
EX/f18/ r /1
20051220002432.001
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
DANIEL M. HAYES
22430 SOUTHEAST 231ST
MAPLE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 98038
111'1111111"-1[1
PAGE:;? ~i~l UD 42.81
12/2812005 18:84
lUNG COUNTY I LIA
@
E2176946
12/20IZ..s 15:45
KING COUNT! I IoIA
TAX 51 684.00
SALE $655:....0.
PAGE0tl OF "1
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
DOCUMENT TITLE(s)
1 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Order Number: 001159488
2
3
4
REFERENCE NUMBER(s) OF DOCUMENT ASSIGNED OR RELEASED:
D Additional reference numbers on page_____ of document
GRANTOR(S) :
1 ELLWOOD E. BOLLES AND JOYCE M. BOLLES f
2 THOMAS MCSHANE AND BIRUTA S. MCSHANE Ii t.l s
3 ROWLAND CHEW CHICA~
CJ Additional names on page ..2...--of document REf# ~ '"' d-
GRANTEE(s) :
1 DANIEL M. HAYES AND STORMY HAYES
2
3
CJ Additional names on page _____ of document
ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot-Unit: 1 Block: Volume: Page:
Section: Township: Range: Portion:
Plat Name: CITY OF AUBURN SHORT PLAT #SP-22-77
tiD Complete legal description is on page ~ of document
ASSESSOR'S PROPERTY TAX PARCEL ACCOUNT NUMBER(s):
322105-9039
Additional Tax Accounts are on page _____ of document
Note: This cover sheet Is prepared to conform to the requirements of Chapter 143. Laws of 1996.
Nothing on this sheet alters the names, legal description or other Information In the attached document
The only purpose of this cover sheet Is to assist the auditor in indexing the document In
conformance with statute.
The Recorder will rely on the information rrovided on this form, The staff will not read the document
to verify the accuracy or completeness 0 the indexing Information provided hereIn.
COvr!.RZ/RDA/!:1J99
gx-~~b;t Ie
WHP.N 1tI!CORJ)1!D ItEltJRNTO
DANlELM.IIAyB;
:z:KIOSllU'1'!fl!A'lT 2311.7
MAPLE VALLBY. WII.'lIlINfiroN lI8ll3II
@
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE OOMPANY
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
4319194
~ DSa!MIlIlB.J4, ZlIO.'l
THEORANTOll
flLLWOO1! 1l.IlULLESANDJOYCSM.IlClUEll, HlJS8AN'DANI) WlPB.AND'nIOtIAS MCSKANRAND 1lIP.\1rA
S MCSHANE!, H1.lSIIAND AM> WD'e..AND ltOWLANO CH!!W.....SIN'OUlINDMDUAl,1INDIWNAW JaM
MAXWl!LLAND JUDmlK. NAXWI!LL HtlSBANPAM>WIPE,rlIR.W,\NI'TO"lHBIlXPIM"nN opnm
'J1!IlNli OPnIB PA~ AOlUJIlMeHfPDl\ Itvx'ACA.IJOORNlAPARnIBItflHJI'
tor IIld In c:oIlIIidcn1ioa of
11l/'f DOUAR.'.AND rmtcltOOODANPVALUABI.Il CONSIDI!AATKlN
ill haad paid, CXlIIVIl)'S &lid WIll1'8IIIs to
DANlHLILIIA YJlS AND STOllMY I{A Y1lS, HUSIlANO AND WIPE
tbe follc1wius dc.~ re.I alate sinlated Ia the CUII8ty <<lONO
TuA.a:ouDl NUmbet{R}:
322l1lS.9ll39-Gl
LOT 1. CUT 01" AUBURN SllORT PLAT IlUMBBR Si'-22-77, RBCORmlD tlIlDBR
JUlICORl)I1IG NllMBBR 79053010'12. BBING A RBV:tSION OF SHORT l'LAT UCOIlD!W
WDBR RZCOKDIW IfOIIBlIa 7712130'17, III JtDlG 00UN'l'Y', lQSliIIiG:l'Olr,
State ofWILVDoglon:
SUBJBCT rol UCK1'1'IONS 8ft FORnI ON' A'l"rACHBD BXlII>>IT w,.W A!lD BY
TInS IlBFllllJUlCZ JGU)]l A PUT HBRBOP M tr FOLLY DICXlUORATBD
HBRB11f .
~/?~ &q/?J'M8&
EU.WOOO E IIOLLES JaVa: .IlOU.ES
1llOMAS~E
BlRUTA S. MCSHANe
SfID~
\
;
20051220002432.002
WHl!N IUICORnIlD RJmJRNTO
DANIEL M.1fA Ytl.~
22430SOUIlII!Nn"2:JIST
MAI'lB VA1.UlY. WI\.'lIUNflrC>N\I8038
@
CHICAGO TI'ILE INSURANCE COMPANY
4319194
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
Dlled: DI!CENIIl!a 14, ~
nmURANTOR
BLtWOOD E.IlOLLES ANDJOYCE M.IlO1.Ia.HIJSB.\NI) AND WIPIl AND'lHONA.<; MCSHANe AND B1RUTA
& MCSHANB.1fUSBAND ANI> WIl'B. ANI) MWlAND CHEW....SINOUllNDMDUAL,AND lI.ONALl> KIM
MAXWal.NiDJI.Il)I1lf ~ NAXWRU. Ht.Il>IlA/'IP NlP WI1'Il, PUR.''UANTTO'lHBI!XPlRATlllN orum
'l1!lW-<; ornm p~ NlIUlBMeHI'!'Ok RYX.A CAUI'Cl.RNJA PAR.TNERSHlP
luJ IIld In wuaidl:lmon (If
'I1!NDOUAJI.<;ANO Il'IlIDROOOD ANI) VAU./ABLBWNSlDBAAnON
in hand paid, COIlwy5 IIIId wammts to
DANlF.LM, IIAYHSANO h1l1RMY HAYIlS, HUSllANOAND WlPB
the: following dc.~bed rclll estate dtualcd ia 11m ClIUllty of KING Stale ofWlIShiugtOll:
Tu AccoUlll Numbcr(s):
3221OS-9Il39.(ll
LOT 1, CIn' 01' AtlBVRN SHOR'!' PLAT mJM8BR SP-22-77, UCORDBD tMla.
IU1:COJU)IW NlDIBIlB. 7905301012, BBING A IlBVUlION OF SHORT l'LA'1" RBCOIWKO
tnlI)ER ltECORDIlIG IIOIIBIIR 1712130917. IN JaW couamr, lQlSRDIGTON,
S1lBJBCT TO: laCEPTIONS SBT l'ORTII 0Jr An'ACBBD !JIBIBIr "A" AND BY
'!'HIS RBP'SUNCB MlWB A PARt' HBlUlOl' AS IF POLLY DfCOll.tORATBIl
HBR1mII' .
~~~~
THOMAS MCSIWlE IIIMA $. MCSHANE
SWD/lUWOfIi9.
20051220002432,003
20051220002432.004
ClUCAGO'lTfLB INSURANCE COMPANY
Esl:rowNo.: "3Ul~4
llDNl\LD ItIM HAXllBUo
JlmI'l'B It. Mll.DKLL
~
10
ClUCAGO 'ITI'LE INSURANCE COMPANY
E.'iUowNo.: 6319194
~~
^OWIoAW CHEW
\,~ 1(1t~
J;WPITH It. MAXlf8LL
II
RONI\LD r::rx MlIXWKLL
~
20051220002432,005
l.. ~
~~O~1J ~rl~~~~
SS
ON THIS ""l"5<"11<'eK~DAY OF DBC1lMIlER, 2005 BBrollE NB,. '1'HB \l)lDKRSIGNBD, A
NOTJ\XY PUBLIC IN AND FOR 'l'III!: STATE OF r ~-4I~yI. 11. <;L" DtIL'lC,
COMMISSIONBD AND SWOllN, PBRSONAllLY APPBARBD a~~ /o(c,.b~ ~
'f7'; ('lft"~"Z :>. .AI",-s..H~~n~ DOWN TO MB 'l'O BB 'rRB DlDXVIDtlAL(S)
DBSCIUllBD III AND WHO I5AJ:i1,;UJIW 'l'HB WI'lBDI INS'rlltlMKlft AND AcmollLBOGEl)
THAT ~v SIGNED AND SBALBD 'l'HB lWlJI AS ~ PRD AND VOl!UNTARY
~_~_&4;m-:=-.
'1? -"I" ~ r.;t kkJ
NOTARY SIGNA'l'mtE ~
~ ~'
PRDI'1'BD JWIB. . r:twf H-~ ~ I ')2 t
NOTARY l'WLIC IN AND rea TalS STAT~ i'7"l12
lU!SID:mG AT ~r~ JH 'If) ~}I ;5j;;-
xr COMMI:SSION EXPIRES 0)1 ~(l .::z. ~b
- - -
_. MATl'HEWH;~ARI$
: ,. €0I"nll1s$Ipn . 13'78619
. ,', ~"'- ~blIc . CoIlfomle
; . .,... 'j'~q~o-cOUntv.
. ~.. ~y'G"Qmm..E~s'~~
T-,. ... ~,....-
IlOTAAY"''''-'''
20051220002432.006
Al'vlENDMENT D
TO LAND PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
Whereas, the undersigned parties SSHI LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, dba DR
Horton and/or Assigns ('Purchaser"), and Dan Hayes and/or Assigns ("Seller"), have entered
into an Agreement with a mutual acceptance date of December 7, 2005, for the purchase and sale
ofreal property located in the county of King and the state of Washington, commonly known as
the Plat of Kersey 3 Division 2.
Whereas, Purchaser and Seller hereby acknowledged and af,rreed to extend the Feasibility Period
by an additional fifteen (15) calendar days referenced by Amendment C. This Feasibility Period
extension will expire on February 22, 2006.
Whereas, Purchaser and Seller hereby acknowledge and agree to extend the Feasibility Period an
additional fifteen (15) calendar days, provided by the execution of Amendment D. The new
Feasibility Period will expire on March 8, 2006.
Except as described above, the Land Purchase and Sale Agreement between the undersigned
parties remains unchanged, and in full force and effect.
Dated this 2_L_ day of February 2006,
PURCHASER: SSI-II LLC dba 0 R Horton,
a Delaware limited liability company
SELLER: Dan Hayes
BY: 1. Matt Farris
TITLE: Division President
DATE:
~--"'._-,
/.,,',..----~...--. \. -'~.""')
. c- ~-- -...--'
BY: Dan Hayes
TITLE:
DATE: '2-Z0-0(..
CORPORATE APPROV At:
TITLE:
DATE:
2-22-06
To: Auburn Hearing Examiner for Members of the Auburn City Council
Re: Application NO. PLT05-000I, POO05-000I AND REZ05-000I- KERSEY 3-
DIVISION I
From: Perry Peters and Trina Peters
Weare writing this letter to make our concerns know on the above Application issue.
Again the proposed request of William and Debra Jones in not satisfactory to us nor does
it meet the criteria that is necessary to rezone that is stated in the City of Auburn's
comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan was established by our community as a
tool to protect itself from numerous unhealthy issues, The concerns we have are listed
below,
1. The housing is still too dense. There are to many people in one place. The
approval of the application would damage and further cheapen our
community. The transition from Lakeland to our rural community would be
too abrupt, The original Lakeland Hills development was to be a standard but
we have seen how the compromise bargaining by the developers has increased
the density of buildings they have been allowed to build. It would be best if
the RI zoning stayed, as it would transition between the high density and rural
with the least amount of impact to our environment. It would also follow the
plan set forth by Elected members of our community.
2. The impact to the environment is of concern. There is the increased shortage
of clean water. There is the surface water quality that may be impacted.
There will be the loss of habitat for birds and animals. Recently a rare and
endangered bird was spotted along Kersey way on the applicant's property,
The bird was the large Red headed woodpecker. It has been pecking on the
dead fir trees one sees next to the road. There is also Bowman creek nearby
that has trout, crawfish, other fish, and is suppose to be a Salmon-bearing
stream according to Washington State Wildlife.
3. Traffic is a large concern. We will be adding more vehicles to the road but
changing only the entry/ exit of the property. Auburn roads are in sad shape
now and adding more people will further damage them. The minor
improvements of a light and straightening of 53rd and Kersey is not enough_
Weare also very concerned about the stopping and going of all vehicles
especially large diesel trucks such as dump trucks. The hill has a good grade
to it and with a red light there will be a greater need to slow down quickly
using compression brakes and regular brakes. Seldom is there enforcement by
Auburn police of keeping large trucks quiet. There will also be the traffic that
has to stop going up the hill. Once the light turns green then it's the diesel
trucks again as well as other vehicles accelerating up the hill. More energy
t~ffll3lr /1
will have to be expended to start the momentum of the vehicle. This means
more fuel consumption, vehicle emission including smoke, and noise.
4. Our schools and busses are already at exhaustive capacity now.
Weare asking that the concerns of the community around this proposed development be
observed. We are askirtg that the Comprehensive Plan be applied as it should and was
intended for. We are asking the Elected City Council Members to keep the Rl zoning in
place. It is what is best for this community. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
kr(llb--J ~~
Perry Peters Trina Peters
Comments on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations Regarding Kersey ill, Sept 13, 2005,
Oct 15,2005
Pat & Gene Davis
4901 Foster Ave. SE
Auburn, W A 98092
253-833-9564
cruise2@comcast.net
We appreciate the bard work that the Hearing Examiner has done on producing a
recommendation for the Kersey III development. Nevertheless, we urge the City of
Auburn officials to do their own research on the mountains of reference materials
available before making any decisions. We also urge the City Council to send the matter
of Kersey III back to the Hearing Examiner to request further clarification and
consideration of a number of confusing areas.
We respectfully submit the following comments in which we disagree with the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation to approve the rezone of Kersey III from R-I to a Planned
Unit Development.
1. The Hearing Examiner's Letter is not a stand alone document, and is quite
confusing to anyone who has not been in on the background discussions and
reference materials.
a. He uses numerous references from the outdated 2004 Draft EIS which
supposedly has been replaced by the 2005 Final EIS. This makes his
analysis very hard to follow. The Draft EIS contained many more
technical details. The Final EIS leaves these out. In fact, the 2005 Final
EIS is substaBtiaDv different from the 2004 Draft EIS. In addition, the
Draft EIS is only available on CD, so one has to look back and forth
between a computer screen and the final written document to see all of the
differences.
For example: In the Hearing Examiners Letter, in the section called
"SPECIFIC FINDINGS: REZONE, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND REQUEST FOR VARIANCE" paragraph
5, he uses conclusions from Chapter 3 of the 2004 Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. That chapter 3 does not even appear in the 2005 Final
EIS. Chapter 3 of the Final EIS is a compilation of largely negative
comments and concerns of residents in the area.
