The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRobertson Properties Draft EIS Feb 2004 To: Recipients of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Attached is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. This EIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department. It has been prepared in response to the request of Robertson Properties Group (RPG), owner of the Valley Six Drive-in Theater and adjacent properties, to redevelop their property with retail, office, and/or multifamily residential uses. The current zoning for much and the site is located within a larger area the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the City is preparing a special area plan to establish comprehensive plan designations and zoning for the RPG property, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. An environmental impact statement is being prepared for the proposal to give decision makers and the public information on the environmental consequences of the proposal. The EIS is one source of information that will be used in making a decision on the proposal. Other relevant information will include policies from the Comprehensive Plan, which guides land use decisions in the City and public input. The major issues that were identified in the scoping process for this environmental impact statement include impacts on earth /geology, air, water, plants & animals, environmental health, land use, cultural & historic resources, transportation, and public services/utilities. The Draft EIS provides an analysis of potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures for each of these environmental issues. This Draft EIS is being circulated to agencies and the public to invite comment to ensure that the EIS accurately and completely describes the environmental consequences of the proposal. Written public comments on the DEIS will be accepted for a 30-day review period starting on Tuesday , February 3, 2004 and ending at 5:00 pm on Thursday, March 4, 2004. Written comments should be addressed to Paul Krauss, Director, City of Auburn, Department of Planning and Community Development, 25 West Main Street, Auburn WA 98001-4998. A public meeting has been scheduled to accept both written and oral comments on the DEIS. No decision on this application will be made at this meeting. The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 7:00 at the City of Auburn Council Chambers, 25 West Main Street. Following the public comment period, the City will prepare and issue a Final environmental impact statement that will include responses to comments received and may include revised analysis, if warranted. If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner at (253) 804- 5033. Note: Some pages in this document have been purposefully skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Auburn, Washington Prepared for City of Auburn 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206/441-9080 February 3, 2004 Fact Sheet Fact Sheet Project Title Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan File Number SEP02-0008 Nature and Location of Proposal The planning area for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is located th east of Auburn Way North, west of the existing I Street NE right-of-way, south of South 277 th Street, and north of 45 Street NE. The planning area consists of approximately 90 acres and encompasses several parcels, including the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater and adjacent parcels owned or proposed for acquisition by the Robertson Properties Group (RPG). The proposed plan would affect land use and development by establishing new comprehensive plan designations and zoning within the planning area and by establishing standards for development, including transportation, drainage, and site design. RPG proposes to redevelop its property with a mix of retail, office, and/or multifamily residential uses. The RPG property consists of approximately 60 acres within the planning area; in this environmental impact statement (EIS), this property is referred to as the Auburn Gateway project area. The Auburn Gateway project is evaluated in Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21C.031. Implementation of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan and Auburn Gateway project would involve the development of new roads and utilities, surface parking, and stormwater detention facilities. The existing drive-in theater and other structures on the RPG property would be demolished. The proposed access to the Auburn Gateway project area is from th Street, and an extension the existing roadways of Auburn Way North, D Street NE, South 277 th of I Street NE that would reach South 277 Street. The project would be constructed in phases over approximately 10 years. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS i Special Area Plan Fact Sheet Proponent Robertson Properties Group Contact: Michael Dee, Director of Development 120 North Robertson Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90048-3102 Phone: 310-855-8324 Responsible Official and Lead Agency City of Auburn Paul Krauss, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn, Washington 98001-4998 Phone: 253-931-3090 Contact: Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner Required Permits and Approvals City approvals associated with the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan: Comprehensive plan amendment: policies, map, and subarea plan adoption Zoning text and map amendment Planned action ordinance (for the Auburn Gateway project area) Design guidelines Right-of-way acquisition. City approvals that might be required for development: Street dedication Street or utility line easement vacation Facility extension agreements Right-of-way use permits Lot boundary adjustment and/or subdivision Planned unit development Demolition permit Clearing and grading permit Building permit Shoreline permit Flood zone control permit Deviation from City standards. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan ii Draft EIS Fact Sheet Other agency approvals: State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Washington Department of Ecology) Federal Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map amendment Section 404 permit (Clean Water Act) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Section 401 permit (Clean Water Act) (Washington Department of Ecology) Endangered Species Act compliance (administered by issuing agency if federal permits are required). Authors of the Environmental Impact Statement Herrera Environmental Consultants Document production Geology, soils, and seismic conditions Water resources Plants and animals Hazardous materials Land use Recreation Utilities and public services Heffron Transportation Transportation MFG, Inc. Air quality Noise wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS iii Special Area Plan Fact Sheet Streeter and Associates Architects Aesthetics Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Cultural and historic resources Issue Date of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement February 3, 2004 Due Date for Comments March 4, 2004 Public Meeting A public information meeting will be held on February 12, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. at the City of Auburn Council Chambers at Auburn City Hall, located at 25 West Main Street in Auburn, Washington. During this meeting, the public will have the opportunity to provide comments on the draft EIS. Date of Implementation Adoption of comprehensive plan amendments, the special area plan, zoning code amendment, and planned action ordinance is expected after spring 2004, followed by a review of other permits and approvals for development. Construction is expected to begin in 2004 and continue over approximately 10 years. Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement The draft EIS is available for public review in the Planning and Community Development Department at Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, during regular business hours. Copies are also available for public review at the Auburn Public Library, located at 1102 Auburn Way South in Auburn, and at the Kent Regional Library, located at 212 Second Avenue North in Kent. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan iv Draft EIS Fact Sheet Copies of the draft EIS may be purchased from the City of Auburn Planning and Community Development Department for $31 (printed copy) and $4.50 as a compact disk (.pdf format). Subsequent Environmental Review Subsequent environmental review is not anticipated for most actions covered under the planned action described in this EIS since a planned action ordinance is expected to be adopted. Additional environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act will be required for any action exceeding the thresholds analyzed for the planned action. In addition, any action involving the filling of wetlands may require approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and may require additional environmental review. It is also anticipated that detailed geotechnical analysis will be necessary before any grading permits can be approved and that more specific studies of hazardous materials may be required to obtain approvals for the removal of structures and grading in some portions of the project area. Background Studies and Available Data Background studies and data used for the preparation of this EIS are listed in Part 5 of this EIS, urces report and the data sheets for the transportation study prepared specifically for this EIS are available in the Planning and Community Development Department at Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, during regular business hours. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS v Special Area Plan Contents Fact Sheet.........................................................................................................................................i Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 Relation of Special Area Plan and this EIS..............................................................................4 Public Participation and Special Area Plan Adoption Process.................................................4 Summary of Alternatives Evaluated................................................................................................7 Alternative 1: Retail and Office................................................................................................9 Alternative 2: Retail..................................................................................................................9 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential........................................................................................9 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative...................................................................................9 Summary of Impacts......................................................................................................................11 Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions.................................................................................11 Water Resources.....................................................................................................................11 Air Quality..............................................................................................................................12 Noise.......................................................................................................................................13 Plants and Animals.................................................................................................................15 Hazardous Materials...............................................................................................................15 Cultural and Historic Resources.............................................................................................16 Land Use.................................................................................................................................16 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................17 Recreation...............................................................................................................................19 Public Services and Utilities...................................................................................................19 Transportation.........................................................................................................................20 Major Conclusions and Unresolved Issues....................................................................................27 Traffic Circulation..................................................................................................................27 Floodplain...............................................................................................................................27 Stormwater Management........................................................................................................28 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources................................................................29 History and Background of the Proposed Action..........................................................................31 .........35 Parcel Size..............................................................................................................................36 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS vii Special Area Plan Buildings.................................................................................................................................36 Transportation Infrastructure..................................................................................................36 Parking....................................................................................................................................37 Landscaping............................................................................................................................37 Signage...................................................................................................................................38 Alternatives Evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement...................................................39 Alternative 1: Retail and Office..............................................................................................39 Buildings.......................................................................................................................39 Transportation Infrastructure and Site Access..............................................................40 Parking..........................................................................................................................40 Pedestrian Improvements..............................................................................................40 Stormwater and Flood Management.............................................................................40 Phasing of Construction................................................................................................43 Alternative 2: Retail................................................................................................................43 Buildings.......................................................................................................................43 Parking..........................................................................................................................43 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential......................................................................................44 Buildings.......................................................................................................................44 Parking..........................................................................................................................44 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative.................................................................................44 Buildings.......................................................................................................................44 Transportation Infrastructure........................................................................................50 Parking Facilities...........................................................................................................50 Stormwater and Floodplain Management.....................................................................50 Vehicle Access Options..........................................................................................................50 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives..........................................................53 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delayed Implementation..............................................................63 Benefits...................................................................................................................................63 Disadvantages.........................................................................................................................63 pacts, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions........................................................................................65 Applicable Laws and Regulations..........................................................................................65 Affected Environment............................................................................................................65 Project Location and Topography.................................................................................65 Geology and