2. The Hearing Examiner's Letter ("Specific Findings" para 12-16, 18,20,21) and
Page 5 of the Final EIS contains paragraphs on off site improvements needed. In
his "RECOMMENDATION" section he does not address!!h! pays for
infrastructure needs outside of the Kersey III development (other than a couple of
Page 1 of 10
-EX/flb/(
2,CJ
Comments on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations Regarding Kersey III, Sept. 13,2005.
traffic lights on Kersey Way and a Roundabout on Evergreen Way). An approval
of Kersey III by the Council cannot be undone. All of the information on
infrastructure plans, details and costs needs to be presented to them up front in the
event that the project fails and the City is left with the job of cleaning up half
finished construction.
CF-6 of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan was not addressed by the Hearing
Examiner. It states,
"New connections to the City's sanitary sewer, water and/or storm
drainage systems, shall contribute their fair share toward the construction
and/or financing offuture or on-going projects to increase the capacity of
those systems. "
CF-7 of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan was not addressed by the Hearing
Examiner. It states,
"The City shall encourage and approve development only where adequate
public services including police protection, fire and emergency medical
services, education, parks and other recreational facilities, solid waste
collection, and other governmental services are available or will be made
available at acceptable levels of service prior to project occupancy or
use. "
CF-ll of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan was not addressed by the Hearing
Examiner. It states,
"No new development shall be permitted unless the facilities specified in
each facility plan are available or can be provided at a level adequate to
support the development. "
Some examples of infrastructure outside of the development include:
a. The extension of water lines in Kersey Way to the White River or
additional connection to the existing East Valley Highway main with
added booster stations.
b. An off-site sanitary sewer which could include either the extension of a
sewer on Kersey Way to an existing pump station in Oravetz Road or a
partial extension on Kersey Way with a pump station extending to existing
gravity sewer in Evergreen Way in Lakeland.
c. Off-site storm water facility improvements including the modification of
an existing erosion problem along Kersey Way.
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goal 13, "City Utilities"
and Goal 16, "Transportation" imply that Auburn will only permit development if
adequate public facilities are, or can be guaranteed to be available to support new
development. This, in fact, was in Kersey Ill's discussion of Goal!3 and Goal 16
on page 77 of the DEIS. Goall3 specifically states, "Ensure that development
Page 2 of 10
Comments on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations Regarding Kersey III, Sept 13, 2005.
will only occur if the urban services necessary to support the development will be
available at the time of development."
LV-55, not addressed by the Hearing Examiner or the Draft or Final EIS
documents states,
"Arterial routes should be planned to serve undeveloped areas prior to
development and should be built as the area is developed "
With this in mind, the City Council should require all external infrastructure to be
in place and ready to hook up before construction on Kersey UI can be
considered. An additional EIS should be required on the impact of this
construction outside of Kersey III.
For example, any underground lines run along Kersey Way will impact residents
living along Kersey Way and will especially impact traffic. Kersey Way is!h!!
major route to get to Auburn (and back home) for Lake Tapps, Hidden Valley
and other residents South of the City. It is a dangerous twisting, narrow, two lane
road under the best of conditions. In the winter it is prone to black ice.
Construction on this road, potentially narrowing it down to one lane, could have
disastrous consequences. Taking alternate routes requires a very long drive South
towards Lake Tapps and Sumner, (and now through Lakeland Hills), and then
swinging North to Auburn. Residents are familiar with these difficulties on the
occasions that Kersey Way has been shut down because of flooding and erosion
over the road.
If this road is limited access, or becomes too crowed to use, merchants in Auburn.
will be impacted because people will take their business South to Sumner.
3. The Hearing Examiner's references to number of housing units and densities is
confusing and inconsistent.
In "Conclusions Based on Findings", para 6, He states,
"Applicants are providing only single-family housing, no multi-family
housing, thereby limiting the "affordability" of housing provided "
In "Conclusions Based on Findings", para 7, He states,
"Applicants seek to develop 373 dwelling units. Development of over 300
more dweUing units will have more rulverse impacts than the existing
zoning standard. "
In "Specific Findings", para 9, he states,
"The City considered three proposals. The first alternative (Alternative
481) would allow for a maximum of 481 dwelling units utilizing the City's
PUD ordinance over only a portion of the site. The alternative would
accommodate up to 409 single family lots and 18 multi-family lots. The
second alternative (Alternative 700) would allow for a maximum of 700
Page 3 of 10
Comments on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations Regarding Kersey III, Sept 13,2005.
dwelling units utilizing the City's PUD over the entire site. This
alternative would accommodate up to 628 single family lots and 18 multi-
family lots. "
Further confusing the issue, but not in the Hearing Examiner's Letter, is the Final
EIS's description of Alternative 481 and Alternative 700.
Page 2 regarding Alt. 481 "This alternative assumes that 481 dwelling
units will be constructed on the approximately 170 acre project area utilizing the
PUD ordinance on a portion of the site in order to accommodate 409 single
family lots and 18 lots to accommodate 72 multiple family dwelling units in four-
plexes. "
Page 5 regarding Alt. 700 "This alternative assumes that up to 700
dwelling units will be constructed on the approximately 170 acre project
area utilizing the P UD ordiance over the entire site in order to
accommodate up to 628 single family lots and up to 18 lots to
accommodate 72 multiple family dwelling units infour-plexes. "
The Hearing Examiner's Letter addresses Division I and II of Kersey III, which
apparently consists of 89.31 acres.
The Final EIS bases all of its calculations on 170 acres. According to the Final
EIS (page 5), there are actually supposed to be three Divisions, each having 6
phases (the Hearing Examiner says 2 phases)??? Why is there no discussion of
a future "Division III" in the Hearing Examiner's Letter, if only to clarify the
differences in population and density numbers? Why isn't Division ill included
with Divisions I and IT to come up with Kersey ill's 170 acre overall density
calculations? What happened to the 481 and 700 alternatives described in the
Final EIS and why doesn't the Hearing Examiner touch on the 700 unit
alternative?
Also, consider that the 72 four-plexes in the 481 and 700 alternatives are actually
72 x 4 = 288 dwelling units, not 72 dwelling units, and this should be taken
account in the density calculations.
Are there, or are there not, going to be multiple family units (re: four-plexes)? As
shown by the references above, this is not clear in the Hearing Examiner's Letter.
If an agreement is made not to have multiple family units, but a PUD allows
multiple family units, could Kersey ITI build them anyway?
The above confusion and inconsistencies demonstrate to us, at least, that the
matter of population and densities, types of housing, and the limitations,
conditions and caveats agreed to outside of the definition of a PUD, should be
further clarified by the Hearing Examiner.
We would also like to submit the following "informal" calculation of density for
consideration.
Page 4 of 10
Comments on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations Regarding Kersey Ill, Sept 13, 2005.
The "official" calculation of dwelling units per acre apparently includes all of the
area of the PUD (89.31 acres in Division I and II). An informal way of looking at
density considers that an acre = 43,560 sq. ft. If Kersey III is proposing minimum
lot sizes of 4,000 sq. ft. (per the Preliminary Plat), they could potentially pack
10.89 houses in an acre. The people living in Kersey III may have green space in
a park several streets away, but to them, and to the people visiting the
neighborhood, it will appear that they are living in an elbow to elbow zero
clearance lot environment.
Consider this in relation to properties directly East of Kersey III, which are
mainly 5 acre rural style "horse farms".
Also consider this in relationship to Lakeland Hills to the West. A footnote in the
Hearing Examiner's letter states
"Lakeland Hills is a PUD with approximately 3000+ homes on lots
rangingfrom approximately 7,200 to 10,000 squareftet. Applicants
propose homes on lots rangingfrom approximately 3,800 to 8,400 square
feet, "
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan's LU-14 guidelines states "The bulk of
the single-family residential communities should be developed at a density
between 4 and 6 dwelling units per acre."
An additional confusion is that the Hearing Examiner "eluded to", but did not
make crystal clear, whether Division I and II would meet all the criteria of a PUD
(would be self contained), without the inclusion of Division m.
4. In the entire Hearing Examiner's Letter, there was only one small mention of the
land East of Kersey Way. In the Section, "Conclusions Based on Findings", Para
8, "The PUD is consistent with the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood," he says
"Surrounding land use consists of natural resource land (gravel pit), low-
density residential development, and Lakeland Hills PUD's 3000+ homes.
The Comprehensive Plan designationfor the area is Single Family
Residential. Development would be consistent with the character of the
Lakeland Hills community but not with the low-density development. "
We are!m disappointed that the description of "surrounding land", throughout
the document seemed to stop at Kersey Way. We strongly feel that a greater part
of the Hearing Examiner's comments should have included a much more
thorough discussion of existing land uses to the East, Northeast, and Southeast of
Kersey III.
Page 5 of 10
Comments on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations Regarding Kersey III, Sept. 13, 2005.
Considering the existing density of Lakeland Hills compared with the very low
density East of Kersey Way (gravel pits, 5 acre "horse farms" and a few new
"gated" low density housing developments,) Kersey III should be a buffer zone
somewhere between these two extremes. It should not be an even higher density
development than Lakeland Hills.
We would request that the Hearing Examiner take another look at his
recommendations with more consideration for people living in the relatively rural
areas surrounding Kersey III, not just with respect to Lakeland Hills.
5. The Hearing Examiner has considered Kersey III "in a vacuum" with respect to
other developments that are now being built in the area ( See Map 14.2 ''Special
Plan Areas" of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.) One only needs to drive farther
South on Kersey Way toward Sumner, along the Southern boundaries of
Lakeland Hills, around the West side of Lake Tapps, as well as in relatively
isolated areas East of Kersey Way, to see that residential developments are
springing up everywhere!
It is uncertain, and doubtful to us, that the City of Auburn has a process in place
to consolidate all of the various environmental impact statements from all of the
housing developments in the region. This includes developments over the border
into Pierce County and in unincorporated areas around the City of Auburn.
The City of Auburn's borders are artificial and political. Ground water, traffic,
migrating animals, noise and pollution have no boundaries. Each development
EIS seems to be considered on its own merits. Is anyone looking at the "big
picture" of where this massive development is going, and what the impacts to the
City of Auburn will be in the future?
This must be a look at the details (the same kinds of details contained in an EIS,
but from a consolidated view of all the EIS's.) This is not the same thing as
developing a comprehensive plan or following the goals of the Growth
Management Act. They are the guiding principles, not the details. For example, a
consolidated EIS would line up all the traffic projections from all of the known
developments in the area and see if they: a) are consistent and b) need to be added
together, to find out what the future of traffic will really look like.
We request that the Hearing Examiner, perhaps in conjunction with the Auburn
City Planners and the City Council, take another look at the Kersey III proposal as
only a piece in the larger picture, and at least address this concern in an updated
recommendation on Kersey III.
6. In the Hearing Examiner's Letter, "Conclusions Based on Findings", it is not clear
if the bold letter paragraph titles are the Hearing Examiner's conclusions, which
he then elaborates upon; or whether they are "Criteria" which he is listing from
the previous section, and then discussing.
Page 6 of 10
Comments on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations Regarding Kersey III, Sept 13, 2005.
In either of these cases some of the discussion is inconsistent with the fInal
recommendation to approve the rezone from its present RI to PUD, and the
Kersey III proposed development. Here are some examples:
Para 2. "Conditions in the area have substantially changed and the rezone bears a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare."
He then says,
"However, neither the Applicants not the City cites specific quantitative
date demonstrating the need for additional housing of this type, the trend
in Puget Sound towards small lot development, or population growth
projections for the City. "
Para 4. "The Rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and other applicable goals and policies of the City Council."
"The Director of Planning determined the proposal was consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. "
Our note on this: LU-9 was not addressed. It says,
"The City shall protect Coal Creek Springs by: 1) limiting density to less
than one residential unit per four acres within the area tributary to the
Coal Creek Springs Watershed and by 2) designating a Special Planning
Area for the Mt. Rainier Vista site, "
Coal Creek Springs has an East West boundary approximately 600 ft. beyond the
Cul De Sac at the end of Bridget Ave SE and a North South Boundary somewhere
near the center of Bridget. This area is very close to the proposed Kersey III
development. It would have to be determined if the Coal Creek Springs would be
affected in any way by a high density development with houses covering 400.10 of
the permeable area
M1. Rainier Vista is a now defunct development which failed in the early 80's, but
it is still on the books. It is on the North side of 53rd S1. SE. There may be some
legal implications, since it still appears in the Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
LU-II was also not addressed. It says,
"The City shall consider the impacts of new development activities on
resources (including agricultural resource lands, cultural resources,
forest resource lands, and mineral resource areas, the environment and
natural resources (particulary critical areas, wildlife habitats and water
quality) as part of its environmental review process, "
Our note on this: There is a small creek which runs through Kersey III which was
not addressed. Although unnamed, it is visible in the hydrographic information
maps on www.metrokc.gov. A picture of it is attached. It also appears on Map
9.3 "Wetlands and Streams"ofthe Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Page 7 of 10
Comments on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations Regarding Kersey III, Sept 13, 2005.
Map 9.6, "Erosion Areas" of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan shows that Kersey
III is situated directly over a large erosion area We do not feel that they have
adequately addressed this in the Final EIS.
Map 9.7 "Landslide Areas" of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan shows that
virtually all of Kersey III is directly over a major landslide area We do not feel
that they have adequately addressed this in the Final EIS
LU-13 was also not addressed. It says,
"Residential densities in areas designated "rural ", which represent areas
that have environmental constraints and which promote protection of City
water sources, should be no greater than 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres until
such time public facilities are available. "
Our note on this: Map 14.1, of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan "Comprehensive
Plan" shows that Lakeland Hills provides a relatively small border for Kersey III
on the West. Other than tha4 Kersey III is completely surrounded by Rural and
Single Family (R-l) residential. Thus, Kersey III should be judged in terms of
density, on the rural and R-l surrounding lands, not on the small border it shares
with Lakeland Hills.
To summarize, Para 4. the section entitled "The Rezone, PUD, and Preliminary
Plat are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable goals and
policies of the City Council," needs extensive rework and should be returned to
both the Planning Group and the Hearing Examiner for further consideration and
amending.
Para 7, "The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon
the surrounding area than any other project would have if developed using the
existing zoning standards."
The Hearing Examiner goes on to state,
"Applicants seek to develop 373 dwelling units. Development of Ol1er 300
more dwelling units will have more adverse impacts than the existing
zoning standard. EIS provided for impacts on transportation, public
services, wildlife, and utilities, some of which could not be avoided even
with mitigation measures. "
Para 10., "Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated
such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effet on the quality
of the environment."
The Hearing Examiner goes on to state,
Page 8 of 10
Comments on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendations Regarding Kersey III, Sept 13, 2005,
"According to the E/S, all potential environmental impacts have not been
mitigated to the point that they would not have an adverse effect. Namely, wildlife
and their associated habitat will be directly affected and no mitigation measures
were available to ameliorate this impact...../n addition to wildlife impacts, off-site
streams would be affected by the increase in impervious surface which would
afftct the hydrology of the area due to a change in recharge patterns. "
Para 12., "The subject property does not possess physical conditions or exceptional
topographic features that warrant deviating from the applicable design requirements".
The Hearing Examiner fails to mention Map 9.6, "Erosion Areas" of the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan which shows that Kersey III is situated directly over a large erosion
area. Neither does he mention Map 9.7 "Landslide Areas" of the Auburn Comprehensive
Plan which shows that nearly all of Kersey III is directly over a major landslide area.
7. Based on the above comments, we strongly feel that the request to rezone Kersey III
from R-1 to PUD be denied, and that the recommendation from the Hearing Examiner
to approve the rezoning should be resubmitted to him for further clarification and
consideration;
Page 9 of 10
"'C
l))
(JQ
CD
......
o
o
~
......
o
;+~
,..
!l
.cl
o
~
::;
~
o
o
o
01
01
;"
w
'"
~
C>
'"
'"
<=>
v,:,
'C
w
'"
'"
....
o
'"
'C
~
f..t""-'l;
w
'"
;..~
....
(:>
to"
'C
~
"
w.
...,
'"
....
C
I;.,"t
IC,
C
'"
t.-'\.
()
0
~
n
::3
-
en
CZl 0
CD ::3
CD g.
i n
:t::
n
~.
::3
e (Jq
tr:l
l ~.
::3
(':) !t
QQ en
0 ~
~< g
::a ~
~ g
P-
O a
~ er
::3
~ en
e: ~
(':) ~
S' P-
S'
~ (Jq
8 i
~. '<
0 -
-
::s:: r-
oo
~ ~
.-
g. ~
N
g- o
0
~
~
tI)
Et-
-.
tI)
I
CD
0..
(':)
~
~
i
tI)
~.
~
s::
~
~
CD
'<
-
-
-
Comments to the Hearing Examiner, Feb 21, 2006
Feb 21, 2006
Pat & Gene Davis
4901 Foster Ave. SE
Auburn, W A 98092
253-833-9564
cruise2@comcas1.net
Comments on Kersey3:
We would like to voice our concerns about disaster preparedness. There is the potential
need for evacuating large nwnbers of people in a very short time from the areas of North
Lake . Tapps, Lakeland Hills, people living along Kersey Way, the new development
under construction South of Lakeland Hills Parkway, 53rd S1. SE and Hidden Valley.
In Hidden Valley, the gas pipeline runs through the property of many of our neighbors.
Two years ago a pipeline rupture just North of Lakeland Hills prompted the city to call
for an immediate evacuation of people living in the area
Major BPA power lines will run down the center ofKersey3 which, in an earthquake,
could pose a hazard to all residents ofKersey3.
This is a heavily wooded area. Most of us have trees, brush and pastures around our
houses with no fire breaks. There are 40 acres of trees and brush to the North of our
house on Foster Ave., for example. We have high winds and no water hydrants in the
area The 40 acres North ofus are a magnet for :fireworks every Fourth of July and
bonfires during ''wild'' parties at the beginning and end of the school year. In addition,
there have been several stolen cars set on fire in the woods. A wildfire in a dry season is
always a risk.
An earthquake has already struck our area with no warning.
We are in the potential evacuation zone of an eruption from Mt. Rainier.
All of the above are unlikely, but feasible disasters which may require us and others to
leave the area at a moments notice.
In Hidden Valley we have only one outlet. Except for a few small roads that meander
down the backside of Lake Tapps, our only option is to go down 53rd St. SE and then take
Kersey Way North into Auburn or South into Sumner. Anyone who is near Kersey Way
is going to head there trying to escape the area. This includes residents from Kersey3
who, most likely, will not try to weave through the residential streets ofLakeland Hills
trying to get to Lakeland Hills Parkway (which will probably be glutted with traffic,
anyway.) They will head for the nearest ''major'' arterial which is Kersey Way. (Despite
Page 1 of2
E)tffI8/( dI .
Comments to the Hearing Examiner, Feb 21,2006
the description of Kersey Way as a "minor" arterial in the Kersey3 documents, residents
in the area consider it their major route in and out.)
There is even more of a risk posed by construction ofKersey3. Add to a no-notice
evacuation, construction equipment moving in and out ofKersey3, or, worse yet, a whole
lane shut down on the two lane road, and you have the plot for a disaster movie. Many
places on Kersey Way, there is no room to move a disabled vehicle out of the stream of
traffic.
In summary, we think that the issue of rapid evacuation needs to be addressed by the City
of Auburn, and until this is done, there should be a moratorium on any construction on or
around Kersey Way.
Thank you,
Gene and Pat Davis
Page 2 of2
MUCKLE SHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
Fisheries Division
39015 _172nd Avenue SE . Auburn, Washington 98092-9763
Phone: (253) 939-3311 . Fax: (253) 931-0752
August 16, 2004
Paul Krauss, AICP, Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
25 West Main Street
Auburn, Washington 98001
RE: Kersey III Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Krauss:
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Kersey III Preliminary Plat. The following comments are in the interest of protecting and/or restoring
the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's fisheries resources. The Tribe's Cultural Resources and Wildlife Divisions may also
send comments under separate correspondences,
The DEIS references a stream assessment completed by DBM Engineers in 2000, Since this study was not included
in the DEIS and its appendices, nor sent directly to the Tribe's Fisheries Division, we were unable to review it. Our
enclosed specific comments related to the streams on site and potential impacts to Bowman Creek may be
incomplete based on any additional information found in the stream assessment report.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. If you have any questions about these comments, or would like
to set up a meeting to discuss these comments, please contact me at (253) 876~3116.
K=w~
Karen Walter
Watershed and Land Use Team Leader
cc: Travis Nelson, WDFW
Alice Kelly, WDOE
f:::)(, IN 131 r ;J. J..
I
I
"
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
Comments to the Kersey III Preliminary Plat DEIS
August 16, 2004
Page 2
General Comments
In general, the DEIS contains quite a bit of information; however, it is scattered throughout the document and not
fully summarized in the summary section. For example, the summary table fails to consider the impact of water
withdrawals affecting surface and groundwater sources. The DEIS only considers impervious surfaces as a potential
impact to groundwater quantity. Water withdrawals may also affect ground water resources. All three alternatives
will have some impact on groundwater sources through an increase in withdrawals from existing wells or the
creation of new wells under the No-Action Alternative.
Similarly, the summary section fails to fully discuss impacts to streams on site and potential impacts to Bowman
Creek and the White River and the salmonid resources within them. The summary table also lacks any discussion of
impacts to fish.
Finally, the sensitive acreage numbers for all alternatives will need to be modified in the FEIS because the stream
buffers will need to be increased to avoid adverse impacts to the streams on site, Bowman Creek, and the White
River. Please see the specific comments under the stream section.
Specific Comments
2, Descriptions of Alternatives
On page 22, the DEIS fails to discuss any potential stream crossings for roads constructed for the 3 alternatives.
Any new road crossings of streams should be via bridges that span the entire stream channels because they are better
suited to pass wood, water, and sediment to Bowman Creek and ultimately to the White River.
3, Affected Environment. Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Water Resources
The existing culverts on or near the project are causing adverse impacts (Le. blockages and erosion) as noted on page
48, A condition of plat approval should be a requirement to fix these structures to allow fish passage where there are
blockages and to stop the erosion processes affecting Bowman Creek to avoid further impacts.
The sections on water quality and quantity are too limited. There should be detailed discussion about the existing
conditions ofthesurface waterbodies that may be affected. While Bowman Creek is not currently on Ecology's
303( d) list, it should not be assumed that there are no water quality problems. It typically means that no one has
sampled these streams. The DEIS fails to note that the Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) list for Washington State is
not comprehensive and there may be streams that are experiencing temperature, dissolved oxygen, and other water
quality problems that are not documented. The 303 (d) list is an initial source to determine impacts.
The sediment discussion on page 50 is confusing. The sediment that should deposit in the stormwater ponds will
likely be fine sediment, which can cause adverse impacts to aquatic life. The purpose ofthe stormwater ponds in
part is to allow fine sediment to settle out so it is not released into downstream waters, causing adverse impacts. The
sediment reduction that will occur as a result of the ponds will not increase erosive processes in the stream and cause
the stream to be sediment starved. Sediment starvation applies to more coarse sediments and is not a function of the
ponds. The concern should be whether or not the ponds are adequately sized and managed so as to not increase
flows that increase instream sedimentation processes downstream. Since Bowman Creek is. demonstrating erosion
problems without additional stormwater from this development, the stormwater should be infiltrated where possible
and the remaining stormwater should be treated and detained so that it does not cause new problems in the receiving
waterbodies, including Bowman Creek.
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
Comments to the Kersey III Preliminary Plat DEIS
August 16. 2004
Page 3
A supplemental evaluation of stream conditions is needed as suggested on page 50. However, the proposal to
complete stream channel and .bank protection may have adverse impacts of its own that will need to be mitigated, A
better approach would be to use natural materials (Le. wood) of appropriate size and frequency to address the
concerns in addition to any energy dissipaters required at the storm water outfalls.
This section fails to discuss the adverse impacts associated with creating storm water ponds designed to reduce the
peak flows to 50% of the 2-year event under existing conditions. This design standard will not mitigate for impacts
that will occur to the receiving waterbodies. A better standard would be to match the duration frequencies under
existing conditions.
Another issue not considered is the fact that Bowman Creek and the unnamed tributaries on site have likely been
affected by past land uses practices and will still be adversely affected by storm water generated by the impervious
surfaces created at the site. In.particular, these streams likely do not have the amount, size,. and frequency of wood
and other habitat features that can dissipate stream flows and velocities. As a result, any salmonidin Bowman Creek
will be exposed to increases in water velocities as a result of storm water generated from the site without mitigation.
We recommend that the mitigation plan include an increase in the stormwater detention standard so that stormwater
is released to match the flow durations for all streamflows compared to the existing condition. In addition, we
recommend that the plat be conditioned to require that wood and! or other salmonid refugia habitat elements be
added to Bowman Creek to address the increases in water velocities that will occur as a result of the stormwater
discharges.
3.3.1 Affected Environment
This section should break out aquatic life from terrestrial life so that the affected environments, species, and potential
impacts upon them can be tracked.
Also, on page 55, the DEIS fails to consider that the unnamed tributaries on-site provide wood and sediment to
Bowman Creek and the White River, in addition to water. Also, it should be noted that there is no direct fish access
to Tributary WRlA 10,0043 site because of the blocking culvert at Kersey Way noted in the DEIS.
3.3.2 Significant Imvacts
On page 57, the DEIS fails to note that storm water causes impacts to water resources beyond erosion of stream
channels, Changes in stream flow and velocities can also adversely affect aquatic resources, as a result of
stormwater releases. These impacts can occur even ifthereis.no stream channel erosion causing pools to fill in. The
potential loss of lower velocity areas in streams are the concern because they provide coho and other salmonids with
places to overwinter.
In addition to storm water impacts, the riparian buffers need to be adequate to provide wood and sediment to
downstream areas. Vegetation clearing could result in the removal of trees that would otherwise fall into streams and
wetlands in the project area and provide habitat. A full riparian survey should be conducted that identifies trees in
the corridor, their species, height, and diameters to assess impacts.
In addition, the DEIS fails to discuss how a minimum 50 foot buffer will affect riparian functions that provide
instream habitat to the intermittent streams, Bowman Creek and the White River (page 71). In particular, the DEIS
and its technical appendices fail to consider the importance of riparian areas to provide wood that creates in-stream
habitat, even from intermittent streams. Trees are the source of instream wood and can be a variety of sizes and
frequencies to provide instream habitat that come from streams that support salmonids directly and indirectly.
The proposed 50 foot buffers discussed in the DEIS are too narrow to provide wood to the affected waterbodies and
"
\'
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division
Comments to the Kersey III Preliminary Plat DEIS
August 16. 2004
Page 4
will result in an adverse impact that could be avoided if the buffers were increased to a distance based on the tree
height potential of the dominant tree species that can grow on site. The author is encouraged to obtain information
from the Washington Department of Natural Resources regarding site potential. In addition, there are numerous
scientific papers that discuss wood, its importance, recruitment processes, including some papers that discuss the
importance of intermittent streams to provide wood and sediment to downstream areas,
The discussion on water quality on page 70 is limited. There should be further discussion about existing water
quality conditions in the receiving waterbodies and the potential for the project to adversely affect water quality. In
addition, the mitigation should include the requirement to monitor stormwater generated from the site to ensure that
it is not causing adverse impacts to water quality.
Also, a new sewer line is proposed to service the area, which appears will be located on an existing bridge that
crosses the White River. The DEIS should discuss this in more detail and should identify any potential adverse
impacts to aquatic resources should this line break.
~ -~~((:~
Dear Auburn City Council members,
This is in regards to the Kersey Way ill project
and the impacts to our personal safety, and my families
way of life. I was told that I would be contacted
regarding the design of the Evergreen Way and Kersey
Way intersection pertaining to my families driveway as
well as the access to our property. Mter looking over
the design laid out by Barghausen consulting engineers
it is clear to me that my family was completely
disregarded.
Currently our driveway connects to Kersey Way
directly Northwest of 53M street. According the design
we are now to exit our driveway via a 90 degree left
turn, travel approximately 251, followed by a minimum
of another 90 degree turn merging on to 53M, this
would require a turn into on-coming traffic every time
we leave the house. Getting back. into our driveway
becomes extremely dangerous. We would be required
to stop immediately after turning on to 53M st at which
point we would have to cross 2 lanes of traffic to
access our driveway.. Cars traveling North on Kersey
Way and turning right onto 53M will be turning blindly
and the risk of being rear-ended while waiting to turn
into our driveway is EXTREMELY high. The backup
caused by waiting to turn into our driveway, coupled
with cars attempting to turn onto 53M coming from both
the North and the South would cause congestion that
could be easily remedied by not bringing Evergreen
way through to Kersey.
With a newly constructed access road to Lakeland
hills less than a mile south of the proposed intersection,
as well as the access to Oravetz road that allows travel
across the valley. It is unnecessary to extend
Evergreen Way down to Kersey Way and in my opinion
will do much more harm than good. It seems that 99%
,
GXfh8/ r B~
of the population approach Highway 167 from North
Auburn. Which is more than likely do to the amount of
congestion that already exists in South Auburn.We
don't need another stop light on this Road! All the truck
with full loads that travel this road and have to get
started again after stopping at the light will be a
nightmare!
My personal secondary concern is to the noise
pollution that will be generated by increased traffic as
well as the damage to my families personal privacy.
The headlights of cars coming down the hill will shine
directly against the front windows of my home.