Soils.........................................................................................................66 Steep Slope and Landslide Hazard Areas.....................................................................66 Seismic Conditions.......................................................................................................67 Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................................68 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives................................................................68 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative........................................................................68 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan viii Draft EIS Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................69 Mitigation Measures...............................................................................................................69 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................69 Water Resources............................................................................................................................71 Applicable Laws and Regulations..........................................................................................71 Affected Environment............................................................................................................72 Surface Water................................................................................................................72 Ground Water................................................................................................................78 Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................................79 Short-Term Construction Impacts.................................................................................79 Long-Term Operational Impacts...................................................................................80 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................90 Mitigation Measures...............................................................................................................90 Mitigation Measures for Short-Term Construction Impacts.........................................90 Mitigation Measures for Long-Term Operational Impacts...........................................91 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................94 Air Quality.....................................................................................................................................95 Applicable Laws and Regulations..........................................................................................95 Affected Environment............................................................................................................95 Carbon Monoxide.........................................................................................................96 Ozone............................................................................................................................98 Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM)..............................................................................98 10 Fine Particulate Matter (PM).....................................................................................99 2.5 Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................................99 Short-Term Construction Impacts Common to All Alternatives..................................99 Long-Term Operational Impacts Common to All Alternatives..................................100 Alternative 1: Retail and Office..................................................................................102 Alternative 2: Retail....................................................................................................102 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential..........................................................................103 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative......................................................................103 Conformity with State Implementation Plan..............................................................103 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................104 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................105 Mitigation Measures for Short-Term Construction Impacts.......................................105 Mitigation Measures for Long-Term Operational Impacts.........................................106 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................106 Noise............................................................................................................................................107 Applicable Laws and Regulations........................................................................................107 Noise Terminology.....................................................................................................107 Auburn City Code.......................................................................................................108 Washington State Noise Limits...................................................................................109 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS ix Special Area Plan Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation Noise Criteria..............................................................................110 Affected Environment..........................................................................................................110 Existing Noise Levels.................................................................................................110 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................113 Short-Term Construction Impacts Common to All Alternatives................................113 Long-Term Operational Impacts Common to All Alternatives..................................114 Offsite Traffic Noise...................................................................................................115 Alternative 1: Retail and Office..................................................................................116 Alternative 2: Retail....................................................................................................119 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential..........................................................................120 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative......................................................................121 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................121 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................121 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................122 Plants and Animals......................................................................................................................125 Applicable Laws and Regulations........................................................................................125 Affected Environment..........................................................................................................127 Plant Communities......................................................................................................127 Wildlife Species and Habitat.......................................................................................132 Threatened and Endangered Species...........................................................................133 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................137 Alternative 1: Retail and Office..................................................................................137 Alternative 2: Retail....................................................................................................141 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential..........................................................................141 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative......................................................................141 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................142 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................142 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................145 Hazardous Materials....................................................................................................................147 Applicable Laws and Regulations........................................................................................147 Affected Environment..........................................................................................................148 Hazardous Materials Site Categories..........................................................................148 Methodology...............................................................................................................149 Historical Site Development.......................................................................................149 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................152 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives..............................................................153 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative......................................................................154 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................155 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................155 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................156 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan x Draft EIS Cultural and Historic Resources..................................................................................................157 Applicable Laws and Regulations........................................................................................157 Affected Environment..........................................................................................................157 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................160 Alternative 1: Retail and Office..................................................................................160 Alternative 2: Retail....................................................................................................162 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential..........................................................................162 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative......................................................................162 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................162 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................163 Land Use......................................................................................................................................165 Applicable Policies and Regulations....................................................................................165 City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan..........................................................................165 City of Auburn Zoning Code......................................................................................166 Zoning in the Vicinity of the Auburn Gateway Project Area.....................................166 Affected Environment..........................................................................................................169 Existing Land Uses within the Auburn Gateway Project Area...................................169 Existing Land Uses within the Planning Area............................................................170 Adjacent Land Uses and Neighborhoods....................................................................170 Planned or Expected Land Uses in the Planning Area and Vicinity...........................170 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................171 Alternative 1: Retail and Office..................................................................................171 Alternative 2: Retail....................................................................................................172 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential..........................................................................173 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative......................................................................174 Anticipated Development in the Planning Area..........................................................174 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................175 Relationship between the Proposed Development and Land Use Policies and Plans.....................................................................................................................175 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................184 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................184 Recreation....................................................................................................................................185 Applicable Policies and Regulations....................................................................................185 Affected Environment..........................................................................................................185 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................186 Alternative 1: Retail and Office.................................................................................186 Alternative 2: Retail...................................................................................................187 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential.........................................................................187 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative......................................................................188 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................189 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................189 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................190 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS xi Special Area Plan Aesthetics.....................................................................................................................................191 Applicable Laws and Regulations........................................................................................191 Affected Environment..........................................................................................................191 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................193 Alternative 1: Retail and Office.................................................................................193 Alternative 2: Retail...................................................................................................198 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential.........................................................................199 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative......................................................................200 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................201 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................201 Summary of Proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines......................................201 Additional Mitigation Measures.................................................................................204 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................205 Utilities and Public Services........................................................................................................207 Applicable Laws and Regulations........................................................................................207 Affected Environment..........................................................................................................207 Sanitary Sewer............................................................................................................207 Domestic Water Supply..............................................................................................208 Solid Waste.................................................................................................................208 Electricity and Natural Gas.........................................................................................209 Fire and Emergency Medical Services........................................................................209 Law Enforcement........................................................................................................209 Schools........................................................................................................................210 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................210 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives..............................................................210 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative......................................................................212 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................213 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................213 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................214 Transportation..............................................................................................................................215 Affected Environment..........................................................................................................215 Transportation Network..............................................................................................215 