According to the document Auburn City Council
Comments with Emrineer's Resoonses,
"The combination of topography, retained forest,
and new trees/landscaping will substantially
screen the Kersey ill project from view from
Kersey Way SE.and 53nI Street SE. Development
of Kersey ill Divisions 1 and 2 will not obstruct
any scenic views to adjacent properties. Divisions
1 and 2 may enjoy some territorial views toward
the north. J7
It is my belief that the intersection of Evergreen Way
and Kersey Way will not only fail to screen the project,
it will also completely destroy the scenic view that
currently exists.Looking at the extra traffic and signal
light is not my idea of a .senic view. As though that
damage wasn't substantial enough, the plans for storm
water flow from the project into the culvert which flows
under Kersey Way and into Bowman Creek and the
unnamed tributary (0043) will greatly impact the
appearance of the front of my property. According to
the same document "Mitigation for the existing
condition consists of a properly designed and
constructed energy dissipater and stream ch~nnel bank
protection. J7 Bowman Creek forms a pond in my front
yard that plays home to fish as well as pairs of ducks
that nest each year. A heron spends a certain amount of
time here in the spring each year as well. The new
designs will not only be damaging appearance they will
be disrupting a habitat and causing serious erosion
concerns by allowing the stonn water into this fish
bearing creek!
Please take mto consideration that if you allow this
re-zoning you will be affecting many families and
damaging the quality of life for a neighborhood.
Acoarding to the comprehensive plan for Auburn none
of this should go though. This type of PUD does not
meet the requirements of the surrounding areas and the
extension of Evergreen Way to Kersey Way does
nothing but increase the risk to the environment as well
as extreme danger to a already dangerous road and
extreme danger to those of us that have to drive these
roads ever day. WeaR ask that YOU decide against the
extension of Evergreen Way and the re-zonillJ!.
SinCMr~h~le Fassbind lj/ I!!:IUC,:zYaO---JI1<'J,X'(
Larry Fassbind
Brett Fassbind
Marty Fassbind
5220 Kersey Way SE
Auburn WA. 98092
~\
Auburn Hearing Examiner's Public Hearing February 22, 2006
RE: Kersey III Application for rezone from R-l to PUD
The Washington State Supreme Court determined that rezones must be based on a change
in the neighborhood and bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and
general welfare in Parkridge v. Seattle.
KERSEY In DOES NOT MEET THE BAR FOR A REZONE.
There has not been a change in the Kersey Way neighborhood that would allow it to bear
the weight of an addition of high density housing development. To impose such a
development would have an adverse impact on the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
Geographically and ecologically Kersey III would be disastrous. It would require clear
cutting a fairly dense forest land on a fairly steep Eastern facing slope, in which there are
4 known landslide areas. The run off on this heavily wooded slope is currently not
entirely controlled during times of heavy rainfall, running over Kersey Way and into
Bowman Creek. Clear cutting and impervious surfaces would greatly increase run off and
floodingrisk. It would condemn Bowman Creek to a non-salmonoid bearing status
forever. Bowman Creek was a salmon bearing stream (by witness of older residents in
our neighborhood) and could once again be a salmon bearing stream for the endangered
White River salmon run, the only spring running salmon in the State of Washington.
Geographically and geologically there are reasons why this land should not be clear cut
and covered in large part by imperVious surfaces. These factors have not changed.
Auburn's commitment to protect and restore fragile and irreplaceable natural resources,
such as Bowman Creek, has not changed.
There has not been a change in ground water availability. The aquifers underlying the
Kersey Way neighborhood have already been burdened to the point where several wells
have failed. Even Lakeland Hills had to go into an emergency water conservation mode
as their wells were dangerously low. This limitation ground water reserve has not
changed and would only be exacerbated by allowing a PUD.
There has not been improvement in any of several key areas of infrastructure to support
such a development. Kersey Way itself is already insufficient for the current level of
traffic. Moreover, our local schools are not prepared to handle the extra volume of
students.
Public Health: Kersey Way is a two lane, shoulderless, main arterial serving the Kersey
Way and North Lake Tapps neighborhoods. It is already heavily used, especially in the
mornings from 6-8am and from 4-6 pm, when the stream of cars traveling at 35 mph is
virtually continuous and tightly packed. Adding a 4 way stoplight at the intersection of
53rd and Kersey Way, would create long lines of idling cars and trucks up and down the
entire hill. This would result in much increase in noise with braking going down hill and
FxrA,.o,,! ~tf
accelerating of stopped cars going uphill. It would also greatly increase exhaust
emissions as cars sit idling and then have to hit the gas to get going up the hill. This
would adversely impact the air quality and health of residents in the Kersey Way
neighborhood living in the region of the intersection. This would be magnified perhaps to
intolerable levels when there is an inversion layer. We can stop burning in our fire places,
but we can not stop going to and from work. Many of us who commute will have the air
quality in our cars diminished, not to mention adverse effects on emotional state and
blood pressure. There is at least one physician in our neighborhood who delivers babies
who must be able to get to the hospital for deliveries at any time of the day or night when
the call comes. Air quality, visual blight, and noise from the gravel pit is expected to
adversely impact the new home owners buying into the proposed PUD, so much so that
Auburn City staff have considered including a notice on every title that "the property is
near designated mineral resource land and that commercial activity may occur that is not
compatible with residential development". Public Health would suffer under this
proposal.
Public Safety: The applicants have not made adequate provisions for safe cycling or
walking for school aged children outside of the development along Kersey Way, which is
the direct corridor to Gildo Rey Elementary, Mount Baker Middle School and Game
Farm Park. A PUD would add several hundred young families. You will have children
hazarding the edge of Kersey Way to cycle or walk: down to school or to Game Farm
Park or the White River Trail. We have already had at least a few children injured and at
least one killed, struck by automobiles along Kersey Way.
We have to be able to get out! Evacuation during a disaster would be impaired further by
allowing a PUD opening onto Kersey Way without adding additional lanes to Kersey
Way. Rupture of the high pressure gas line that runs through our neighborhood during an
earthquake or forest frre are not unlikely scenarios.
Fire and Police Services have to have access to us! Kersey Way, with backed up traffic
on a two lane shoulderless road behind stop lights will literally arrest the ability of
frremen or policemen to reach us during an emergency. Unless additional lanes are
added to Kersey Way, Public Safety would be further compromised by allowing a rezone
to PUD with addition of a stoplight at Kersey and 53rd.
Adding high density population in a PUD without adequate infrastructure is unsafe!
KERSEYllI DOES NOT MEET THE BAR SET BY THE SUPREME COURT
FOR REZONE.
The original Environmental Impact Study (EIS) appears to be flawed as it did not
properly address a sewage capacity issue apparently known to both the City of Auburn
and King County that could be further impacted by the proposed development.
The original EIS stated that the Lakeland Hills Pump Station had enough capacity to
accommodate additional sewage stemming from the proposed rezone and subsequent
development. This appears to be an accurate assessment regarding the pump station.
However, the real issue is not with the capacity of the pump station itself, but rather with
the capacity of the two force mains that carry sewage away from the pump station,
Together, the force mains have less capacity than the pump station is capable of pumping,
This capacity problem is an issue known to both the City of Auburn and King County. It
should be noted that a private developer originally built the pump station for the City of
Auburn who in turn relinquished ownership to King County. Such a capacity issues is
potentially significant as there would be no quick or inexpensive options for adding
additional force main capacity
Further compounding the problem is the fact that the force main leaving the City of
Auburn's Ellingson pump station does not function properly. The City apparently has not
detennined the cause of this problem and a pennanent solution has not been identified,
The City's current solution to the problem has been to bypass use of problematic
Ellingson force main in favor of routing the Ellingson sewage flows directly from the
pump station into one of the Lakeland Hills force mains. This puts further pressure on
the capacity issue stemming from the Lakeland Hills force mains,
In considering the proposed development and rezone application, capacity of the
Lakeland Hills Pump Station, Lakeland Hills force mains and the Ellingson Pump Station
and force main should be properly explored and addressed. A new, revised, or
supplemental EIS should directly state what effect the increased density stemming from
the proposed rezone and subsequent development would have on the entire sewer system.
Note: The developer of the proposed Kersey Way project has proposed construction of
an intennediate pump station that would serve the proposed development. This planned
pump station is nothing more than a way to convey the sewage generated by the proposed
dwellings to the Lakeland Hills Pump Station service area, Essentially, flows from the
development would flow by gravity to the vicinity of Kersey Way and Orvitz where the
developer's pump station would pump the flows into an existing pipeline that would feed
into the Lakeland Hills pump station, The developers proposed pump station has nothing
to do with addressing or solving the above force main capacity issues.
_. The above infonnation was not prepared by a licensed engineer and was not prepared in
consultation with the City of Auburn or King County. The above infonnation should not
be construed as fact but rather as representative of what is believed to be the current
situation surrounding capacity issues related to the Lakeland Hills force mains.
\e~c:w.L
EX\;V\' ~
tL51? Lt 1.\-V1 $t 51$ ,
~I WA 0ZTA~
-
~xtflj},/r ~s
October, 17,2005
d
Kersey 3, Division 1 & Division 2 - Open Hearing Comments by Erin Galeno
Name: Erin Galeno
Address: 4515 47th Street SE, Auburn, WA 98092
My comments are focused on two issues documented in the City councils resolution 3947
which formally remanded the Kersey ITI Division 1 & 2 request for a PUD baek to the
Hearing examiner last fall. This resolution directed the applicants to consider and/or
address the issues raised by the council. TD W 0 r <6 I.?~U{ 5.
Issue #4 - The building and structural designs that complement surrounding land uses
and their environment, reflecting quality site design, landscaping and building structure
architecture required under the Auburn PUD ordinance,
Based on my review of the current proposal, I have the following comments regarding
issue #4:
· The proposal that was remanded last fall included 374 sinvle family homes, while
the current proposal includes 368. This is only a reduClimt of 6 boIbes or
approximately ~ to % of an acre of land. This is not ~ ~gh to
improve the overall quality of the site design.
· The previous proposal had lot sizes ranging from 3,800 to 8,40& ill_A. The current
proposal has lot sizes ranging from 4,000 to 8,400 sq ft. Only to tots are greater
than 7,000 sq ft (only 7 are greater than 7,200 sq ft). The; ~ Hearing
Examiner's report stated that this proposal would cf$atf Q'Olllpataility with
Lakeland Hills (an existing PUD, which has lots ranging.fi'om 7,1.......10,000 sq
ft). The applicant has clearly made no effort to address the compatibJtlty in lot
size with Lakeland Hills as less than 2% of the overall wts- would p~ilar in
size to Lakeland Hills. ~-<<}..\
· They have amende<up.-r.Y',proposal to include 2 car garaaes... . . While this is a step in
the right direction. ~ garages on the same 4,000 tp 5,000 sq ft lot will only
iIlcrease the amount of impervious surface thus enxJiqIflte quality of the
development
· My final point on this issue is my observation ot. ~urrent plan layout It does
not have the look and feel of sub-communities si$it. to Lakeland Hills, it looks
more like tract housing,
Issue #5: The parks and open spaces, and the adequacy of parks and open spaces located
under Bonneville Power Administration power lines.
· The applicants have deemed the space beneath the BPA lines as open space and
have designated other spaces as park areas,
· If you subtract the open spaces for the BP A lines and drainage field the total
open space is 17.97 acres vs, the minimum requirement of 17.86. So without
6H/~/t "2b
October, 17,2005
-.--'
the BPA space they meet the minimum, (Total open space from Div 1&2 less
tract A,C&D from div 1 and tract A from div 2)
· What truly bothers me in this current proposal is one again the quality of the
parks and open spaces are severely in question. For example, tract Q in div I
which is slated as a park with a baseball field and tennis court, sounds great
until you realize that 63% of this space has a greater than 25% slope. Which
means people will be chasing quite a few balls down the hill or even worse they
will fill the space and the field and tennis court will settle over time. Even if
you add in the park space in from tact P in div II and tract I in div I, the percent
of park and open space with a significant slope doesn't change from that of tract
Q.
In summary, the applicants have not substantially increased the quality of this proposed
PUD nor have they come close to making it compatible with Lakeland Hills.
Thank you.
Er I V\ CraJut;o
tif). J5, Ltl}-V\ $ g. ;
~lWJ\-q~
February 22,2006
Public Hearine - Auburn Hearine Examiner
Auburn City Council Chambers
APPLICATION NO. PLT05-0001, PUD05-0001 and REZ05-0001 - Kersey 3-Division 1 and
APPLICATION NO. PLT05-0002, PUD05-0002 and REZ05-0002 - Kersey 3-Division 2
In the matter of aoolication by:
William & Debra Jones and Elwood & Joyce Bolles for approval of a preliminary plat, rezone from R-l,
Single Family Residential, to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District and planned unit development
approval to subdivide 50.60 acres into 167 single family residential lots, and 38.40 acres into 201 single
family residential lots respectively.
Statement to the Hearin2 Examiner:
I have many concerns regarding the aforementioned applications. The following are just a few.
6,y77
a.) Adequate fire protection for region (see article: Page 7-10 Auburn Reporter, Feb. 15-28, 2006)
A huge concern exists with wildfIres from rural areas converging with high-density population
areas.
b.) Adequate police coverage from an already strained department (see article: Page 5, Auburn
Reporter, February 25-28, 2006)
c.) Storm water runoff and erosion
d.) Adequate water supplies and quality of same to existing residents (Summers of2003 & 2004-
many experienced dry wells in the adjacent areas, along with severe restrictions and purchase of
water from Bonney Lake Water District to supply neighboring Lakeland Hills neighborhoods.)
e.) Landslides from stripping of native vegetation from hillsides
f.) Irreversible damage to wetlands and wildlife in mature forest areas
g.) Traffic congestion & use of compression brakes within the city limits
h.) Inadequate infrastructure to handle additional large volumes of traffic (Kersey Way, along with
the only existing & aging bridge across the White River is 2 lanes)
i.) Noise and air pollution
j.) Adequate schools, education, transportation and safety for children
k.) Growth in surrounding communities of Algona, Pacific, Sumner, & Dieringer Areas (all of which
feed into the Auburn School District)
I.) How high density can "blend" with it's already existing rural neighbors
m.) Quality oflife
I would like to address specifically the issue of schools. The Kersey III development would send their
children to Gildo Rey Elementary, Mount Baker Middle School, and Auburn Riverside High School.
Information obtained from the Assistant Superintendent of Business and Operations office with the Auburn
School District shows the following:
Februarv 1. 2006
Gildo Rey Elementary
Mt. Baker Middle School
Auburn Riverside High School
Auburn High School
Built for 572 students
Built for 750 students
Built for 1800 students
Built for 1850 students
Currently 644 students
Currently 838 students
Currently 1680 students
Currently 1871 students
EXj/-/B/T 27
As you can see from these facts, the schools, without exception, are already above capacity. With the
average household having 2.1 children and 368 new homes proposed for the Kersey III - Divisions 1 & 2
(not including the future projections of Kersey III Divisions 3 & 4) this would add approximately 736 more
students to the already overburdened schools. Impact fees collected fail miserably short to provide
monetary support to build new schools or to enhance existing ones. Just one portable costs the School
District $40,000 base fee, plus the addition of set up charges, plumbing and electrical costs. Additionally,
none of these schools would be accessible for students to walk to, as there are no provisions for sidewalks
on Kersey Way and the logical fact of distance and location of the Elementary and Middle schools to the
Kersey III development.
Busses serving the Cities of Algona, Pacific, Auburn, and Dieringer areas are currently at or above capacity
on many routes and the cost of fuel has exploded, Jim Denton, Director of Transportation for the Auburn
School District, says that although 33 buses were recently purchased for the district, by 2009 there will be a
need to purchase more, School schedules in January 2006 had to be adjusted to accommodate the inability
for the busses to be in two places at one time,
With the Washington Assessment of Learning (W ASL) now in place as a requirement for Graduation, the
stakes have never been higher for our students to learn and perform. Can the teachers effectively teach and
the students effectively learn in this environment. Overcrowding in our schools hurts us all. It hurts the
teachers, it hurts the students, and ultimately it hurts the community,
I respectfully request, as a member of the Auburn community, for you to carefully review all aspects and
areas of this application and to consider the long lasting impact that such a high density development will
have on this community before you make your final recommendation,
Thank you for this opportunity to present my concerns on this matter and respectfully submit this letter into
the official record.
Sincerely, 14
(-' .
~-' ~. vr.L-
J Koch
15 - 53rd Street South East
Auburn, W A
98092
-r==--
FREE Phone(s) on selected models'
. Free phones requlre 1 year activation
~::::'.:=:~.::~.=.':":::=~O;:::: q; - -Mobile--
:D:7~~~uSl~sJEp==~ ~d..~r
PAGEANT
Two queens receive
Miss Aubum crowns
page 3
CALENDAR
Symphony orchestra to
paint a musical portratt
page 32
COMMUNITY
In address. mayor spells
. out 2006 agenda
page 4
SPORTS
Futch equaUy adeplal
passing basketballs. grades
page 30
CITYOF:~";"<
;.~
Areport from the city
page 9
~
l
February 15-28, 2006
Auburn Re.porter
Page 7
~
Auburn Fire Department Capt. John Wentz blocks off an Intersection along the West Valley Highway where
wires had fallen on the roadway. The department responded to a total of 7.848 calls in 2004. Including 5.155
for aid and 356 of them fire-related.
Where there's smoke
...
Increasing population costs have the city of Auburn
considering how best to provide fire services in the future
There's no doubt about it, Ibe Auburn
Fire Department is a busy place,
Its staff of 81, including nine office and
administrative positions in fire prevention,
public education, records management,
training, mechanics and supervision, re-
sponded to a total of 7,848 calls in 2004, Of
those 5,155 were calls for aid, of which 356
were fire-related,
FIre-suppression personnel wOrl< a three-
platoon. 24-hour shift at three fire stations:
Station 31. 1101 D St, N,E.; Station 32,
1951 R SI. S,E.; and Station 33, 2905 C SI.
S, W, on property that the city leases on Ibe
General Services Administration campus,
Auburn has mutual-aid agreements wilb
. ON THE COVER: During a drill, Auburn
firefightl!r Ron logan checks a hose at
Station 31.
every surrounding jurisdiction and county-
wide agreements for assistance during sig-
nificant events,
"We turn about 8,000 caDs a year in
Auburn, which is a significant call load for
the nwnber of persons available," said Mike
Gerber, who is the temporary deputy chief
in the absence of Chief Russ Vandver, The
chief is on an extended medical leave for an
unspecified illness,
"We staff three engines, two aid can; and
one battalion chief on a 24-hour-a-day,
seven-day-a-week, 365-day-a-year basis,"
Gerber said, 'That's fairly typical for mid-
sized fire depaIlments in the county and re-
gion:'
But !he. city officials responsible for
those gleaming. engines, for keeping those
highly Irained professionaJs in breathing ap-
paratuses and for paying firefighting per-
sonnel know that all is not well
The explosive growth !hat has already
overtaken Ibe cities of Kent, Renton and
FedetaI Way is also changing the face of
Auburn, Available land and infraslructure
make it an attractive place to live,
According to statistics provided by the
city's Planning Department, Auburn's p0p-
ulation is expected to increase from its
present 47,000 to 80,000 by the year 2020,
All those new residents will not only de-
mand water, sewer and street services,
they'll want police and fire protection, too,
"As Auburn expands, there will be a
greater need and demand for fire services,
and that may include the need for more fire-
fighters," Gelber said,
That demand, wilb its additional costs,
conld also force the city into considering
spinning off the Fire Department into its
own fire district or fire aulbority,
FIRE - page 8 ~
By Robert Whale
Photos by
Meghan E. Jones
Page 8
~ FIRE - page 7
City's declining f s
The problem is that as the
city expands, its revenue stream
continues to dwindle. In the past
five years, the city's cost of
doing business has increased by
15 percent - 3 percent each
year - while property-tax rev-
enue has been limited to a 5-per-
cent increase over that same
time period because of Initiative
747, city officials say,
The initiative, passed by state
voters in 2001.1irnits a city's in':
crease in property-tax revenue
to the lesser of I percent above
what was collected during the
previous year, or the rate of in-
flation. whichever is less. Cities
can ask voters to approve in~
creases of more than 1 percent.
Auburn officials have taken
steps to delay the day when the
descending and ascending chart
projections of revenue and costs
meet,
Mayor Pete Lewis said any
time a city position has come
open, he and Brenda Heineman.
the city's director of human re~
sources, have conducted a re~
view to determine if the city i-s
required to replace that em-
ployee, if other parties could do
the job orif the city should have
a different job altogether that
might not pay as much,
'The biggest problem there is
unions. having to make sure that
Auburn R
rter
City of Auburn firefighter Kurt Vogel. left, and Capt. John Wentz point out possible caus-
es that led to power wires falling on the West Valley Highway,
even though we:: know that we
could do something better, we
are not necessarily going to be
able to change that position,"
Lewis said,
Regardless of the action
taken, city officials fear at best
it's a stopgap measure to stave
off the inevitable. Forecasts in
the 2006 Auburn budget show
revenue and cost projections
meeting in mid-2008, After that,
increases in costs will outstrip
any increases in revenue,
Page 10
~ RRE-page8
Exploring options
Caught between burgeoning
need and fewer and fewer dollars
to pay for services, a group of
city official, - principally
Lewis, Public Safety Chief Jim
Kelly and Gelber - has been
scouting alternatives the past few
months to fund the Fire
Department Among the ideas:
consolidation within an existing
fire district or fonning a fire au-
thority,
Kelly said the city will con-
centrate its efforts on fire because
state law allows ~ities more flex-
ibility with fire departments than
with police departments,
"There are many police serv-
ices that can't be contracted out,"
he said.
Lewis named Kelly, Aubom's
police chief, to be temporary
chief of public safety last
November, putting him in charge
of the police and fire departments
in the absence of Vandver.
"We're looking at alternativ"
funding because, simply put, the
general fund is at its cap," Kelly
said. 'The income stream to meet
the residents' needs and desires
is limited, The mayor and City
Council will continue to look for
ways to improve public-safety
services. But we need more.
money - and right now it's not
there,"
Auburn's property-tax rate is
Slashing costs
When that happens, the city
will have to take some unpop-
ular steps to balance its budget,
officials say,
One main principle will
guide the city's hand, Lewis-
said, The city's first mandate to
its residents is public safety, he
said, and that will not change,
Everything that is not public
safety - and the mayor puts
into this category not only p0-
lice and flre, but roa?s, water
and stormwater crews - will be
open to cosHutting, In Auburn,
60 percent of the $49,8 million
general fund, which funds the
city's daily operations, is dedi.
cated to public safety,
Lewis said cuts would likely
force the city to close parks, re-
duce its' programming and lay
off personnel.
'There are different philoso-
phies," he said. "Some cities do
a 5-, 6- or 7-percent cut of all
employees across the board, I
ii We're looking at
alternative funding
because, simply put,
the general fund is
at its cap, 11
JIM KELLY
Chief of public safety, Auburn
$2,88 per $1,000 of assessed val-
uation, lis fire budget is $9,9 mil-
lion, of which $8,9 million
comes from property-tax rev-
eOlie, Unlike other cities, how-
ever, Auburn augments this with
money it receives from. its fire
contract with AIgona, the lGng
County Medic I Levy and a com-
pact with the Muckleshoot
Casino, Without those, the Fire
Department's share of received
property tax would be $ 1.93 per
$ I ,000 of assessed valuation;
wben they are added, it drops to
$1.73,
What makes some of the al-
ternatives attractive to city offi-
dais is that outside entities such
as fire districts can do what cities
cannot - ask to raise the levy lid
beyond what now goes to fund
fire services,
Auburn is basically looking at
four alternatives:
. Council members could
place a measure on the ballot
asking voters whether they are
willing to increase their taxes to
Auburn Reporter
pay more for fire services.
. Join j1 fire district or create
one, A fire district represents a
defined geographical area, A
board of elected commissioners
independent of any governmental
authority except its own runs it
As a junior taxing authority, a
fire district collects property-tax
revenue and runs levies like
school districts,
By joining a district, the city
could save money and eliminate
redundancy, For instance, instead
of two fire chiefs, have one,
One idea is for the city to con-
tract with King County Fire
District 44, also known as
Mountainview Fire and Rescue,
If that happened, the city could
annex the 44,5 square miles of
unincorporated county for which
the district is responsible. ex-
tending from Lea Hill east to-
ward Enumclaw and Black
Diamond
While city officials are confi-
dent they could find some way to
pay for a fire station, they are
Februa 15-28, 2006
don't agree with that policy, I
believe that we are required to
protect the public_ That's our
job, more than anything else, It's
not that those other services
acen't necessary - they are ab-
solutely necessary. But our man.
date is still public safety, And
those are the ones we will have
to keep to the end,
. <This is the line we have
been fighting ever since the im-
position of ... Initiative 747," he
added, "No matter what. our in-
come is less than our expenses.
When income is limited, regard-
less of how much assessed valu-
ation goes up, we get I percent
more than whatever we got on
the property tax from the year
before, That's a fact"
Auburn and its sister cities in
Western Washington are not the
only ones struggling with the
fallout from 1-747, In an ex-
treme case, the small town, of
Brewster in Eastern Washington
has talked openly of unincorpor-
tating and handing its responsi-
bilities over to Okanogan
County,
"We are seeing it all over the
state," said Rep, Geoff Simpson,
D-47th District, which includes
northeast Aubom, "Local gov-
ernments are having problems
providing basic levels of
service, They are trying to find
efficiencies where they can."
FIRE-page 10 ~
doubtful about the $1.6 million it
would take to staff it each year,
. Or the city could join a fire
authority, ,Recently allowed
under state law, a fire authority
resembles an interlocal agree.
ment between cities, 1\vo elected
representatives of each city in-
volved comprise its board,
Where a fire aUthority differs
from a fire district is that the
cities would be the controlling
agencies but enjoy the same
rights as a fire district for levies,
A firefighter would maintairr his
or her identity from that city,
Kent's fire department repre-
sents a hybrid approach - half
of it the city runs, half of it the
city has contracted out to Fire
District 37,
"It's sort of the best of both
worlds," 1 said Kent Mayor
Suzette Cooke, "Fire District 37
alone would be a smail service,
bot because it partners with the
city, it benefits from services we
have, such as emergency prepa-
ration and SWAT-team training,"
February 15-28, 2006
Joining the rankS?
Algona Mayor Joe Scholz
said if Auburn elects to go the
fire-district route, his city, which
now contracts with Auburn for
fire services, could go along,
"If Auburn went to a fire dis-
trict, I think it would benefit all
of the cities involved. There
would be less administration, We
would probably move with
Auburn, if we were able, But
tIiereareOlhet options, For in-
stance, we could combine with
Pacific," he said,
Such aJtematives represent
the new reality, Simpson .said,
"People are going to have to
realize, if they want these serv-
ices in the future, they are going
to have to pay for them," he said.
Robert Whale can be
reached at robert wha/e@re
porternewspapers, com or
(253) 437-6014,
'\
USFWS, pers. comm. March 18, 2002). The bald eagle was not observed during our
field studies, or during previous studies of the site (DBM 2000b, J.8. Jones and
Associates 2000). The nearest known nest is more than 2.5 miles northeast of the site ~
along the Green River, and another is over 5 miles southeast of the site east of Lake ~
Tapps.
MD I'- e Occasional sightings of bald eagles in the vicinity would be expected because of the
!iJ/I-~ (proximity of large river and lake foraging areas and scattered waterfowl concentration
tl~_As/t::>#A-/ areas. No nests are known to occur on the Kersey III property, nor would any be
.. expected, because of a lack of suitable nesting sites (Le., large snags of suitable condition
or species, or old-growth trees) or foraging habitat (i.e., fish-bearing waters or waterfowl
concentrations). No potential nest trees were observed during our field visits. Eagles can
range several miles during foraging flights, and could occasionally use the project sites
for perching.
18
;;:4c/
p~~
The USFWS has detennin.ed that wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the
project (USFWS 2001, see Appendix C for agency correspondence). Wintering activities
typically occur from October 31 through March 31. Communal night roosts are an
important component of bald eagle wintering habitat Use of a roost site is primarily
related to prey abundance and distribution and secondarily related to features including
tree structure and microclimate (Stinson et al. 200 1). Roost trees are typically the largest,
tallest and more decadent within stands of trees. Although the site is approximately 0.5
miles south of the White River, a likely foraging area for eagles, we did not detect
suitable trees for roosting bald eagles on the site. The WDFW (2003a and 2003b) PHS
database does not show winter concentration areas or occurrence of wintering bald eagles
within the vicinity of the project site. L..4i:7 -f- 5 ?' ? f v/I-~-- J Le!. r/'~':::: 5
Bull trout ""~ -f-h-€.. ? f'le> /<:-/' 1-7 "
On November 1,1999, the USFWS issued a fmal rule announcing the listing of bull trout
throughout the coterminous United States as a threatened species under ESA (Federal
Register 1999a: 58910-58933), Bull trout were once widely distributed throughout the
Pacific Northwest, but have been reduced to approximately 44 percent of historical range
(Quigley et al. 1997). Bull trout are thought to have more specific habitat requirements
in comparison to other salmonids, and are most often associated with undisturbed stream
habitat with diverse cover and structure. High quality bull trout habitat is typically
characterized by cold water temperatures, abundant cover in the form of large wood,
undercut banks, large boulders, etc" clean substrate for spawning, interstitial spaces large
enough to conceal juveniles, and stable channels. Therefore, negatively impacted
watersheds are not thought to provide optimal bull trout habitat.
The (WDFW 2003a) PHS database documents the presence of Dolly Varden charlbull
trout in the White River, Although undocumented, bull trout may migrate from the
Kersey III -- Plants and Animals Assessment
Draft EIS Report
Raedeke Associates, Inc.
May 17, 2004
E ,XtrlB / T 2f(
JFJff/~j-
5~~
)~I'e .,./
30
native habitat. For example, the stream and wetland complex on the western portion of
the site is contiguous with the off-site forested parcel to the east, and with the exception
of Kersey Way, the buffered corridor created by Bowman Creek to the north. BPA
powerline corridor will continue to be a major movement route for species such as
coyotes and black-tailed deer, terrestrial species that likely use the site as part of their
home range.