Traffic Volumes..........................................................................................................219 Existing Traffic Generated Within the Auburn Gateway Project Area......................220 Level of Service..........................................................................................................220 Traffic Safety..............................................................................................................225 Transit.........................................................................................................................227 Nonmotorized Facilities..............................................................................................228 Environmental Impacts.........................................................................................................228 Potential Land Uses....................................................................................................228 Trip Generation...........................................................................................................229 Trip Generation for the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative...............................232 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan xii Draft EIS Trip Distribution.........................................................................................................232 Trip Assignments........................................................................................................238 Level of Service..........................................................................................................238 Vehicle Access to and Circulation within the Auburn Gateway Project Area...........245 Traffic Safety..............................................................................................................253 Transit.........................................................................................................................253 Nonmotorized Facilities..............................................................................................254 Concurrency Evaluation..............................................................................................254 Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................................255 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................257 Transportation Improvements in Immediate Site Vicinity..........................................257 Offsite Transportation Improvements.........................................................................259 Transportation Demand Management.........................................................................259 Traffic Impact Fee.......................................................................................................260 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...........................................................................260 Agency Consultation....................................................................................................................261 References....................................................................................................................................263 Distribution List...........................................................................................................................275 Appendix A Proposed Allowable Uses for the Auburn Gateway Project Area Appendix B Proposed Construction Phasing for the Auburn Gateway Project Appendix C Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Auburn Gateway Project Appendix D Method Used for Air Quality Analysis Appendix E Plant and Animal Species List Appendix F Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources Appendix G Level of Service Definitions Appendix H Internal Capture Rates Appendix I Trip Distribution Patterns Appendix J Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the Scope of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Environmental Impact Statement wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS xiii Special Area Plan Tables Table 1. Features of alternatives for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan...........................................................................................................8 Table 2. Estimated change in population, employment, and housing under each alternative evaluated for the Auburn Gateway project area.........................................16 Table 3. Maximum area and height of build-out for each type of use.......................................35 Table 4. Comparison of impacts due to the alternatives............................................................54 Table 5 Comparison of impacts due to the primary vehicle access options.............................61 Table 6. Ambient air quality standards......................................................................................96 Table 7. Calculated maximum PM peak-hour carbon monoxide concentrations (ppm).........102 Table 8. Common sound levels and sources and subjective human responses........................108 Table 9. Washington state maximum permissible noise levels...............................................109 Table 10. Measured existing sound levels.................................................................................112 Table 11. Noise from typical construction equipment...............................................................114 Table 12. Estimated changes in sound levels at potentially affected locations under each action alternative with various vehicle access options..............................................117 Table 13. Species of concern that exist within King County and presence of habitat for each species within the planning area........................................................................135 Table 14. Endangered and threatened species potentially in the vicinity of the planning area.............................................................................................................................137 Table 15. Summary of property tax parcels in the Auburn Gateway project area.....................149 Table 16. Development standards for city zoning districts in the planning area and vicinity.......................................................................................................................168 Table 17 Summary of existing park land and recommended park land standards...................186 Table 18. Estimated domestic water consumption and wastewater production for the Auburn Gateway project area....................................................................................210 Table 19. Roadway conditions...................................................................................................216 Table 20. Planned transportation improvements........................................................................218 Table 21. PM peak-hour levels of servic of planned improvements...........................................................................................223 Table 22. PM peak-hour levels of service for intersections in Auburn under year 2020 conditions with programmed improvements.............................................................224 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan xiv Draft EIS Table 23. PM peak-hour levels of service for intersections outside Auburn under year 2020 conditions with planned improvements............................................................225 Table 25. Trip generation rates for various retail uses...............................................................230 Table 26. Assumed retail trip characteristics.............................................................................231 Table 27. Internal capture summary..........................................................................................232 rnal trips and trip components.......................................233 Table 29. Trip generation summary...........................................................................................234 Table 30. Trip generation for the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative...............................234 Table 31. PM peak-hour total entering traffic volumes for intersections in Auburn under year 2020 conditions..................................................................................................243 Table 32. PM peak-hour levels of service for intersections in Auburn under year 2020 a conditions with programmed improvements ...........................................................244 Table 33. PM peak-hour levels of service for intersections outside Auburn under year a 2020 conditions with programmed improvements ..................................................245 Table 34. Features of vehicle access options.............................................................................247 Table 35. Street design parameters............................................................................................248 Table 36. Design parameters at key intersections for all access options...................................249 Table 37. Comparison of network planning principles and vehicle access options..................251 Table 38. Levels of service for selected intersections with Interim I Street NE conditions...................................................................................................................253 Table 39. Recommended mitigation measures for offsite intersections....................................259 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS xv Special Area Plan Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map of the planning area for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, in Auburn, Washington..................................................................2 Figure 2. Aerial map of the planning area for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan.........................................................................................................3 Figure 3. Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative.............................................................41 Figure 4. Alternative 2: Retail Alternative...............................................................................45 Figure 5. Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Alternative......................................................47 Figure 6. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative.....................................................................49 Figure 7. Options for vehicle access to the planning area for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan......................................................................................51 Figure 8. Existing stormwater drainage and Green River floodplain conditions......................73 Figure 9. Locations of sound level measurements within the planning area for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan.....................................................111 Figure 10. Habitat map of the planning area for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan.....................................................................................................128 Figure 11. Potential areas of residual petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the Auburn Gateway project area...................................................................................150 Figure 12. Ethnographic place names and historic period land use in the planning area and vicinity...............................................................................................................159 Figure 13. Areas with a high probability of hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period and historic Indian, and historic period archaeological resources in the planning area and vicinity........................................................................................161 Figure 14. Zoning map of the planning area for the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan.....................................................................................................167 Figure 15. Year 2020 no-build PM peak-hour traffic volumes.................................................221 Figure 16. Trip distribution pattern for Alternative 1 (Retail and Office).................................235 Figure 17. Trip distribution pattern for Alternative 2 (Retail)...................................................236 Figure 18. Trip distribution pattern for Alternative 3 (Retail and Residential).........................237 Figure 19. Trip assignment for Alternative 1 (Retail and Office).............................................239 Figure 20. Trip assignment for Alternative 2 (Retail)...............................................................240 Figure 21. Trip assignment for Alternative 3 (Retail and Residential).....................................241 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan xvi Draft EIS Figure 22. Percentage of year 2020 PM peak-hour traffic volumes under each of the action alternatives.....................................................................................................242 Figure 23. Vehicle access options..............................................................................................246 th Figure 24. Level of service for South 277Street corridor.......................................................256 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS xvii Special Area Plan PART 1 Summary Introduction Introduction The Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is being developed to address issues related to street alignment, utilities, storm drainage, floodplains, and land use, as identified in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan for the northernmost portion of the city between Auburn Way North and the Green River. For this plan, the City has focused the study on approximately 90 acres of land (referred to in this environmental impact statement (EIS) as the thth planning area). The planning area is bordered by Auburn Way North, South 277 Street, 45 Street NE, and the existing undeveloped right-of-way of I Street NE (Figure 1). The planning effort for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan project is being driven largely by the desire of Robertson Properties Group (RPG), one of the largest property holders in the area, to redevelop the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex and adjacent properties that it controls. RPG has named its proposal Auburn Ga holdings together with other properties that RPG is considering acquiring or that could be developed cooperatively, totaling approximately 60 acres within the planning area, has been defined in this EIS as the Auburn Gateway project area. The RPG proposal is to redevelop these properties with a mix of retail, office, and/or multifamily residential uses. The boundaries of the planning area and the Auburn Gateway project area are shown in Figure 2. The development proposed by RPG would not be allowed under current zoning; therefore, new zoning is being considered for portions of the planning area. The planning area is currently zoned as unclassified (UNC), heavy commercial (C3), and multifamily residential (R4). Changes in zoning and development standards would affect the types of land uses, the size of the areas designated for various land uses, and the location of land uses that are allowed on the properties. The new zoning could consist of a modification of land uses and development standards of an existing zoning designation or the creation of an entirely new zone. The new zoning is expected to be a mixed-use commercial zone that would allow a range of uses similar to those allowed in the C3 zone, with some modifications to the allowable land uses and development standards. Because the new zone would allow both residential and commercial uses, some light manufacturing and automobile-oriented uses would be prohibited. The proposed list of allowable uses is provided in Appendix A to this EIS. RPG has also proposed the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, which help to further define the expected character of the development. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 1 Special Area Plan Introduction Relation of Special Area Plan and this EIS This EIS is being used as a tool to evaluate options for the special area plan and will form the basis for the development of specific policies, regulations, and land use decisions for this area. A draft special area plan was not developed prior to preparation of the Draft EIS because the City and project proponent wanted to examine a range of options and obtain feedback on those options before developing a preferred plan. A draft special area plan will be published with the final EIS and will be evaluated as a preferred alternative in the final EIS. The planning effort and this EIS are intended to facilitate the the Auburn Gateway project area as provided for in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in section 43.21C.031 of the Revised Code of Washington. Planned action approval would limit the need for further environmental review for City approvals associated with the implementation of the Auburn Gateway project. The overall intent of the special area plan, zoning amendment, and planned action approval is to provide RPG some flexibility for responding to market conditions within a specified range of commercial and residential land uses. Under the RPG proposal this range of uses could include up to 1.6 million square feet of office space, up to 720,000 square feet of retail space, and/or up to 500 multifamily residential units (and not to exceed 50 percent of the lot area). The project would be constructed in multiple phases over approximately 10 years. A preliminary phasing plan was developed for the fiscal analysis and is provided in Appendix B of this EIS. Public Participation and Special Area Plan Adoption Process The planning process for adopting a special area plan, establish new zoning, and designating a planned action has and will continue to involve the public at several steps. The following outlines the steps, some of which have already been completed: The Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area was established in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan in 1995. RPG requested preparation of an environmental impacts statement and submitted a proposal to rezone its property located within the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area to the City of Auburn February 23, 2001. An initial public meeting was held November 21, 2002, to describe the RPG proposal and solicit input on issues to be addressed in the special area plan. RPG developed three alternative development scenarios for the Auburn Gateway project area that included the maximum amounts of office, retail, wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 4 Draft EIS Introduction and residential uses that it anticipates could be constructed in the project area under a proposed new zoning designation. A public scoping meeting was held January 28, 2003, to identify potentially significant impacts that should be analyzed in the EIS. The scoping notice is provided in Appendix J, and notes on subsequent modifications to the scope are provi Auburn Gateway project, together with a No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. The draft EIS is expected to evaluate the potential impacts due to the proposed development of the Auburn Gateway project area as a planned action, which means that it must address all the potential significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposed action. Public comments on the draft EIS will be solicited, and a public meeting will be held. The public meeting will include discussion of potential policy preferences for the special area plan. A draft special area plan will be developed as a preferred alternative for analysis in the final EIS. The special area plan is expected to establish a range of allowable uses, preferred street alignments, stormwater and floodwater management policies, and other policies designed to address the potential impacts of development under the plan. A final EIS will be prepared to respond to public comments and to evaluate the preferred alternative. A planned action ordinance pertaining specifically to the Auburn Gateway project area will be drafted. This ordinance will specify the thresholds for the development covered under the planned action and the required mitigation measures for addressing the adverse impacts of the proposed development. The draft special area plan and planned action ordinance, together with a zoning amendment and an amendment to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan acknowledging the special area plan, will be presented to the Auburn Planning Commission. After the adjustments indicated by the Auburn Planning Commission have been made, the plan, planned action ordinance, zoning amendment, and comprehensive plan amendment will be forwarded to the Auburn City Council for adoption. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 5 Special Area Plan Introduction Assuming the planned action ordinance is adopted, the proponent will then be allowed to proceed with all the necessary permit applications without further environmental review, provided that the development complies with the terms of the planned action ordinance. After the planned action approval, with each application for a grading permit, a building permit, a subdivision, or other approval required from the City for development, the City will first determine if the work related to the application is covered by scope of the planned action. If the work is covered, the conditions of the planned action will apply. If the work related to an application is determined to be outside the scope of development covered by the planned action ordinance, the project will proceed through an environmental review as required for all other projects that require City approval. If the work related to an application is determined to be covered under the scope of the planned action, no further State Environmental Policy Act review will be required. In some cases, the planned action ordinance may require additional engineering or other studies to confirm the conclusions in the EIS that adverse impacts of a specific design would be adequately mitigated. Unless the specific approval sought by RPG (such as a future subdivision or planned unit development) requires a separate appealable decision by the City, there would be no further approve (or deny) an application under the planned action ordinance. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 6 Draft EIS Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Summary of Alternatives Evaluated This EIS evaluates the potential impacts of the range of land uses proposed for the Auburn Gateway project area, along with possible vehicle access and circulation options. The action alternatives represent combinations of land uses that could be constructed in the project area encompassing the maximum development for each of the three general use categories proposed by RPG: retail, office, and multifamily residential. The final development in the Auburn Gateway project area may include any combination of these uses. The features of each alternative are summarized in Table 1. Development for retail and residential uses would occur in phases over a 10-year period. Current market conditions suggest that the demand for development of large office space is not as great as that for retail or residential development; therefore, development for office use could take up to 16 years. The assumptions for phased development that were used for this analysis are provided in Appendix B. Under all the alternatives, development in the portion of the planning area outside of the Auburn Gateway project area is expected to be in accordance with existing zoning and would include multifamily residential development to the south and east and heavy commercial development to the west. Under all the alternatives, including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, stormwater detention would be provided in surface ponds within the project area, although detailed plans have not yet been developed. Under all the alternatives, including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, floodplain storage compensation would be accommodated primarily outside the boundaries of the project area by wetland mitigation project. However, the compensation may need to be accommodated within the project area during the initial phases of development if the Auburn Gateway project area is developed before the Port of Seattle project is completed. One purpose of the special area plan is to choose the best public road configuration to facilitate the development of all properties in the vicinity, including the mix of uses and densities shown in the action alternatives for the Auburn Gateway project area. Under all the alternatives, South th 277 Street would be widened and a pedestrian trail would be constructed along the south side. thth Also under all the alternatives, I Street NE from South 277 Street to 45 Street NE and a new east-west street would be constructed. The EIS evaluates several vehicle access options that include the various locations for I Street NE, the new east-west street, and signalization options on Auburn Way North. One vehicle access option will ultimately be chosen to guide infrastructure development. Separate stormwater detention facilities for public roads would generally be required and could be provided in underground vaults or in surface ponds. The infrastructure constructed with the project, including roads, public stormwater detention facilities, and utilities, would be similar for all the action alternatives. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 7 Special Area Plan Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Table 1. Features of alternatives for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Land Uses Retail and Office Retail Retail and Residential No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative Office 1,600,000 gross square feet NA NA NA Retail 200,000 gross square feet 720,000 gross square 360,000 square feet 73,200 square feet feet Multifamily residential NA NA 500 units 132 units Single-family NA NA NA 130 units residential Parking 6,133 spaces 3,600 spaces 2,800 spaces 585 to 657 spaces thth Roads South 277 Street would be widened. Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. South 277 Street would be widened. thth I Street NE would be constructed from South 277 Street to I Street NE would be constructed from South 277 thth 45 Street NE. Street to 45 Street NE in the existing I Street NE th right-of-way. A new east-west street (Robertson Way or 49 Street NE) would be constructed. New east-west streets would be constructed as needed and as development occurs. The south end of D Street NE at Auburn Way North would be closed. Pedestrian trails and A pedestrian trail would be constructed along the south side of Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1, A pedestrian trail would be constructed along the south thth open space South 277 Street. but additional active side of South 277 Street. recreation area would A pedestrian trail would be constructed to link the wetland The wetlands would be preserved, with the exception th be provided for areas within the project area. of the ditches along South 277 Street and in the I residential uses. Street NE right-of-way. The wetlands would be preserved, with the exception of the th ditches along South 277 Street. Signs A coordinated signage system would be constructed throughout Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1, Signs for commercial and residential uses would be the project area, including pylon signs, monument signs, but would also include placed on individual development basis. directional signage, and signs for individual stores and tenants. signs for residential development. Other features Approximately 400,000 cubic feet of landscaped stormwater Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Stormwater detention ponds would be constructed as detention ponds would be constructed. required. Approximately 250,000 cubic yards of soil would be excavated Sufficient fill would be placed to allow development in and approximately 500,000 cubic yards of fill would be placed. floodplain. Temporary floodplain compensation areas would be The permanent floodplain compensation on the Port of constructed within the project area, as required during the Seattle wetland mitigation site would be utilized. initial development of the project area. The permanent floodplain compensation on the Port of Seattle wetland mitigation site would be utilized. NA = not applicable wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 8 Draft EIS Summary of Alternatives Evaluated Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 1 consists of the development of a mix of land uses in the Auburn Gateway project area to include retail and office space, new roads and utilities, parking, and stormwater detention facilities. Office buildings would generally be three stories or about 45 feet high, although one or more buildings could be up to 75 feet high. Approximately 200,000 square feet of retail space would be constructed. Retail buildings would generally be one story but could be up to 70 feet high. Retail uses as defined here include the retail sales of goods and services and some entertainment uses, as typically found in many shopping centers. Retail uses could occur in large discount and membership-type stores (sometimes called big- box retail), or in small- to medium-size buildings, including freestanding buildings such as restaurants with drive-in service. Impervious surfaces including roofs, roads, and parking areas would cover up to 90 percent of the project area. Parking could include surface parking areas and parking in structures. Alternative 2: Retail Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1, with the exception that the land use would be retail and service uses only. Alternative 2 would be more likely than Alternative 1 to include large retail stores, and would require less parking than Alternative 1. Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, with the exception that the land uses would include multifamily residential as well as retail. The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines include standards for recreational open space that would be provided with the residential development. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative consists of development of the Auburn Gateway project area consistent with the current zoning. The current zones in the project area include 9.3 acres of heavy commercial (C3), 8.4 acres of multifamily residential (R4), and 41.5 acres of unclassified (UNC). The current zoning would accommodate approximately 130 single-family houses, 132 multifamily residential units, and 73,200 square feet of retail development. Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, I Street NE would be built in the existing right-of- way along the eastern edge of the planning area. No other changes in land use would be implemented under this alternative. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 9 Special Area Plan Summary of Impacts Summary of Impacts This section summarizes the impacts expected under the alternatives considered in this EIS. Impacts and mitigation measures are discussed for each element analyzed in the EIS. Where the impacts of the various alternatives would be similar, the summary does not describe the alternatives separately. If the impacts of one alternative would differ substantially from another the differences are noted. Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions The entire planning area has been mapped as Category I (high liquefaction susceptibility). Structures developed under any alternative would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, which requires measures to address the potential for damage from seismic events in liquefaction-prone areas. Water Resources Much of the planning area is undeveloped land, although approximately half of the planning area is paved with gravel or asphalt paving. Under existing conditions in the planning area, some stormwater currently infiltrates to shallow ground water, which sustains several wetlands in and near the planning area. The remaining stormwater flows overland to the same wetlands, or enters the storm drainage system, which entails approximately ½ mile of open ditch with occasional culverts that empty into the Green River. Increased erosion and sedimentation, as well as small spills of soil or hazardous materials used during construction in the planning area, could affect nearby wetlands and groundwater, as well as downstream stormwater drainages and the Green River. However, these impacts could be mitigated through proper use of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) during construction. Long term impacts to water resources from the Auburn Gateway project include filling of approximately 27.5 acre feet of floodplain, increasing impervious surfaces to 90 percent of the site area, and increasing potential for pollution of runoff by increasing automobile traffic in the area. Compliance with City floodplain regulations would ensure development in the planning area would not significantly affect Green River floodplain storage. Floodplain impacts could be mitigated by providing equivalent floodplain storage within the developed properties; however, this would limit long-term potential for development of the properties. The proposed location of compensation for floodplain fill is on the Port of Seattle wetland mitigation site immediately southeast of the planning area. Depending on the volume and timing of floodplain fill relative to the construction of the compensatory floodplain storage that will be part of the Port of Seattle mitigation wetland project, the Auburn Gateway project could include temporary compensation wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 11 Special Area Plan Summary of Impacts on site during early phases of development. Development of the Auburn Gateway project area under any of the action alternatives would lead to a substantial increase in impervious surface area and corresponding stormwater runoff rates and volumes. City of Auburn stormwater requirements would control the rate of runoff but overall volumes of runoff would increase. Unless additional controls are required, the increased volume of runoff could have minor local impacts to water levels in th during major storm events. Additional controls could include a reduction in impervious surfaces and/or additional stormwater detention. Development in the planning area could result in an increase in loading of various pollutants to downstream waterways, in spite of facilities required by City of Auburn regulations to mitigate water quality. Development could also result in stormwater runoff of higher temperature. Whereas the effects of these loadings on the Green River would be minimal due to runoff from other contributing areas of the Green River watershed, the cumulative effect of development in the watershed could be significant. Such potential cumulative impacts could be mitigated through the use of appropriate design, additional source control and treatment measures beyond those required by City code. Development in the planning area could affect ground water levels in and nearby to the planning area. Compacting existing soils could raise ground water levels. Increased impervious surfaces in the planning area could decrease infiltration and thereby decrease ground water levels in the planning area and nearby. Although there are no known wells or basements that would be affected, changes in the groundwater level could potentially affect wetlands. Whether ground water levels increase or decrease depends on specific grading and building designs that have not yet been prepared. Either result could be mitigated by increasing or decreasing infiltration from development as necessary through site engineering. Ground water quality is not likely to be significantly impacted, but wetlands could be adversely impacted by polluted runoff. Appropriate treatment and landscape management could mitigate water quality impacts to wetlands. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures there would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to water resources as a result of any of the action alternatives. Air Quality Development under the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan would not likely result in a significant source of long-term air emissions. No wood burning devices would be included in any of the action alternatives proposed for the Auburn Gateway project area, and no other sources of wood burning are anticipated in the planning area. Project-related traffic would affect carbon monoxide emissions in the Puget Sound area. Because the planning area is designated as a carbon monoxide maintenance area and the proposed alternatives for the Auburn Gateway project area include structural modifications to existing intersections and construction of new intersections on regionally significant roadways, the project requires a project-level wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 12 Draft EIS Summary of Impacts conformity review. Therefore, a carbon monoxide hotspot analysis was conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA guidance. Local carbon monoxide concentrations related to the proposed alternatives were predicted using approved regulatory models and protocol. By the design year (2020), it was predicted that carbon monoxide concentrations resulting from project-related traffic increases at the selected intersections would be lower than the concentrations predicted for 2008 due to tighter emission standards on vehicles, and well below the national ambient air quality standards. Although the carbon monoxide concentrations predicted for the action alternatives are higher than they would be if no development was undertaken, the proposed project would neither create a new violation nor perpetuate an existing violation of the carbon monoxide standards, meeting the project-level conformity requirements. During the construction associated with any of the action alternatives, dust from excavation, demolition, and grading would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter. Heavy trucks and smaller equipment such as generators and compressors would emit air pollutants that would slightly degrade the local air quality. Some construction phases would result in odors that would be detectible to some people near the Auburn Gateway project area, particularly during paving operations that involve the use of tar and asphalt. Site preparation would also include some clearing of existing vegetation; however, no open burning would be permitted in association with the implementation of this project. Possible mitigation measures to reduce the potential for air quality impacts during construction include measures for reducing both exhaust emissions and fugitive dust. Construction contractor(s) would be required to comply with regulations requiring reasonable precautions to avoid dust emissions and best available measures to control the emissions of odor-bearing air contaminants. If asbestos- containing materials are present during demolition, contractors would also be required to comply with regulations related to the safe removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials. Noise The noise impact analysis considered potential effects of project-related traffic and operational noise and construction noise at noise-sensitive receivers (e.g., residences, parks, and schools) in the Auburn Gateway project area. The closest sensitive receivers are one residence located near the southeast corner of the Auburn Gateway project area in the future I Street NE corridor, south th of the project along 45 Street NE (Mallard Pointe apartments), and three residences along D Street NE adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area. The Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex does not typically contribute to the overall noise levels in the project vicinity except during late evening hours. Vehicles entering and leaving the complex generate traffic-related noise that increases noise levels during those hours. With any of the action alternatives, the complex would be replaced by different land use types, eliminating the late night traffic noises and creating new noise sources. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 13 Special Area Plan Summary of Impacts Noise levels associated with the project alternatives would increase slightly due to traffic volume increases on major area roadways, with the largest increases expected during the afternoon peak traffic hours. With any of the alternatives in 2020, worst-case predicted traffic noise levels would increase 1 dBA or less over the no-build condition at receivers along the major roadways, and such an increase would not be discernible. By 2020, traffic noise from the extended and expanded I Street NE would cause substantial noise increases at nearby residences, but noise from project-related traffic would cause only minor additional changes and minimal impacts. Potentially significant impacts could occur at the three existing residences along D Street NE. Depending on the access option selected, the traffic-related noise may increase up to 7 dBA at this location. Although no other significant project-related traffic noise impacts have been identified, there is a potential for impacts at offsite receivers, as well as onsite residential units with Alternative 3 and the No-Action Alternative, from noise emitted by HVAC systems, the facility loading dock, and from onsite traffic and parking lots. The potential for such impacts could be minimized through site layout and facility design, and by restricting the timing of truck deliveries and waste hauling to daytime hours. With the Auburn Gateway project, there are few offsite sensitive noise receivers very close to the property that are not dominated by traffic noise, so the potential for offsite noise impacts from operation of the proposed facility probably is small. During construction, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling of construction materials, portable power generators, and a variety of miscellaneous construction equipment typically required for such a project. The increase in noise levels would depend on the types of equipment being used, the amount of time it is in use, topography or other obstructions that may provide shielding effects, and the relative distances between the active construction areas and any sensitive receiving locations. At least three existing residences near the western boundary of the Auburn Gateway project area and several multifamily residences near the south boundary have the greatest potential to be adversely affected by construction noise associated with the proposed alternatives. These locations may at times be in close proximity (within a few hundred feet) to a construction area that would generate sound levels that could be perceived as being intrusive at these nearby homes. Construction noise would be short-term, but would occur in several phases of the 10-year buildout of the project, and neighboring residences have the potential of being impacted to varying degrees in each phase, depending on the distance for the construction activity. Construction contractors should be made aware of neighboring uses, and encouraged to employ noise control techniques. The short-term nature of the construction activities coupled with the restriction of these activities to daytime hours would minimize or eliminate the potential for significant unavoidable adverse impacts. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 14 Draft EIS Summary of Impacts Plants and Animals The planning area includes a mix of wildlife habitats, with natural areas concentrated mainly in the eastern portion of the site. The planning area encompasses nine wetlands, including one forested wetland, one shrub/emergent wetland, three emergent pasture wetlands (one is currently th under cultivation), and four wetland ditches along South 277 Street. Upland habitats in the planning area include mixed second-growth deciduous/coniferous forest, agricultural fields, and mixed environs (mostly developed areas surrounded by landscaped shrubs and trees). Although small, the forested wetland and the mixed second-growth forest that encompass a portion of this wetland provide moderate- to high-quality wildlife habitat because of their structural and species diversity. Together they constitute one of the few forested areas within the agricultural landscape in this area. Wetlands would not be filled for any of the Auburn Gateway project area alternatives, unless necessary for streets. Filling of approximately 0.5 acres of wetland ditches would occur under th each alternative due to the construction of the South 277 Street road improvements. Impacts from filling these wetlands were mitigated by the City of Kent in association with other wetland mitigation for the South 277th Street construction project. Under Access Option A, no wetlands would be filled to complete I Street NE. In order to complete the extension of I Street NE through the planning area under Option B, it would be necessary to fill 0.55 acre of wetlands, and under Access Option C it would be necessary to fill 0.25 acre of wetlands. Some wetland buffers could be impacted as a result of the construction of retail, commercial, and residential developments. Mitigation for impacts on wetlands will be consistent with the requirements of the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), the Washington Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetland buffers are proposed to be regraded and replanted. Buffers averaging 50 feet are proposed, but larger buffers are recommended. Hazardous Materials The presence of hazardous materials is suspected in several portions of the Auburn Gateway project area, and may be present on other sites in the planning area. These materials potentially include petroleum hydrocarbons associated with underground storage tanks from historical gasoline service stations and the residential use and storage of heating oil; solvents and heavy metals from historical automotive repair activities; polychlorinated biph oil in electrical transformers; and asbestos-containing building materials and lead-based painted surfaces on existing structures. If present, these materials may pose a risk of exposure for workers during site demolition and site grading activities. If hazardous materials are encountered during construction, they would be removed and disposed of according to state and federal regulations. The proposed action is expected to result in positive impacts on the project area, because the suspected hazardous materials would be cleaned up and potential contamination sources, such as underground storage tanks, would be removed. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 15 Special Area Plan Summary of Impacts Cultural and Historic Resources No known archaeological sites would be affected by any of the alternatives, but unknown resources may be present. Although less than 50 years old, the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater is one of the largest and last remaining drive-in theater d be removed under all alternatives evaluated. In the opinion of the King County Historic Preservation Program (HPP) and the Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington Historic Register, or the King County Landmarks List. Land Use Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, and the No-Action Alternative would require demolition of existing structures, removal of the drive-in theater complex, and development of pasture and other undeveloped land within the Auburn Gateway project area. Construction under all the alternatives would result in impacts on land uses immediately adjacent to the project area. Table 2 shows the increases in employment, housing and population estimated for each alternative. Table 2. Estimated change in population, employment, and housing under each alternative evaluated for the Auburn Gateway project area. Population Alternative (new residents) Housing Units Employment Alternative 1- Retail and Office 0 0 4000 Alternative 2- Retail 0 0 1300 Alternative 3- Retail and Residential 1200 500 650 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative 600 262 130 Under Alternative 1, land uses within the Auburn Gateway project area would be compatible with each other. Uses of land adjacent to the project area could be less compatible with those under Alternative 1. The existing multifamily residential units south of the project area could be adversely affected by retail activities. Retail use generally includes early morning noise from loading and service areas. Restaurants could also adversely affect residential uses due to the noise and odor from ventilation systems. The height and bulk of the proposed structures would be greater than the height and bulk of most residential and commercial buildings currently surrounding the Auburn Gateway project area. Development under Alternative 1 would change the character of the planning area by introducing commercial uses to land now vacant or in much less intensive use. Existing land use within the project area is low intensity in nature and draws little traffic. Alternative 1 would increase the wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 16 Draft EIS Summary of Impacts intensity of use, which could be beneficial to the existing commercial development along Auburn Way North, because it would introduce more employees and businesses that would increase the demand for services in the vicinity. Alternative 1 would also change the character of the areas surrounding the multifamily residential development to the south of the planning area, by introducing new traffic and activity in an area that is currently on a street with little traffic. Development under Alternative 2 would result in a change of land use in the project area similar to that of Alternative 1, with a few exceptions. Demand for new services would be less, and activity would be heavier in evenings and weekends. In addition, the retail development under Alternative 2 would compete with other existing retail areas in Auburn and the surrounding areas, which could have adverse effects on individual businesses in other areas but is not expected to substantially affect land use patterns outside of the planning area. Potential impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those for Alternative 2 except that retail uses would be more limited, and residential use would introduce potential conflicts with commercial activity. Residents are generally more sensitive to the noise, odors, and visual impacts of commercial uses. Residents would also increase the demand for services such as groceries and entertainment. However, multifamily development in the southern portion of the Auburn Gateway project area would be more compatible with the existing multifamily development south of the project area. Development under all the action alternatives would be consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan, provided that adequate measures are established for compatibility with adjacent development. Design measures outlined in the Draft Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines would help to limit visual and noise impacts between uses, by providing screening and landscaping around commercial service and parking areas. Mitigation could also include requiring separation between residential uses and uses such as gas stations and outdoor restaurants that could generate odors or noise impacts. The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would include lower density residential uses over much of the Auburn Gateway project area, and commercial development would be limited to the existing commercial district near Auburn Way North. This alternative could have similar impacts as the other alternatives, but would introduce far less new commercial use. Aesthetics The planning area is currently largely in low intensity land uses or undeveloped. Comprehensive planning and zoning for the area anticipate urban development that would change the character of the area to more intensive urban uses, with commercial uses on the west side of the planning area along Auburn Way and multifamily residential uses on the east and south. The Valley 6 Drive-in Theater is in the unclassified zoning district which would allow only low density wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 17 Special Area Plan Summary of Impacts residential use, as described for the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Existing zoning regulations restrict height, bulk, and scale of buildings in all districts, limit visual impacts from signs and site lighting, and prescribe landscaping requirements that reduce adverse visual impacts and contribute to overall visual quality of development. Under all alternatives, the contrast between the agricultural lands north of South 277th Street and the planning area will be pronounced. Buildings, parking lots, and commercial signs will replace the drive-in theater complex and open fields. The proponent has developed the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, which provide methods to address adverse visual impacts from blank walls, loading and service areas, and other potentially unsightly aspects of commercial development, as well as measures to create a pleasant pedestrian environment. A new zoning district for the Auburn Gateway project may be developed. The zoning district would emphasize design standards and may involve a design preview process. In general, the new zoning would allow different types of buildings (commercial office and retail) and allow greater bulk than under current zoning. The maximum building heights proposed for commercial buildings (70 feet for retail and 75 feet for office buildings) in the Auburn Gateway project area would be taller than any other structures in the area and because of the flat topography would be highly visible. Commercial development would contrast with development in the Mallard Pointe apartments to the south, and future occupants of adjacent R3 and R4 zones to the east. Visual impacts to development to the east would be partially buffered by wetland and wetland buffer areas on the east perimeter of the Auburn Gateway project area that would have enhanced native plantings. The degree of buffering would be greatest with I Street NE aligned in the westernmost position (option A). Options B and C would eliminate wetland area on the east perimeter of the planning area but replacement wetlands and buffers could restore the visual buffer in this area. Adjacent commercial development anticipated in the western portion of the planning area could have adverse visual impacts on residential uses in the Auburn Gateway project area. These impacts could be avoided or minimized by not developing those portions of the Auburn Gateway project area that abut commercial zoning with residential uses, or with landscape screening on the Auburn Gateway project area. In addition to implementation of the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines as proposed, mitigation recommended for aesthetic impacts includes developing a master sign plan, consolidating signage, developing a master pedestrian plan, avoiding the use of highly reflective glass on buildings facing major streets, and providing landscape screening at the site perimeter where residential uses on the site abut commercial uses. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 18 Draft EIS Summary of Impacts Recreation There are no existing parks, playgrounds, trails, or other recreational facilities within the th planning area. There are two trails planned for the general vicinity; one would parallel SE 277 Street within the right-of-way unless city approval is granted to pass through the Auburn Gateway project area, and the other would parallel the Green River east of the planning area. All the alternatives would introduce new demands for recreation from residents and/or workers who want to take breaks, exercise, or enjoy a quiet place to relax. New demands for recreational facilities from office or commercial development are not expected to be large and would likely be met by the onsite facilities proposed in the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. Residential uses under Alternative 3 and the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would introduce additional new demands for recreation to the planning area and the city. Under all alternatives th including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative the existing trail along South 277 Street would be enhanced by the new trail section that would eventually connect the trails to the east and west of the Auburn Gateway project area, improving recreation within and adjacent to the project area. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would also include an urban trail connecting new uses and preserved wetland areas within the Auburn Gateway project area that would provide new opportunities for recreation. The Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines prepared by RPG indicate that improved recreation areas would be provided with multifamily residential development in proportion to the number of units built. For Alternative 3, this would mean approximately 1.7 acres of improved recreation area would be provided. In addition, the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines indicate that the proposed trail system would enhance and utilize the wetland buffers and areas around stormwater detention ponds as passive open space amenities. This amount of new recreation area would not provide us much parkland as called for in the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan for the additional population expected with alternative 3. The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative includes single-family development that would occur through the subdivision process. Typically for such developments the City requires dedication of common usable open space for park purposes, which would provide new recreation opportunities as well. The City does not have a standard requirement for parkland dedication with multifamily development, thus no additional recreation resources would be expected with that portion of the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. In addition to implementing the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, the City could require more park space or other recreational improvements to mitigate impacts on recreational resources. Public Services and Utilities Expansion and relocation of utilities would be necessary under any of the alternatives for the Auburn Gateway property as well as for development in the larger planning area. The impacts wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 19 Special Area Plan Summary of Impacts on utility infrastructure in the planning area are not expected be significant because any impacts can be addressed as the infrastructure in the area is redeveloped under the proposed plan. Long- term cumulative impacts could contribute to the need for additional water sources and the need for additional regional sewage treatment capacity. The City is engaged in ongoing planning efforts to address water supply needs through conservation and through development of additional sources. King County is engaged in long term planning to meet sewage treatment needs, and plans to add capacity to the South Treatment Plant in 2028. All of the alternatives would result in an increased demand for emergency services such as police and fire. Fees and taxes would offset the costs of this additional demand. Alternative 3 would include 500 new multifamily residences housing approximately 1200 new residents, including approximately 264 school age children. School impact fees are expected to provide mitigation for these potential impacts on the school system. The No-Action Alternative would house approximately 600 residents, with approximately 132 school age children. School impact fees would provide mitigation for these potential impacts on the school system. Transportation The study area for this analysis extends from State Route (SR) 516 (Willis Street) in Kent to Main Street in downtown Auburn, and from 144th Avenue SE to Military Road, both in Kent. The study area encompasses three major transportation corridors: Auburn Way North, South 277th Street, and I Street NE. The I Street NE corridor is not fully developed at present, but is one of several planned changes in transportation infrastructure that would occur with or without the proposed development. Some of the key changes include: Completion of I Street NE from South 277th Street to Harvey Road with traffic signals installed at 37th Street NE, 30th Street NE, and 22nd Street NE. Widening of South 277th Street to five lanes between Auburn Way North and the Green River. Widening of South 277th Street between West Valley Highway and SR 167. Widening of 116th Avenue SE north of Kent-Kangley Road. In addition to completing the I Street NE segment in the planning area, Alternative 1, 2, or 3 would add at least one new east west street crossing the planning area and potentially connecting to properties to the east. In the Auburn Gateway project this street is called Robertson Way and wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 20 Draft EIS Summary of Impacts th would connect directly to Auburn Way North, but it could also be a direct extension of 49 Street NE. Alternative 1 would generate approximately 2193 new vehicle trips on the roadways during the evening peak hour of traffic. By comparison, Alternative 2 would generate 1433, Alternative 3 would generate 944, and the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would generate 406. Within th the City of Auburn, the results of the level of service analysis indicated that only the South 277 Street corridor, which includes intersections from I Street NE to West Valley Highway, would LOS E in the year 2020 with or without development of the Auburn Gateway project area. The poor level of service would be primarily related to poor operations at the Auburn Way North and West Valley Highway intersections. Further analysis was performed to determine when the South 277th Street corridor might exceed the LOS D concurrency threshold using the development phasing schedule for the Auburn Gateway project area (see Appendix B). Corridor level of service is not expected to exceed the LOS D threshold until after about 2014 for all action alternatives. It is expected that most development would be complete before this year and would thus comply with the concurrency requirement. For the office development in Alternative 1, construction could extend beyond this date and could fail to meet concurrency requirements unless improvements have been made to the South 277th Street corridor by that time. Outside the City of Auburn, several intersections would operate at LOS E or F conditions. This includes three study area intersections along the Kent-Kangley corridor, and two intersections along Central Avenue north of the site that are in the City of Kent. The unsignalized intersection th th at SE 304Street/112Avenue SE in King County would also operate at LOS F. These would be below the desired level of service for these jurisdictions. Several vehicle access options for the Auburn Gateway project area were evaluated using the worst-case traffic generator of the alternatives (Alternative 1). The traffic operations analysis showed that all intersections proposed for signalization under all vehicle access options would operate at acceptable levels of service. For all of the access options, unsignalized left turns onto Auburn Way North (from either 49th Street NE or 45th Street NE) would operate at LOS F. This would be the case for all alternatives including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative since the operation is related primarily to the high volume of traffic on Auburn Way North, not the volume of traffic on side streets. In addition to traffic operation, there are several functional differences among the vehicle access options. These are summarized below. Option A provides only limited access to properties west of D Street NE. If 49th Street NE remains unsignalized, left turns from 49th Street NE onto Auburn Way North would operate at a poor level of service and pose a safety concern. Both Access Option B and Access Option C would provide connections to other arterials. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 21 Special Area Plan Summary of Impacts A traffic signal at the Auburn Way North/49th Street NE intersection was evaluated as part of Access Options A-1, B, and C-1. A signal at this th location and connection of 49 Street NE through to I Street NE could provide citywide benefits by creating an east-west link between B Street NE and I Street NE. A signal at this location would also provide the best access for properties along D Street NE. One disadvantage of a signal at this location is that it could attract short-cut traffic between South 277th Street and Auburn Way North. If a signal at this location is pursued, further analysis should be performed to determine the left-turn queuing th needs between the new signal at 49 Street NE and the adjacent signals at Auburn Way North and potential signal at Robertson Way. The traffic model predicted that 45th Street NE would be used as a high- volume short-cut route between Auburn Way North and I Street NE, with traffic originating from or heading to 277th Street east of I Street NE. This traffic would not be related to the proposed development. Options A and C include construction of Robertson Way, which could alleviate cut- through traffic on 45th Street NE. Because of the high volume of cut- through traffic, a traffic signal may be warranted in the future at the I Street NE/45th Street NE intersection for Access Alternative B, B-1, or B-2. However, it may also be possible to redirect this traffic to Robertson Way or 49th Street NE if those roadways are designed to accommodate the potential increase in traffic. RPG initially proposed a roundabout for the I Street NE/Robertson Way intersection. With full implementation of Alternative 1, a roundabout at this intersection would operate at LOS F, although it is possible that less intensive development could be accommodated with a roundabout. For all action alternatives, a dual left-turn lane will be required on westbound South 277th Street at the intersection with I Street NE, and must accommodate left turn queues of approximately 700 feet. In order to accommodate the roadway taper between the bridge (which has no turn lane) and the dual left-turn lane, I Street NE would need to be located a minimum of 1,420 feet from the bridge over the Green River. The existing City-owned right-of-way for I Street NE is only about 950 feet west of the existing crash attenuator on the west side of the Green River Bridge. Thus, Access Option B would have insufficient space to provide the desirable left-turn storage and taper for the I Street NE intersection. Access Option A, which would locate I Street NE in the Auburn Gateway project area would have about 2,000 feet of distance to the bridge, while Access Option C would have about 1,475 feet of distance to the bridge. All of the access options would have excess capacity available at the key signalized access along Auburn Way North to accommodate additional wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 22 Draft EIS Summary of Impacts growth due to development east of the Auburn Gateway project area. A th connection to these properties could be made at either 49Street SE or Robertson Way, and will depend on the preferred access option. Properties located to the east of the Auburn Gateway project area may th desire access to South 277Street. For the reasons described above, it may not be possible to signalize an access located east of the current I Street NE alignment due to the proximity of the Green River Bridge. However, an unsignalized access is possible and could provide right- in/right-out access. The potential for an unsignalized left-in access from th South 277Street could also be considered if adequate left turn storage and taper distances can be provided. Left-turn exiting movements to th South 277Street should be prohibited; vehicles would be able to access th westbound South 277Street via internal connections to I Street NE and/or Auburn Way N. It is possible that the new I Street NE arterial would not be completed south of the planning area when the first phase development of the Auburn Gateway project area is complete. An interim analysis was performed for the year 2008 to test conditions if the new section of I Street NE does th not connect to the existing northern terminus of the arterial near 40Street NE. Constructing I th th Street NE between South 277Street and 45Street NE would provide the best interim scenario for traffic operations in and around the site, because it would provide two access routes to Auburn Way. For this interim scenario, traffic signals are recommended for the Auburn Way th th North/ 45Street NE, Auburn Way North/Robertson Way (or 49Street), I Street NE/Robertson th Way (or 49Street) intersections. Alternatively, if I Street NE is only extended south to Robertson Way, the west site access driveway on Robertson Way, which would be a major internal access driveway, would operate at LOS F. If this option is chosen, this intersection should be constructed with limited left turns. Potential traffic safety impacts of the project on the Auburn Way North/South 277th Street intersection would be minimal because most accidents in this intersection occur with left turns, and this project is not likely to increase those turns. The potential impact on traffic safety at the Auburn Way North/8th Street NE would be similarly small. There is little existing transit service in the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project area. Alternative 1 (Retail and Office) and Alternative 3 (Retail and Residential) could generate increases in transit demand. The current transit routes primarily serve home-to-work trips that take commuters who reside in the area either to major employment centers (e.g., Seattle) or to the transit center in downtown Auburn. These routes could serve residents of the proposed development. If, however, a major office center is constructed (Alternative 1), some additional transit service, or changes to the existing transit service, may be required to bring commuters to the Auburn Gateway project area from other residential areas. No sidewalks exist in the Auburn Gateway project area at present, and sidewalks would be constructed with all new or improved roadways adjacent to the project, which would benefit wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 23 Special Area Plan Summary of Impacts nonmotorized means of transportation. As part of the South 277th Street widening project, the City of Auburn has proposed to create a pedestrian/bicycle connection to the pedestrian bridge across the Green River, and a link to