Impacts to Stream Habitat
The creation of impervious surface within the Kersey III project site would likely cause
an increase in stormwater flow volumes leaving the site, which could cause downstream
channel and bank erosion within unnamed tributary 0043 and Bowman Creek
(GeoEngineers 2004). If un-mitigated, this could result in adverse impacts to stream
habitat such as loss of existing pool and riftle habitat, loss of stream bank vegetation, and
loss of spawning areas. Stream habitat loss could result in a reduction in usage by
cutthroat trout and Coho salmon, which currently use portions of Bowman Creek.
Potential impacts to downstream habitat would be mitigated through design of on-site
stormwater facilities to meet 50 percent of the peak flow rate of the 2-year storm event
and match (100 percent) the peak flow rates for the 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year storm
under existing conditions (DBM 2003). The restricted discharge rates would reduce the
potential for downstream channel and bank erosion, and no significant adverse changes
to the channel will be likely to occur (GeoEngineers 2004).
4.1.3 Impacts on Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Other Priority Species
Development of the Kersey III site is not expected to affect endangered, threatened, or
sensitive animal species, as none have been documented on the site, and potential habitat
is either absent or very limited.
The USFWS states that bald eagles, a state and federal threatened species, may winter in
the area. As noted above, the Kersey III site does not likely provide roosting habitat for
this species. Even under current site conditions, bald eagles are more likely to use sites
closer to larger, fish-bearing waters. Eagles that might currently use the site for perching
would likely no longer use the property due to the proximity to human activity and
disturbance. No bald eagles were observed on the property or in the area during our field
visits.
Se.e-
~::~
Bull trout and Puget Sound Chinook salmon, listed as federally threatened and state
candidate species, are documented to be present within the White River; however, these
species are not documented to occur within Bowman Creek (WDFW 2003a). Because no
significant changes to the channel of tributary streams are expected from the proposed
development (GeoEngineers 2004) and due to the distance upstream from the White
Kersey III -- Plants and Animals Assessment
Draft EIS Report
Raedeke Associates, Inc.
May 17, 2004
,
i
I
I
I B//'d c 6F0i E"1/e.-)
I k e~'
I use{ TIr e;. I S
Pft7G /BJ t3ye 30 4. t, D
t We.. h tro-e.- N e-s I-; ~ b.,q.Ld E~I e..$ . *,+- ,
fG~~ e~_-:z:_'iJ:Ih,J_d tI--4./'D~5 C1:OI:i- 1>7~
I ~;-,J +- '(.4-r It: - :r- h It-LJ e 5eetJ cfZ ~
i 1t;J d A-etV +k&J<-f e.u Uy dll<f- It+O/' I 'pfW4tf)~
I ~ /'J.-l + !fYI-/' Ie. T do +h-e- 7,4:1' I<. is v Pet' ;.,.J -I- b
I :::w b 1/-1-:. v",. F*<4 ~CJ cI p" ,,,-> .j-, ? Itr k- /I--J" +k.r
I frl'e Wrd ,tJ ONe.- ~ 1- M.A I~S 0 r ft~
I t}ofose--d?roJeJ-, Thetr Irl,5ohsA ~c!. ..
I {j~~ r::t:L/~:fr- 1:;/ ~-~ >'i~/4;~j2JPsI
I ? t/, 60>' 1)'-7'5 5'tIH;ve-T' I (VA. 9g?7~
;;,-5J-a~Z -~~37
Witl A-tJd je,.M) JvtvM 1-n-&~Z-?c/3S-
IBs-2<j Vr~(t)od Vr,-ve ~ !r~ ~
fA} A ' 98391
f?ob A-qj JOch J"OAltt/dsed
~oCJz- '(/ltJt',t(j lc/Al..f-.ew J."..A:-c /~~s 4/IJ- ~3?/
:2-D3 -g, z 0 J.-s-~
ctZiC- ~cli lirA.-
/B 5"3'1 OI'/rI /l/lJtJd lJ}1/te e 11-5f-
J..1f~e..- Tfrl15 t w1f--- rf;3fl [;''53 -.)..;;''7-(7~Z-
-SOh ~ ~d C-I;J 1'1 fll,(Jd, ol?Urk
/8~/t/ 7),lr!--wtJoc! Vr/t/e L/I-S~ j de TIf///P5 (WR
~s- 3 -- '6. <t / - i::J 7 t 2___ ~ ~ 39('
~rri -rtfl'/-Ay IlIi-~hd
i -!:N Le-+ :J::-S L~J
[ 4bb I No,..J-h rsLfH.1d bl)~v e
tkttk.e- ~ffs k'1}-fB37:1
I NMk .;-'~i<52- N~()b~uc-r.
I >{Z.(.o7 / ~fl-l1 ITcH ~-?-Srl
~-t--~ __~-4#J:k-e 7?1jY::S ~/W 4-, ~'ZB3f1L~
i f- M!'rr 1. 10) Dur J 0 F 11 jV~S {lJU'1
I IT,ert (fLow, 'DriFhuc<,> d 'Pr.ve..
_I ~ MJ Ie-S C) F- Jcef'$~1 pro zr-e.<.---t- ?rc.;>Yi'~.I'1.
02IS3 - 8~ ~ - t/:I S-O
I
I
I
t
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
~~2- ~92~
.:f-. LnolL-See ~5
+1 € PI.{ lEd ~r; ljeft/'.
Breeding areas of the osprey, a fish-eating hawk, are considered by the WDFW (1999) as
a priority habitat. The nearest osprey nest identified by WDFW (2oo3a) is located
approximately 3.5 miles east of the property along the Green River on the Muckleshoot
Reservation. Numerous other nest sites are mapped in Lake Tapps several miles
southeast of the property. No osprey nests are documented on the White River in the
vicinity of the Kersey III site (WDFW 2003a). Ospreys likely forage in the fish-bearing
waters of the Green and White River near the site however, suitable sites for nesting,
larger snags or live trees with broken tops or suitable branches with views of the foraging
area, were not observed on the Kersey III property. No osprey nests were located on the
project site during our recent or any previous surveys (DBM 2000b, J. S. Jones and
Associates 2000).
State game. Game species are those native species managed for game hunting. Four
state game species of concern are expected to use habitats found on the project site or
vicinity (King County 1987, WDFW 1999; see Table B.1), These include the wood
duck, band-tailed pigeon, mink, and Columbian black-tailed deer, One of these species,
the black-tailed deer, was detected during our 2002 field investigation of the site;
however, "regular concentrations," as defined by WDFW (1999), are not known on the
Kersey III site.
3.5 WILDliFE IlABITAT NETWORKS OR CORRIDORS
Wildlife habitat networks or corridors can take different forms, depending on the
landscape. For example, corridors can be in the form of hedgerows or fencerows
connecting woodlots in an agricultural landscape. In a fragmented forested landscape,
corridors are linear patches of forest or forested riparian zones connecting larger patches
of forest. They can also be non-forested linear patches, such as utility easements, or
wetland and stream systems, in a landscape that is forested, In an urbanizing
environment such as this portion of the City of Auburn, open space or native forestland
can act as corridors connecting otherwise disjunct habitat for wildlife species,
Corridors can provide: (1) habitat for certain species; (2) movement pathways; (3)
extensions of foraging ranges for large, wide-ranging species; and (4) escape from
predators (Harris 1984, Levenson 1981, Noss 1987, Noss and Harris 1986, Simberloff
and Cox 1987). Corridors may also have disadvantages, such as: (1) providing conduits
for disease, fire, pests, and exotic species; (2) increasing exposure to predation; and (3)
potentially having negative genetic impacts on a population (Noss 1987, Simberloff and
Cox 1987).
Definable migration corridors existing on the property include avenues of movement
such as the wetland/stream complex on the western portion of the site for water-
Kersey /II -- Plants and Animals Assessment
Draft EIS Report
Raedeke Associates, Inc.
May 17, 2004
22
~~
(lr;r' e.,c -I- .
<:i e e..
Aley-l-
?/f7~ .
T;XHIf3/T 30
3i~/ C t/5 ~er . ;!bI,t- .J
t'ef)'er IJ..T- E1:s
I.. mJe :?f< L /(k5~ 5'/:k)
i We. I;/l-Ve 11 ?,,;/' o/" 05""'/''''-75 ~I
~-~ -___, lti Jr-/-_ ...,Aj~ $ ~'H _~ -r- _ _ Ig~,?: ~_ __5;' -M.._S/._
. I 1./11/1 8 BD"""'~ LA-ke . ge3N .
W,f,yeff Je'&~ ,rl-Nd ?;!-A.-f""y kil.Jj (;'23-311"-//,5"2-)
i-
t The/;;/'cls Ft/e Lo~c/ ?e~S' <.f:h~
i flf' ~;t~ ~~ Prt>~ P/o/'~.,L/_ 'n~7 'v5~
I kerset (!42/"/cIo/ /-j//I 5/cIe clv//~/ ~
j S fJ/,/""f ~i5' C/#MC-'. 'Tle.... 05.J'l/:-r.5 A/T~ .
.. ;!(/-ej-/;wf ;fIle.. S. -4.~ /~. ",,4 ;:b/A/~/ ?e.h'<=e...
~:t ~t~~~~~::/- &r#- ~d
()/iNwtt'aI' /j/W,? /#k- /Wl::> h/~es hl)~ kusey:r:c
/f-,(/ess) . ,
/: 4/~e /.Jf'h#cq ;Z-S-3-gs~2.-~Z.J? C?.A/k Sup+:)
~I E/1/c ~cI//1 /I- /a-r31 D~/Hu/c;~r:I pr. eM~
dtJeil Jr~- ).~'1-/77z-30~;J)~ . L(tke,Y83~ I
@1UOhJ !-//IJ~it6~h. <<\- C~tJdi triNetAb~
f i SolD tnl NfAJt!)<:Jd 1)1'/ve C 'L'J3- e>f l"'o7~2-
h/1w Ww. J.J Ol<t~ wes+H fl-I'/N e - sk i I (!o {.(4
rYi tuitl ANd U-efiIJ 0V Iv^'1 leS-2-7 1)r; pfwooe! D/'. E.
/7};.,. bO. N IV e '1 ~A~ I vJ ~, '163<71 ;z.. 5} .f3t,. z. - t; ~ 3 S-
Q/l Rod IftJd JUdtf JoJ1lftJ,J~e,J ~ 77Kltu#- f>,/tJl-
i ;2-5"3 -e~2 -02.16 ;}eo2- /KtP~# ~/,lC/7" E#'5;/-- L~Je 7.i/~
1$3fr
Ct< a: /lu';I,(.t/""
Auburn City Council Chambers
Public Hearing of the Auburn Hearing Examiner
February 22, 2006
APPLICATION NO. PL TOS-0001, PUDOS-0001, REZOS-0001
Kersey III, Division I
The request of William and Debra Jones for approval of a preliminary plat, rezone
from R-1, Single Family Residential, to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District,
and PUD approval to subdivide 50.60 acres into 167 single family residential lots.
APPLICATION NO. PL TOS-0002, PUDOS-0002, REZOS-0002
Kersey III, Division II
The request of Elwood and Joyce Bolles for approval of a preliminary plat, rezone
from R-1, Single Family Residential, to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District,
and PUD approval to subdivide 38.40 acres into 201 single family residential lots. . <
/1;1/-; ( /
( ,-4
J- /' if ' \J\.l ,
Hearing Examiner: t"'"'?' "p{ J( t.Q
~ ~ /_J!;
I have concerns 0 r the consequences that large-scale development 9f~rsey III may
pose to the local ater supply. Many of the adjacent landowners; like our family; are
dependant upon well water to serve our needs.
As you may recall, during the summer of 2003, there were approximately 15 families
along 53rd Street SE; that had wells that went dry. My family was one of the families.
Therefore, we have a vested interest in understanding the process that the City will use
to determine the capacity of the local aquiferes), the extent of current usage of each
aquifer, the forecast for aquifer rate of recharge due to climate changes and any other
effects that development make cause to our water quantity and quality.
During the course of restoring our well, I learned much about the local hydrology. I saw
first hand, the concerns that local and county representatives had over sustainable
water supplies for our area. During the same summer and the summer of 2004, the City
issued notices in Lakeland Hills, requesting curtailed water usage. (See attached
letter.) Ultimately, water had to be diverted from Bonney Lake to meet local demands.
Responsible growth demands consideration of the adjacent property owners and
community. How will the City balance the needs of the proposed development with
long-term sustainable water for the existing local residents? Given, the water problems
of 2003 and 2004, the projected growth in Auburn, and overall demand for more water;
you can understand our concerns over such a fundamental resource, our water supply.
Thanks for the opportunity to address the Hearing Examiner.
Page 1 of~
tXf+IBi r 3/
APPLICATION NO. PLTOS-OOOl, PUDOS-OOOl, REZOS-OOOl -Kersey III, Division I
APPLICATION NO. PLTOS-0002, PUDOS-0002, REZOS-0002 -Kersey III, Division II
Sincerely;
p~L~
Bruce Koch
2815 53rd Street SE
Auburn, WA 98092
(253) 735-0537
mailto:bnikoch@foxinternet.com
Page 2 of 2
o\,?
?-"
7-"~
July 19, 2004
:1r 0-/
. t
~~
Re: Water Supply Concerns
Dear Lakeland Hills area Homeowner:
This letter comes to you with Auburn's sincere concern about the ground water supply for
Lake/and Hills water service area, Due to a dryer than normal spring and summer, the
aquifer levels for the two wells that supply your domestic needs are reaching low levels.
The larger of the two wells water level is in danger dropping the water level below its intake,
which could cause it to pump air, Although Auburn Water Division staff is keeping a very
close watch on these aquifer levels, the city may find itself requesting supplemental water
from the City of Bonney Lake again this year so that our aquifer may recover.
Auburn is asking that you to continue to be good stewards of our natural resources and
begin to practice voluntary water curtailment efforts. Activities such as minimizing your
lawn watering, car washing, recreational sprinklers, and the like will help the City stretch its
valuable resources. If you would like further information concerning water curtailment and
conservation, please call Bill Scheder, Water Resources Technician, at 253-288-3138.
Most of you will recall that we requested this same action of you late last summer. Your
efforts in curtailment last year minimized the amount of Bonney Lake water purchased by
the City. With your continued efforts this summer it is Auburn's hope not to have to
purchase Bonney Lake water this year.
Please also be aware that Auburn is in the process of equipping an additional well in the
Lakeland Hills water service area with pumping equipment that will increase the reliability of
supply to your homes. We hope to have this completed by June 15, 2005.
If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to call me. My office number is
253-876-1998. My office hours are 7 - 3:30, Monday through Friday,
Respectfully,
Ken Haines
Water Operations Supervisor
Department of Public Works
Irs
J
February 22, 2006
The purpose of a rezoning of this type is to change the population density allowed by the
current zoning set by the City of Auburn in 1986. And the only way to change the zoning
is to demonstrate factually, that a change of circumstances have occurred since the
original zoning was set. I have copied here, the exact wording and added comments for
this very critical aspect from the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations presented
by the Hearings Examiner Paul Krauss dated September 13, 2005:
"Conditions in the area have substantially changed and the rezone bears a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. "
"When considering a rezone, the Applicant has the burden of proof in
demonstrating that conditions have changed substantially since the original
zoning and the rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health,
safety, morals or general welfare." The applicants proposal must "demonstrate
a sufficient finding offacts to support" the assertion that a change has
occurred. The applicants have not presented any quantitative data to support
this assertion as indicated by this quote: "However, neither the Applicants nor
the City cites to specific quantitative data demonstrating the need for
additional housing of this type, the trend in Puget Sound towards small lot
development, or population growth for the City."
This has not changed since the original filing
Many of the basic qualities of the proposed site and the surrounding area are what make
the existing zoning the proper code. The site is not simply a two dimensional plot map
located directly adjacent to a high density housing project located on a Western facing
hill. It is located on the edge of a steep Eastern facing hill with dramatically different
characteristics. And that is what is so troubling about the proposed development; it
ignores the facts of the locale. The infrastructure, geography and geology have not
changed and they are the same as they were in 1986:
· The road system stretching from downtown Auburn via Auburn Wa S; R
Street; over the narrow bridge and up Kersey has not changed to
accommodate the excessive demand already placed on them. Adding more
traffic will only exacerbate an already overcrowded road system.
· Like all other Washington cities, the City of Auburn has had road taxes
taken away and cannot afford to provide basic maintenance on the existing
roads. A recently passed bond issue was needed to provide desperately
needed repairs.
· The school system is unprepared to absorb additional students without
adding new facilities.
· The fire protection system is unprepared for the growth.
· The police protection system is unprepared for the growth.
[XH-tBI r J2
· The City of Auburn is unsure as to what affect the water level in Lake
Tapps has on the city's water aquifers. As such, it is nearly impossible to
predict the affect of paving over and building houses on such a large tract
located below the Lake Tapps water table. Plus the added load on same
that this development will cause and the recent sale of water rights to the
Tapps reservoir present significant questions for future demand on the
aquifer.
· Several wells have gone dry in the past few years less than a mile from the
proposed development and no one is sure why.
· This year's heavy rains saturated the entire region East of Kersey and
flooded fields in the same area as the dry wells. Water was virtually
flooding across Kersey just below the property in question. Where did this
water come from and where did it go?
· It is impossible to predict the effect of the run off cause by the proposed
development on the White River Salmon run. That's because so little is
known about the geological infrastructure that lies below the surface of
this fragile area.
Not only have the applicants not shown that a change to the zoning code is justified, my
friends and neighbors have demonstrated no change to the zone should be made. There
are far too many unknowns and far too many negative aspects to warrant this change.
While growth should be a positive event, the ability to grow depends on an adequate
infrastructure and appropriate geology to support that growth. Public safety and general
welfare now and in the future must be the guiding factors..
R~ f)!J! iLi.
~.,,---.J4[lL~
Bill Anderson
4607 47th St SE, Auburn, WA 98092
(253) 887-7741
20
1995:38011-38030). Although population levels have not declined from historical
abundance levels, several risk factors may necessitate the listing of this species under the
federal ESA in the future, Risks to this population involve artificial propagation, high
harvest rates, habitat degradation, dramatic decline in adult size, and unfavorable ocean
conditions (Busby et al. 1996). Habitat degradation can occur because of activities such
as logging, agriculture, development, and dams that can cause high mortality from egg to
age-one smolt.
The distribution and abundance of Coho salmon is most likely influenced by water
temperature, stream size, flow, channel morphology, vegetation type and abundance, and
channel substrate size and quality. Coho salmon prefer to spawn and rear in stream
reaches with less than 4 to 5 percent gradient. Coho salmon generally return from the
ocean to spawn from early fall to late spring, spawn in mid-winter and then die.
Spawning occurs in substrates ranging from silt to large gravel of tributary streams
(Johnson et al. 1991). Coho eggs incubate from four to six weeks depending on water
temperature and hatched larvae generally remain within the gravel substrate for an
additional three to four weeks before emerging in early March to mid-May (Wydoski and
Whitney 1979). After emergence, Coho fry typically congregate in schools within pools,
while juveniles aggressively defend territory in riffle habitat. Juveniles generally rear in
natal streams for one to two years before migrating to the ocean (Wydoski and Whitney
1979).
Coho salmon have been documented in the White River and the lower reaches of
Bowman Creek upstream to the confluence of Bowman Creek with the unnamed tributary
0043, which flows from the western portion of the Kersey III project site (WDFW
2003a). Although undocumented, juvenile Coho salmon may migrate upstream within
Bowman Creek up to a 2.5-foot falls created by a small man-made dam within the creek
located just west of the intersection of Kersey Way with 53rd Street SE. In addition, fish
access to streams within the Kersey III project site from Bowman Creek is blocked by a
culvert beneath Kersey Way, as described above.
Other Priority Animal Species
The WDFW (1999) lists species as "Priority" for management and conservation other
than those legally designated as endangered, threatened, and sensitive (WAC 232-12-
011, -014). State designations include candidate, monitor, and game species. Several of
these species could be found on-site (Table B.1) and are discussed below.
State cand' tate candidate species are those fish and wildlife species that ''will be
vlewed by the WPFW (POL-M-6001 \ for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or
sensitive according to the process and criteria defined in W AC-232-12-297" (WDFW
1999). As noted above, pileated woodpecker foraging sign was evident on primarily
Douglas fir snags in the conifer stands east of the powerline and the mixed forest stands.
Kersey III -- Plants and Animals Assessment
Draft EIS Report
Raedeke Associates, Inc.
May I7, 2004
[x 1-1113/r 33
21
This species typically occupies large home ranges (one square mile or more) and may
forage a great distance from the nest. Large snags potentially suitable as nest sites
(greater than 16 inches dbh and relatively hard) were only widely scattered throughout
the site; most snags on-site were too small and more decayed than generally used by this
species for nesting. Larger snags (18 inches dbh) were observed in the conifer stands 71 :.5
within the mixed forest east of the powerline; however, no active pileated woodpecker 12 ~ I / . 5
nesting cavities were observed during recent or previous field surveys (DBM 2000b, J.S. b //,(J' I
Jones and Associates 2000). A pileated woodpecker nest was docwnented southeast of Jle-sli AJ.5
Bowman Lake, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. The nest was reported to 77J. . ,;c;j f
be active in years 1984, 1988 and 1989 (WDFW 2003a), J~ '/tJV. /' a.:"
IlJtp15ey 74--l- .
The Vaux's swift may forage aerially over portions of the project site, including over the ~~7
tree canopy and wetland habitats. Vaux's swifts are typically associated with old-growth / ~. ,.../
forests, where cavities for nesting in tall snags are more abundant (Lundquist and Mariani ~
1991, Manuwal 1991). Swifts were not detected on the Kersey III site and they would AI e5 f
not be expected to find suitable breeding sites on the project site. /IV
5VA(If4Jel' .
tIS!
5~
p)/~2-j&~
sc::e I
n#~d
J)~cv~1-
State monitor. The tailed frog, a State monitor species, was identified in the "riparian
areas" on the Kersey III site (DBM 2000b). No other information was given regarding
this observation. Tailed frogs typically inhabit rocky, fast-flowing cold, and permanent
streams from sea level to 5000 feet on both sides of the Cascades (Dvornich 1997). Eggs
are attached under rocks in streams and the tadpoles cling to rocks with suction-like
mouths. Tadpoles develop very slowly and may take 2 to 5 years to metamorphose
(Corkran 1996). The small seasonal tributaries on the Kersey III site and the downstream
off-site channel do not provide the necessary breeding habitat as described above for
tailed frogs. Additionally the range of the spotted frog is typically shown to occur further
east (Dvornich et al. 1997). Tailed frogs have not been identified in Bowman Creek or
in the White River (WDFW 2003a and 2003b). It is likely that the observation of a tailed
frog was a misidentification of a more common amphibian such as the chorus frog. No
amphibians were observed during our field surveys.
Great blue herons are of concern because they nest in colonies, and are vulnerable to nest
disturbance and failures. Great blue herons could use the large trees on-site for perching
and grassland and wetland habitats for foraging, however herons were not observed on
the property. The nearest known active nesting colony is located approximately 3 miles
west of the project site west of State Route 167, with another colony approximately 5
miles southeast ofthe project site along the White River,
Green herons are uncommon in wetlands in western Washington. A "probable" green
heron nest with young was identified approximately 2 miles northeast of the site on a
steep slope below Auburn Academy (WDFW 2003a). Green herons nest in trees, usually
near water (Smith 1997) and could nest in the deciduous forests on the Kersey III site.
Green herons were not observed during our 2003 field surveys.
Kersey III -- Plants and Animals Assessment
Draft EIS Report
Raedeke Associates, Inc.
May 17, 2004
C f>; rd ctJkJ~e{)
~~ DTffl"ie 2 ( E~S.~ e- Z-D]
Ykj~erS=~~I:f~j1 h~~~jJiF;:~ H~8~f.+ For
. 5'.~LCk_M 5'ho~ 5:. u fJ hJ h~ PeJ:>f/eu /tt~ .. . .
~"6(.J -r--J d. 'S +- ,q-,J Yu r /) t,.j 5' e.e. -S ~ r-s b ll" cf
j!Jif(bt~~~af:fJ!,]~11?q ;~~'1~rj~~T.F:=~--
. 3' loJl1AA. . 4) 2-/z-, o~
VJi+NeSS . 5iA--t-J BrD;,J ." $(;2-9243
172-2.3 2-~cL 3+ E 983r I
]0 N t-J c:. Y L-Ft- k e- lJ...)A- -
VJ tiN e-S S l<:=:} ('- k:- t1!\J d~ 50 J
171lrz "2..N d Sf,f.
t50 tV N c'1 L tI-1c-e- tJ..j.Pt. 1 f3.}q I
M~/l:.,e Bl.Ib~J - ~ I1-H Lee- B1'k~^/
MA-JU Ro, &,!u 17-C(3 srf!~ ~- ~t>,'io
II I /7c.rIL JI/-~ EIf)v?- ZJ3~8~2.- ~Z$7
B~., '-~ ~'18n'
@ f}I'Y 'I- Ul#tr<e-+ ~/e5
I /7?7f, I/~ EA-St- Bo~y j.,~ tv~~
<18391 (J{6'3-eQI- .~~J~)_
,'"'
A letter to the Hearing Examiner of Kersy ill
February 21,2006.
After all of the mud slides in the area this year, I am afraid of the environmental impact
study that has been written for this project. As I drove through the "S curves" on Kersy
Way,(during one of our rain storms this winter) where it goes under the power lines, the
water was coming across the road in sheets. I don't think there would be a road for long if
the builders were to "remove all existing vegetation" as the last sentence of the study
claims.
There are 4 slide areas and several springs that haven't been mentioned. Water floods
down these slopes and is collected by the trees and lush vegetation that is there, but where
will it go if the trees and "all existing vegetation" is eliminated.
Also, there are many wild animals and birds living in these woods, where will they go?
Do they receive a map to the " eleven relocated wetlands"?
Kersy Way is a very steep road, but very used...what are we going to do when it is
covered with mud?
Another thing is the amount of extra cars that will be using this road. I have experienced
the traffic going in and out of Orting each day. The cars are lined up from Orting to
Sumner starting early in the morning as people commute to work and lined up from
Sumner to Orting in the evening as these same people try to get home. But, the road is
level and for the most part straight; Kersy Way is not. There are no shoulders and even if
the builders add a couple of lanes two blocks north and south, what about the impact
these extra cars will have on the rest of the road? Can the builders make the roads around
the lake 4 lanes and also "R" St SE, so that the people living there can get out onto the
road from the side roads in less than 10 minutes?
Let's talk schools...the builders are willing to give $800,000 for the schools, but the
schools need ten million to go ahead with the need for the existing students, who takes
care of the rest?
I really think the building has gotten ahead of common sense. We need to take all aspects
of the impact this development on the entire Auburn area,
I invite you to come on out and we will walk: the land together. I think that will tell you
all you really need to know.
In all sinceri ,
b~
/11~; y1~
Gary mid Margaret Staples
5 - /7 b..d- At! e.. Ec:zsf
J-ic~fS/ wA - Qcg39/
cxl-tlb/ T 3 ~
':)~V'e. fi lcV\<'V'
iii
JOHNSMoNROEMITSUN~9~
d Robert D. Johns *- d Michael P. Monroe *- d Darrell S. Mitsunaga *- d Duana T. Kolouskova ,~
Mr. James Driscoll
Auburn Hearing Examiner
25 West Main
Auburn, WA 98001
March 3, 2006
Re: Kersey III, Divisions 1 and 2
The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments contained in letters submitted into
evidence during the public hearing on the applications for the Kersey III, Divisions 1 and
2 projects which occurred on February 22, 2006.
Before addressing specific factual allegations in some of the letters, a brief summary of
several applicable legal points is necessary:
Parkridgedoctrine: Two of the comment letters raise objections to the Kersey III
applications based on the decision in Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359
(1978). The essence ofthe rule in the Parkridge case is that an applicant for a rezone
must demonstrate that a change in circumstances justifying a rezone has occurred since
the existing zoning was imposed. h1 this case, the subject property was zoned R-l since
at least 1987 (Staff report, p, 8). There are two significant planning decisions which
affect the subject property and constitute the changed circumstances required by
Parkridge:
First, the Growth Management Act was passed after R -1 zoning was applied to the
Kersey III property, The GMA requires that property located within a city be classified
as urban and that such property must be developed at a density of at least four dwelling
units per acre. Bremerton, et aI., v, Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0039c,
This fact alone not only supports a rezone to a density consistent with GMA standards,
but requires that a rezone occur,
Second, in 1995, in order to comply with the aforementioned GMA requirements,
Auburn adopted its updated Comprehensive Plan, designating the subject property as
Single Family Residential (4 - 6 dwelling units per acre). This fact is also a change
circumstance supporting approval of the proposed rezone, which would bring the zoning
for the Kersey III property into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Parkridge standard has been satisfied and approval of the proposed rezone is
consistent with that decision.
EXH\BIT 2e:
T: (425) 451-2812. F: (425) 451-2818
Cypress Building
1500 114th Ave, SE . Suite 102 . Bellevue. WA 98004
Mr. James Driscoll, Hearing Examiner
March 3, 2006
Page 2
EIS Adequacy Issues: Several of the comment letters, including the letter from the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and several letters regarding wildlife signed by a group of
people led by Mike Bykonen, raise challenges to the adequacy of the EIS for Kersey III.
The Final EIS for the Kersey III project was issued on February 11,2005, No appeal of
the adequacy ofthe EIS was filed within the time limit specified by AMC 16.06.230. As
a result, no challenges to the adequacy of the EIS are permitted.
Nexus and Rough Proportionality: A number of the comment letters ask that
conditions be imposed or that the application be denied based on existing problems of
one sort or another in the City of Auburn. Although the Examiner is aware ofthis, it
bears repeating that the applicants' obligation to cure existing problems and/or contribute
to solutions to those problems is limited by the principles of nexus and rough
proportionality.
Both principles were first enunciated by the United States Supreme Court, The first
principle, referred to as the "nexus" rule, provides that a permit condition can only be
imposed if it is necessary to mitigate an adverse impact of a project. Conversely, a
proposed condition is not permissible if it does not mitigate a harm caused by the
development. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U,S. 825 (1987),
The second basic principle is that there must be "rough proportionality" between the
impact of the new development and the extent of the mitigation required. This rule was
announced in Dolan v, City ofTigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994
The two concepts of nexus and rough proportionality have now been incorporated into
the law in Washington through both Court decisions and the Growth Management Act
amendments to RCW Ch. 82.02. The decision in Unlimited v. Kitsap County, 50
Wn. App. 723 (1988) adopted the nexus requirement and Sparks v. Douglas County, 127
Wn.2d 901 (1995) adopted the rough proportionality test. Both rules have been applied
innumerous cases since then.
The Growth Management Act amendments to RCW 82.02,020, authorize local
governments to impose permit conditions on development, including requirements for
impact fees and dedication of property, provided these conditions "shall be imposed only
for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development," RCW
82.02.050(3)(a), and "shall not exceed a proportionate share ofthe cost of system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development." RCW
82.02,050(3)(b), These two statutory provisions legislatively adopt the nexus and rough
proportionality principles.
JOHNS~ONROF~ITSUNAGA
PLLC
ML James Driscoll, Hearing Examiner
March 3, 2006
Page 3
The bottom line is that the Kersey III project may be required to participate in solutions
to regional problems if the project will either cause a problem or aggravate an existing
problem and that the extent of mitigation that can be required is that the applicants pay
their "fair share" ofthe cost. The application ofthese rules to specific situations is
discussed below.
Traffic Issues: Several traffic issues were raised. The applicants' responses are as
follows:
· Traffic volumes: Several of the comment letters assert that traffic volumes on
Kersey Way and 53rd are currently unacceptable and predicted that future volumes
at this intersection would exceed the capacity ofthe intersection. As indicated in
the FEIS, Appendix F, Section 2.3, existing traffic volumes were not measured
because the extension of Evergreen Way and a number of unrelated capital
improvement projects in Auburn will "significantly change traffic patterns in the
area." As a result, there is no way to determine whether the current unsignalized
intersection meets City standards. However, the City's traffic consultant, TSI, did
analyze the intersection using projected future traffic at the intersection, plus
traffic from 481 homes in Kersey III (which is significantly more than the total
number of homes now planned). Their report (FEIS Appendix F, Table 7)
indicates that the Kersey Way/53rd/Evergreen Way intersection will operate at
LOS B at full buildout of Kersey III, well within the range of acceptable levels of
servIce.
· The TSI report also concludes that only two intersections would be expected to
suffer a decline in level of service to unacceptable levels ifthe Kersey III project
is developed with 481 units - the intersection of Kersey Way/53rd/Evergreen Way
and the intersection of Evergreen Way/Lakeland Hills Way. In both cases, the
TSI report indicates that the appropriate mitigation is signalization. The Kersey
III applicants will be required to pay 100% of the cost of reconstructing and
signalizing the intersection of Kersey Way153rd/Evergreen Way per staff-
recommended Conditions 11, 12 and 13, and will be required to pay 100% of the
cost of a roundabout or a signal at Evergreen Way/Lakeland Hills Way per
Condition 14..
· Fassbind driveway: Mrs. Fassbind's comment letter repeats her testimony that the
tentative layout for reconfiguration of the Kersey Way/53rd/Evergreen Way
intersection will not allow adequate access to her home given the fact that she
drives a large vehicle and tows a trailer. As the project engineer, Rob Armstrong,
testified in rebuttal, the proposed layout for the intersection is still tentative and
J OHNSMoNROI.:MITSUNAGA
PLLC
Mr. James Driscoll, Hearing Examiner
March 3, 2006
Page 4
subject to final engineering design which will include consultation between the
City of Auburn staff, the applicants' engineers and the Fassbinds. As Mr.
Armstrong indicated, there are potential solutions to her problem, including the
use of two driveways. This issue should and will be addressed during the City's
review of final engineering plans for the intersection.
· Unsafe Driving Conditions on Kersey Way: Several comment letters raised
concerns that Kersey Way is unsafe when ice and snow conditions exist. Several
also raised a concern that Kersey Way is the only access route into and out of the
, neighborhood southeast of the Kersey Way/53rd/Evergreen Way intersection.
Approval ofthe Kersey III project will allow extension of Evergreen Way to
Kersey, creating a second access route which will be available during ice and
snow conditions or other emergencies which adversely impact Kersey Way. On
this issue, the Kersey III project is part of the solution, not part of the problem.
As Mr. Armstrong testified, this is the reason that extension of Evergreen Way is
part of the City's Transportation Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of the
fact that if Kersey III is constructed, the extension will be constructed at the
expense of the applicants instead of Auburn taxpayers.
· Off-site Road Improvements: Several letters raise concerns about hazards to
pedestrians and bicycle riders on Kersey Way. A few of the letters appear to be
unaware that the applicants for the Kersey III project will be installing a ten foot
wide walkway/bike lane along the site frontage on Kersey Way (Condition 26).
Other comment letters were concerned that these improvements were not being
extended to the north to the point where an existing sidewalk exists. This is a
situation in which the rough proportionality rules clearly apply. The Kersey III
applicants are paying their "fair share" by improving their frontage to address an
existing problem. It should be noted that requiring the applicants for the Kersey
III project to only build their fair share of the ultimate improvements to Kersey
Way does not mean the existing problem north and west will not be addressed.
There is already one additional pending application located on Kersey Way which
will be providing another segment of this improvement (Lakeland Hills Estates)
and we have been advised by the City staff that another property owner (Litowitz)
who would construct another segment of this improvement north of and adjacent
to Lakeland Hills Estates is expected to submit a plat application shortly. As each
of these properties is developed, the pedestrianlbike lane for Kersey Way will be
constructed in a manner consistent with the rough proportionality rule.
JOHNSMoNROFMrrSUNAGA
PLLC
Mr. James Driscoll, Hearing Examiner
March 3, 2006
Page 5
Water Quality and Flooding Issues: Again, several issues were raised:
· Retention - Detention Pond in Kersey Way ROW: Mrs. Fassbind's letter asserts
that there is an existing stormwater pond in the Kersey Way right-of-way that
currently overflows from time to time and she is concerned that the flooding will
get worse if the Kersey III project is approved. This problem is already addressed
by the last sentence of Condition no. 20 proposed by the staff and accepted by the
applicants. That condition requires that the applicants' stormwater system
mitigate "the existing on-site drainage deficiencies in the vicinity of Kersey Way
near 53rd Street SE."
· Bowman Creek Water Quality: Several of the comment letters raised concerns
about water quality and/or salmon habitat in Bowman Creek, indicating that the
Creek once contained salmon habitat but that the Creek presently does not have
salmon in it. Application of the nexus rule in this situation would indicate that
the Kersey III project has not caused this problem since the salmon have already
disappeared. However, it is also reasonable to require that the Kersey III project
not do anything that would prevent the restoration of water quality and the return
of salmon to the Creek if the existing problems can be otherwise solved, With
this in mind, the conditions of approval require requires that the applicants resolve
an existing erosion problem at the outlet of the culvert in the Creek under Kersey
Way. (Condition 19). Technically, this requirement may not meet the nexus
requirement, but the applicants have agreed to provide this improvement in any
case. In addition, as the City staff testified during rebuttal, the applicants is being
required to provide both temporary erosion and sedimentation controls during
construction and permanent water quality treatment in accordance with the City's
adopted Stormwater Control Manual as required by Condition 20. These
requirements should adequately address any concern that the Kersey III project
may contribute to deterioration of Bowman Creek.
Utility Capacity Issues: Two comment letters raised questions about the capacity of the
City's water and sewer systems. These issues were addressed by City staff during the
rebuttal testimony when they testified that both water and sewer systems would have the
capacity to adequately serve the Kersey III project, partly as a result of recent
improvements installed by the City and partly as the result of improvements that the
applicants will be installing.
Transition Issue: One comment letter suggested that the lot size be reduced to one unit
per acre in order to provide a better transition to adjoining property east ofthe site which
is in the rural area. This suggestion is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan
J OHNSMoNROFMITSUNAGA
PLLC
Mr. James Driscoll, Hearing Examiner
March 3,2006
Page 6
designation that this site is to be developed at 4 to 6 units per acre and should be rejected
on that basis alone. It should also be noted that the site does meet, as Mr. Ferko testified,
all applicable City requirements for transitions between zones of different densities. No
additional transition requirements should be imposed. Also, Mr. Armstrong testified that
the Kersey III project provides 200 to 600 feet of open space between the lots and Kersey
Way. As the result of the topography, retained forest and new plantings, the lots will be
adequately screened from the rural area on 53rd.
Schools: Several comment letters raised questions about school capacity. The DEIS,
pp. 118-122, indicates that there is sufficient current capacity for elementary and middle
school children from the site and that an existing shortfall in high school capacity will be
addressed by the opening of a third high school (which has since occurred). In addition,
at the Examiner's request, Mr. Michael Newman of the Auburn School District submitted
the attached letter dated March 6, 2006, which indicates that the District has adequate
capacity to meet its needs. He also prepared the attached letter dated August 11,2005,
confirming that students residing in Kersey III will be bussed to school.
It should also be noted that the applicants will pay school mitigation fees of
approximately $4500 per unit or $1,656,000. This constitutes a major contribution
toward the future needs ofthe school district. ,
Lot Coverage: The final issue that needs to be addressed once again is the applicants'
request for an increase in lot coverage from 40% to 45%. There are several relevant facts
that need to be reiterated. First, the increase is needed to allow the flexibility in home
design that the City requires as part ofthe PUD guidelines, A small increase in lot
coverage will help prevent the "cookie cutter" look created by requirements that all
homes fit a similar footprint. Second, it is important to bear in mind that this PUD is
using smaller lot sizes in order to provide a substantially larger amount of open space and
recreational space than is normally required. As a result, although the amount oflot
coverage on any individual lot would be slightly higher if the extra 5% is allowed, the
total amount of area covered by structures will actually be less than would be permitted if
the lots were larger and the open space and recreational space reduced to the minimums
required by the City Code. Third, the applicants acknowledges that at the first hearing a
request for an increase to 50% was submitted and denied after the Examiner agreed with
the City staff that this request was not warranted, It is the applicants' understanding that
the City staff now supports the request for an increase to 45% lot coverage. (This should
be confirmed with Mr. Pilcher.)
J OHNSMONROI<:MITSUNAGA
PLLC
Mr. James Driscoll, Hearing Examiner
March 3, 2006
Page 7
In conclusion, the applicants request that the Kersey III applications be approved,
including an increase in allowable lot coverage to 45% and subject to the conditions
recommended in the revised staff report.
Thank you for your consideration of this information.
Very truly yours,
enc: Auburn School District letter, March 2, 2006
Auburn School District letter, August II, 2005
cc: Steve Pilcher, Auburn Dept. of Planning, Building and Community
Rob Armstrong, Barghausen Engineers
Chris Ferko, Barghausen Engineers
Wayne Jones, Lakeridge Development
Roger Nix
Tom Young, JR Hayes & Sons, Inc,
1220-3/tr to Examiner Driscoll 030306
Direct Tel: (425) 467-9960
Email: johns@jmmlaw.com
JOHNS MONROFMrrSUNAGA
PLLC
, ,
., ,.
. .
"
'"
"
"
\
:,"
I'
"
, .
" ,
" '
t,
I" .
"
"
;. .<< I
: ,
~ . .
, '
, ,
,
, ,
, ,
,
IS'
"
:
) , ,
" ,
, "
'. ,
,
I
., . ~.
. '
"
.
. ; :
MAR-02-2006 THU 02:56 PM 912535725167
FAX NO. 253 804 4502
P. 01
FILE COpy
~.....-"'t-..........
AIJHIJRN SCHOOL Il/HTkIGT
-,a ".0-..... ....__.__...__.~...... _......_...__"'...__..."'.....
,
^ VENUn TO _EXC"BLJ.P,~CF.
I Milrl.:h 2i 2006
SttlVO r-Hellcr
City of Auhurn
25 WC::':It. Mnin S~rc('t
Allhurn. Wu~llingt()n 9&001
}knr Mr. Pikh~r:
Thi.~ Jeltcr is 10 provide comment on the Kersey HI project as it relates to the capacity of
schou I::.: in tho Auburn School District. J was contacted by Mr. Chris Ferko of
Bm'gl\o1us&:1l COllsulling HngiilCCl'R with (he requesnhat I provide you with capacity
in flWln.tvtion,
. .,
. OV~~r the pnst tJll\.."'t1 YCt'U$ the ~itjzcns of/bo Auburn School District passed two bond
issu~p one (I) Ct}fl!;Iruct Ii new high school and tIle second to consfruct two new
~'I('l~lcnl~ry scl~l(~JH. With this support. the district opened Auburn Mountainvicw IJ1gh
Hd){lOllhj~ pn~t fitlJ. providing capacity into the future to accommodate growth nt the
hir,h ~ch(wl h.-vel and the construction of two new olemcntmy schools will provide
ndc.JitiClual c:.1p.'lcityat the elementary level. Lakcland Hills Rlemcntclry School is under
(:ullsfrucliol\ MId i~ plmlJled If) open the fall of2006; and EJemonlary fl.l4~ located 011
LI..'a Ilill1 i~ rbnnL'd to open the fall of2007.
,'~1to district ClIITCH1ly 11:1') cllpodty at the ~iddle school Icvelt though enrollment
Ilrc.ti..:clif.)()~ show the neod filr an additional middle Bel100l in the near future. The school
cJistrict hw~ all jmlUediate need (I) acquire (1 middle school silo and is actively pursuing
fhit-;. OJ'lC~~ ~I lillifubtc site is ClC<luired. then process will begin for the planning of a new
mjddI\J sclu,mJ. A voter npvrovcc1 bond issllo will he required to build the school.
Plcusc <:ontnct m<.l jfYOlI have quemions at 253w9314930
Copy to:
I Jnd;l Cownn. NupLWinknuc.nL
Chris llur!l.o. D-ufJ.~hucsson Cllnsulling Engjnccr~
EXHIBIT ;3bA-
~ 15 FllIJrlh l-l/l'tl~t Nl1; Aubun'l, WA 98002-4152
(253) 931-4930