the future Green River Trail. Instead of placing the trail within the right-of-way, the project proponent may design it to meander through the Auburn Gateway project area by specific approval. The access alternatives were rated against several transportation network planning principles from Comprehensive Plan policies to determine those attributes that provide the best transportation network for the overall area. Access options that provide a direct connection from th 49 Street NE to I Street (options B and C) satisfy the most network principles, assuming that I Street NE would be relocated far enough west for option B to provide a dual left turn and appropriate roadway taper to serve the westbound-to-southbound movements. Several measures are proposed to mitigate traffic conditions with development of the project. These measures are summarized below: Construct I Street NE between South 277th Street and the southern property line of the RPG property. This roadway should be designed to include two lanes in each direction plus a center left-turn lane. Auxiliary right-turn lanes may also be desired at major intersections and driveways. The intersection of South 277th Street and I Street NE should be constructed with a dual left-turn lane on the westbound approach. This intersection should also be signalized. th In the interim before I Street NE is connected south to 40Street NE, th connect I Street NE to 45Street NE. This would provide two routes for through traffic to access Auburn Way North. If either Access Option A or C is chosen, construct Robertson Way between Auburn Way North and the eastern property line. The intersection of Robertson Way and I Street NE should be signalized (or have a roundabout) and should also be designed to accommodate a future easterly extension of this roadway. Under either of these access options, the intersection of Auburn Way North and Robertson Way should also be signalized. If Access Option B is chosen, improve and widen 45th Street NE to include one lane in each direction and a center left-turn lane. Signalize the intersection of 45th Street NE and I Street NE and the intersection of 45th Street NE and Auburn Way North. th If either Access Option B or C is chosen, construct 49Street NE between Auburn Way North and the eastern property line. For Access Option B, th the intersection of 49Street/I Street NE should be signalized (or have a roundabout) and should also be designed to accommodate a future easterly wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 24 Draft EIS Summary of Impacts extension of this roadway. Consider signalizing the intersection of Auburn Way North and 49th Street for any of the access options. Improve the eastern half of D Street NE adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area. This roadway should be widened to accommodate one lane in each direction plus a center left-turn lane. Sidewalks should also be added to the east side of the street along the frontage of the Auburn Gateway project area. It would be desirable to connect D Street NE south to Robertson Way, if right-of-way is available. If either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 is implemented, construct eithera southbound right-turn pocket or an eastbound right-turn pocket at Auburn Way North/NE 30th Street intersection. Construct a westbound right-turn lane for the intersection of South 277th Street and Auburn Way North. If significant office development is included in the Auburn Gateway project (e.g. Alternative 1), tenants should be required to implement strategies such as increased reverse-commute bus service, custom bus service, vanpool, van-share, and carpool options. The project is also expected to contribute transportation impact fees to the City. Some mitigation constructed by the proponent may be creditable against these fees. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 25 Special Area Plan Major Conclusions and Unresolved Issues Major Conclusions and Unresolved Issues Traffic Circulation For the traffic circulation system for the planning area, several choices remain, including new th Street and Auburn Way North, and ways to provide cross- traffic signals on both South 277 circulation through the planning area. All of these decisions have implications for traffic circulation in the area and for access to commercial and multifamily properties. RPG proposes to relocate the planned extension of I Street NE from the existing right-of-way at the eastern edge of the planning area to a location along the eastern edge of the existing Auburn 6 Drive-in Theater complex. RPG favors this location for I Street NE because it would improve access to the commercial development on its properties. Because the property to the east of the planning area is expected to be developed with multifamily residences, adequate access for this future development must also be ensured. Adding to the complexity of this issue are wetlands in the existing I Street NE right-of-way and along the straight north alternative route proposed for I Street NE. The results of the transportation analysis indicate that any of the vehicle access options could be accomplished without degrading corridor level of service for the major roads surrounding the project area. However, the results also indicate that the existing I Street NE th right-of-way is too close to the bridge that carries South 277 Street over the Green River to allow for the expected westbound left-turn lanes that will be needed when I Street NE is completed through to Harvey Road NE. This EIS includes a discussion of the benefits and problems related to placing signals and allowing turns at several possible locations along South th 277 Street and Auburn Way North. Resolution of the location of I Street NE and the improvements needed at other intersections are among the major decisions expected from the special area plan. Floodplain The Auburn Gateway project would require the filling of approximately 27.5 acre-feet of the th 100-year floodplain, as would the widening of South 277 Street and the development of other parcels in the surrounding area. The City anticipates that a wetland mitigation project proposed by the Port of Seattle near the Green River and southeast of the Auburn Gateway project area would provide compensation for floodplain filling for much or all of the planning area. The flood storage is expected to be apportioned on an area basis. It could be utilized as floodplain th compensation by the Auburn Gateway project or other developments south of South 277 Street. Currently available information suggests that approximately 90 percent of all the existing flood storage in this area. itigation project is uncertain. The Port has indicated that it intends to mitigation project or hydrologic connection is not completed, the Auburn Gateway project or any wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 27 Special Area Plan Major Conclusions and Unresolved Issues other project in the planning area involving floodplain fill would be significantly affected, because floodplain fill compensation would then be the responsibility of the developer and would have to be located and constructed onsite or at a functional and suitable offsite location. Stormwater Management The estimated fill needed for the Auburn Gateway project is based on the assumption that a detention system can be created that will operate adequately during storm events and still provide drainage to the City stormwater conveyance system. The conveyance system experiences backwater conditions when the Green River, which is subject to flow control at the Howard Hanson Dam, is at its highest levels. The pr Gateway project area, relies on pumps, and gravity flow. If the pump system does not meet city standards and is not acceptable, then it could be necessary to fill the project area even further to increase the elevation and provide gravity flow from detention facilities in the development to the City conveyance system. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 28 Draft EIS Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Wildlife habitat areas in the Auburn Gateway project area, other than areas within boundaries of wetlands that would remain and be enhanced, would be eliminated and replaced with urban development. Habitat areas that would be eliminated include most of an approximately 2-acre forested area that is currently the only such habitat in the planning area or vicinity. It is worth noting that the Port of Seattle plans to create a wetland southeast of the planning area that would provide new forested habitat over time. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 29 Special Area Plan PART 2 Description of Alternatives History and Background of the Proposed Action History and Background of the Proposed Action The Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan project is a subarea plan that would result in new development within the northern city limits of Auburn, Washington. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Auburn 2003g) designates this area as the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area (NASPA) and directs the preparation of a plan for this area to address land use, transportation, drainage, and other issues. The Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan covers a portion of the area designated as the NASPA. The scope of this special area plan focuses on the approximately 90-acre planning area bordered by Auburn Way thth North, South 277 Street, 45 Street NE, and the existing undeveloped right-of-way for I Street NE. This planning area has been reduced from that called for in the Comprehensive Plan because some of the issues that influenced the selection of the original boundaries have been resolved and some of the property owners have elected not to participate further in development of a plan that includes their properties. Figure 1 shows the larger NASPA from the Comprehensive Plan, the smaller planning area for this project, and the project vicinity. The planning effort for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan project is being driven largely by the desire of Robertson Properties Group (RPG), one of the largest property holders in the area, to redevelop the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex and adjacent properties that it controls or that are necessary to implement their proposal. RPG has named its holdings, together with other properties that RPG is considering acquiring or that could be developed cooperatively, totaling approximately 60 acres within the planning area, has been defined as the Auburn Gateway project area in this environmental impact statement (EIS). The RPG proposal is to redevelop the Auburn Gateway project area with a mix of retail, office, and/or multifamily residential uses. Figure 2 shows the boundaries of the planning area, the Auburn Gateway project area, and existing features within the project area and vicinity. The Port of Seattle owns property at the eastern edge of the planning area and has plans to use that property to provide construction and maintenance access to a wetland mitigation site that is proposed for construction approximately 650 feet southeast of the planning area, adjacent to the Green River. The City of Auburn owns undeveloped and partially developed right-of-way in th Street NE, several locations in the planning area. Properties adjacent to Auburn Way North, 49 and D Street NE and in the planning area are owned by others. RPG has identified a range of uses and other development objectives for the Auburn Gateway project area that includes retail, office, and multifamily residential development. Because the land uses proposed by RPG would not be allowed under current zoning in portions of the Auburn Gateway project area, RPG has proposed a rezoning of its properties. The City of Auburn is onducting this planning effort, which includes a public process to incorporate the concerns of other property owners and citizens in the preparation of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 31 Special Area Plan History and Background of the Proposed Action Currently, development in the Auburn Gateway project area is subject to the requirements of the following zoning districts of the Auburn City Code: unclassified (UNC), heavy commercial (C3), and multifamily residential (R4). The plan includes consideration of new zoning for the Auburn Gateway project area. Changes in zoning and development standards will affect the type, size, and location of land uses that are allowed on the properties. The new zoning could be a modification of land uses and development standards of an existing zoning designation or the creation of an entirely new zone. As part of the planning process, the City may also include other property in this new zoning, although no specific properties have been identified for new zoning at this time. The new zoning is expected to allow a range of uses similar to the C3 zone, with some modifications to the land uses and development standards. The proposed list of uses is provided in Appendix A. Development standards for permitted uses would be the same as those under the C3 zone, with the potential additional provision that design review would be required. The City of Auburn also intends for this EIS to serve as a planned action EIS, as described in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.031). A planned action EIS identifies environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation for a range of intended uses in a limited area, and must specify mitigation addressing all significant impacts associated with development of those uses within a specified time period. Approval of a planned action for the Auburn Gateway project area would establish required mitigation potentially expedite the permitting by avoiding a duplication of environmental review for development over the planned action period. Because the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is being developed before RPG has established leases with specific tenants or other commitments for the property, the plans evaluated in this EIS are conceptual only. The three action alternatives examined in this EIS are intended to encompass the range of possible development that could be accommodated on the Auburn Gateway property in the next 10 years. The plan is intended to allow flexibility for responding to market conditions within the range of uses allowed in the new zone. Although the City has broader goals that are being considered in planning for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, RPG is considered a key proponent of this tives are described in the following section of this EIS. The RPG proposal for the Auburn Gateway project has evolved during the planning process. In addition to the application materials originally submitted to the City, RPG has helped to develop the description in this EIS and has also produced the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, which describe the intended visual character of the Auburn Gateway project. The Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines are described further in the where appropriate in other sections. Previously planned improvement th adopted transportation improvement plan include the widening of South 277 Street to five lanes th and the extension of I Street NE to connect Harvey Street NE (0.75 miles south of South 277 th Street) and South 277 Street. The extension of I Street NE south of the planning area is not part of the RPG proposal. However, a property in the southeast corner of the Auburn Gateway project area is occupied by a single-family house and not currently controlled by RPG but would be needed for I Street NE right-of-way. This property is in line with the I Street NE extension as wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 32 Draft EIS History and Background of the Proposed Action proposed in the vehicle access options evaluated in this EIS, and much or all of the property would be needed to establish the arterial road at this location. Because the project is a subarea plan that is examining new zoning, the City has defined the no- action alternative for this EIS to include development under the existing zoning. This alternative is called the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative and is descri Evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statem approvals or actions would be required for such development to occur; however, the comparison of development expected under the existing zoning provides a more accurate baseline for the effects of rezoning the property than would an alternative that assumes that no development would occur on the property over the 10- to 16-year period examined in this EIS. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 33 Special Area Plan project area include the following: Developing a mixed-use project in the Auburn Gateway project area, making use of valuable access to, and visibility from, the major arterials of th South 277 Street and Auburn Way North Maximizing the usefulness of the Auburn Gateway project area for the th planned connection of South 277 Street and Harvey Street NE via the completion of I Street NE Obtaining changes in zoning and modifications to the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan that support the proposed development. RPG is interested in maintaining flexibility in the development of a mix of retail, office, and multifamily residential uses. This flexibility could result in various combinations of uses that align with market demand and may differ from the composition of the three action alternatives described in this EIS. The maximum amount of each of these broad categories of land use under any combination is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Maximum area and height of build-out for each type of use. Use Maximum Building Area Maximum Building Height Office 1,600,000 gross square feet of floor area 75 feet to parapet height Retail 720,000 gross square feet of floor area 70 feet to parapet height Multifamily residential 500 units, limited to 50% of the Auburn Gateway 40 feet to average roof height (four stories) project area (approximately 18 units/acre density) The list of uses proposed for inclusion in the new zoning for Auburn Gateway project area is included in Appendix A. As part of the planning process, RPG has proposed the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines (Architects BCRA 2003) to establish standards for guiding the design of a future pedestrian- friendly open-air shopping center, similar in layout and overall concept to Woodinville Town Center, in Washington. While the Auburn Gateway project is expected to draw from a regional customer base, the design is intended to reflect a pedestrian scale in its overall layout. The Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines are intended to strike a balance between the needs of shoppers who are on foot; the requirements of retail, office, and residential buildings; and various site functions such as vehicle access and stormwater management, where the site layout and buildings achieve a comfortable and pedestrian-friendly human scale. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 35 Special Area Plan Parcel Size The Auburn Gateway project is intended to accommodate large retailers which would require a parcel size of up to 25 acres to allow for the stores, parking, circulation, loading, and ancillary retailers. RPG will submit an application to subdivide the property into individual legal parcels ranging from 0.5 to 25 acres to reflect the desire of retail tenants to be on separate legal parcels. Separate legal parcels can simplify the leasing arrangements for allocating maintenance responsibility for common areas and real estate taxes and provide flexibility in terms of development because each parcel can be sold individually. Buildings The site plan and structures would be developed according to the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. Buildings would be designed to include architectural form, materials, windows, pedestrian amenities (e.g., weather protection), and window treatments to break up the facade planes and the building mass and provide visual interest. The Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines provide specific guidance for avoiding blank walls, screening service and loading areas, limiting impacts on adjacent properties due to glare, and providing pedestrian amenities and points of interest along walkways. The proposed building heights for each of the proposed general use categories are shown in Table 3. Structures that are more than 45 feet high would be set back from property lines as required by the zoning code. Transportation Infrastructure RPG has proposed several new roads, both public and private, traffic controls, pedestrian connections and amenities, and other features that would be incorporated into any development plan for the Auburn Gateway project area. The specific elements of those proposed improvements include the following: I Street NE located so that it passes through the project area to create a th commercially viable street and intersection at South 277 Street, with speed limits along this section of I Street NE that are commensurate with these requirements A new public road crossing the project area (called Robertson Way under vehicle access options A and C, which are described in the next section of Part 2) from Auburn Way North to I Street NE Traffic signals at Robertson Way/Auburn Way North, and I Street th NE/South 277 Street, both of which are viewed by RPG as gateways to the project area and valuable commercial intersections wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 36 Draft EIS th Closure of D Street NE south of 49 Street NE A roundabout for traffic control at Robertson Way/I Street NE Roadway features and amenities, such as lighting and signage Sidewalks larger than City standards, crosswalks, and medians A pedestrian trail connecting segments of the trail along the south side of th South 277 Street A pedestrian trail circulating through the project area, adjacent to open space features like wetlands. Parking Parking would be provided to meet the requirements specified in the zoning code and to meet the demand by users in the project area. The parking areas would be designed to include pedestrian linkages across the project area and to individual buildings, lighting for safety and crime prevention, and landscaping and screening where appropriate. The parking structures would be subject to the same architectural treatment as other buildings, including architectural forms, pedestrian amenities, and materials. Any parking on ground level would be screened from the public right-of-way by means of landscaping and/or ornamental screening. Landscaping RPG foresees a hierarchy of landscaping serving various purposes in the project area, including landscaping for the following: Streetscape (street trees, parkways, and medians) Parking lots Screening between uses and parking lots Natural features, such as wetlands and storm drainage Onsite/offsite stormwater detention facilities. RPG proposes to avoid filling all wetlands on its properties except the wetland ditches adjacent to South 277th Street. RPG also proposes to enhance the plantings in the wetlands, wetland buffers, and stormwater detention facilities, in order to make them visual assets of the Auburn Gateway project area. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 37 Special Area Plan Signage RPG anticipates using a hierarchy of commercial signage to identify buildings and advertise businesses in the project area, including the following: Pylon signs up to 45 feet high at gateways to the project area Monument signs Directional signs Tenant signs Informational signs Signs on individual stores. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 38 Draft EIS Alternatives Evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement This EIS evaluates the proposed action in three action alternatives developed by RPG and the City of Auburn that cover the potential range and intensity of land uses that could be developed in the Auburn Gateway project area. Table 3 identifies the maximum development potential that RPG has proposed for any given use, whereas the alternatives used for the analysis represent combinations of these uses that could occur in the project area. The actual development may include a combination of the uses comprising each alternative and may range from 10,000 square feet of retail or office space or 20 multifamily residential units up to the maximum development level described for each alternative. For all three action alternatives, the design of the development would be in accordance with the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines (Architects BCRA 2003). For each alternative, the square footages identified for buildings represent the maximum gross floor area. The figure associated with each alternative should be viewed as a conceptual diagram only, for the purpose of showing types of development rather than providing a size and configuration blueprint for development. Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 1 shows how the maximum building area for office use could be accommodated in the Auburn Gateway project area. It also includes some retail use. The development would include new roads and utilities, surface parking, and stormwater detention facilities. The major elements of the development under Alternative 1 are illustrated in Figure 3. The office buildings would generally be three stories or about 45 feet high, although one or more buildings could be up to 75 feet high. The retail buildings would generally be one story but could be up to 70 feet high. Impervious surfaces could cover up to 90 percent of the Auburn Gateway project area under Alternative 1. Buildings Under Alternative 1, RPG could construct the following: 1,600,000 square feet of office space 200,000 square feet of retail buildings. According to the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, blank walls (walls with no windows or doors) would be avoided wherever possible, and building facades would be designed to break up large facades and provide wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 39 Special Area Plan Alternatives Evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement human-scale elements at the pedestrian level. Screening of service areas would also be provided using walls or landscaping. Transportation Infrastructure and Site Access The proposed RPG traffic circulation plan for Alternative 1 shown in Figure 3, including the closure of the south end of D Street NE at Auburn Way North. The proposed I Street NE and new east-west street referred to in the EIS as Robertson Way would be newly constructed public streets and would meet all the minimum standards for their respective road classifications. RPG also intends to request modifications of the current street design standards to provide wider-than- required sidewalks on all streets and a planted median on I Street NE. Parking According to the City of Auburn zoning code, one parking space is required for every 300 square feet of office space, and one space is required for every 250 square feet of leasable retail space in a shopping center. Therefore, with maximum build-out under Alternative 1, a minimum of 6,133 parking spaces would be required for office space. Parking would be provided in surface lots or in parking structures. The parking structures would be subject to the same architectural treatment as other buildings, including architectural form, pedestrian amenities, and, materials. Any parking on ground level would be screened from the public right-of-way by means of landscaping and/or ornamental screening. Pedestrian Improvements RPG proposes to construct a pedestrian trail system throughout the development, connecting to th the proposed trail along South 277 Street and circulating through the project area adjacent to open space features like wetlands. RPG would also construct small parks along the edges of the three wetlands. Stormwater and Flood Management Stormwater would be detained and treated in constructed stormwater detention ponds or in underground vaults. Figure 3 shows the possible locations for 400,000 cubic feet of stormwater detention ponds, which would cover approximately 4 acres. The specific locations of these facilities would be determined as part of the site plan development and review for future permits. A total of 500,000 cubic yards of fill would be used and 250,000 cubic yards of soil would be excavated as part of the development of the Auburn Gateway project area, raising the average grade by approximately 5 feet. Under Alternative 1, approximately 1.2 million cubic feet (27.5 acre-feet) of fill would be placed in the 100-year floodplain. Because compensation for floodplain fill is required by City regulations, the first phase of the development in the Auburn Gateway project area would require onsite compensation for any fill placed in the 100-year project southeast of the project area is expected to compensate for most or all of the floodplain fill that is placed in the planning wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 40 Draft EIS Alternatives Evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement area; however, this wetland will not be completed and available for 2 or more years. The exact portion of floodplain fill compensation that can be provided for the Auburn Gateway project area rmined; however, any portion of the compensation ould have to be located in the project area. Onsite compensation would likely be provided by the construction of surface floodplain detention ponds although specific designs have not been determined at this time. Phasing of Construction For all the action alternatives, it is assumed that the utility and road infrastructure, with the exception of I Street NE, would be constructed during the first year of development. I Street NE would be developed adjacent to and within the Auburn Gateway project area, but the alignment south of the project area might not be completed until the adjacent development occurs. The development would be completed in phases to respond to market demand, and it could be completed either more quickly or more slowly than the 10-year estimate generally used for this EIS. A market analysis of current real estate market conditions indicated relatively high vacancy rates and a low absorption rate for new office construction, which means that office development in particular is expected to take 16 years, whereas the retail portion of this alternative would be completed in approximately 7 years. The assumptions used for the development phasing in this EIS are included in Appendix B. Alternative 2: Retail Alternative 2 shows how the maximum building area for retail use could be accommodated in the Auburn Gateway project area. The major elements of the development under Alternative 2 are illustrated in Figure 4. The proposed retail building height, transportation infrastructure, pedestrian improvements, and stormwater and floodplain management approach are the same as those described for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is expected to take approximately 10 years for full development. Buildings Under Alternative 2, RPG could construct 720,000 square feet of retail buildings. Parking For Alternative 2, RPG proposes that approximately 3,600 parking spaces would be provided in surface lots or structured parking. The City of Auburn zoning code would require a minimum of 2,880 parking spaces for Alternative 2. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 43 Special Area Plan Alternatives Evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Alternative 3 shows how up to 500 multifamily residential units could be accommodated in a portion of the Auburn Gateway project area that does not exceed 50 percent of the project area. It also shows retail space on the remainder of the project area. The major elements of the development under Alternative 3 are illustrated in Figure 5. The proposed transportation infrastructure, pedestrian improvements, and stormwater and floodplain management approach are the same as those described for Alternative 1. Alternative 3 is expected to take approximately 10 years for full development. Buildings Under Alternative 3, RPG could construct the following: 360,000 square feet of retail buildings 500 residential units in multifamily buildings. Parking For Alternative 3, RPG proposes that approximately 2,800 parking spaces would be provided in surface lots or structured parking. The City of Auburn land use code would require a minimum of 2,440 parking spaces for Alternative 3 based on the requirements for retail space and assuming at least two spaces per residential unit. Additional parking would be required for residential units with three or more bedrooms. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, the southeastern portion of the Auburn Gateway project area, 9.3 acres zoned heavy commercial (C3), would be developed with retail commercial development. The eastern portion of the project area, 8.4 acres zoned multifamily residential (R4), would be developed as multifamily residential. The UNC zone, which includes the 41.5-acre Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex, would be developed in new subdivisions for single-family houses according to R1 standards (see the Land Use section). Under the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, I Street NE would be built in the existing right-of-way along the eastern edge of the planning area. One possible arrangement of such development is shown in Figure 6. Buildings Development under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative could include the following: 73,200 square feet of retail buildings 130 units of single-family housing 132 units of multifamily housing wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 44 Draft EIS Alternatives Evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement Transportation Infrastructure The following infrastructure improvements are anticipated for the No-action/Existing Zoning Alternative: I Street NE would be developed in the existing right-of-way at the eastern edge of the planning area and would be extended to the developed portion of I Street NE south of the planning area. New streets would be dedicated as part of the subdivision process to provide access to new residential and commercial development. th South 277 Street would be widened and the pedestrian trail would be constructed along the south side. Parking Facilities A total of approximately 585 to 651 parking spaces would be required for the development under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Approximately 257 spaces would be required for the retail component of this alternative. The parking required for residential units would vary according the number of bedrooms proposed, with a minimum of one and a half spaces per unit and two spaces for each to three-bedroom or more multifamily unit. All parking would be provided in surface lots or in garages associated with single-family homes. Stormwater and Floodplain Management It is assumed that the floodplain in the Auburn Gateway project area would be filled under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative and that full compensation for floodplain filling would be provided on the Port of S Floodplain filling under the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would not be expected to occu mitigation project is completed. It is also assumed that all properties developed under this alternative would provide onsite stormwater and water quality treatment that meets current City requirements. Vehicle Access Options The primary options (A, B, and C) for vehicle access to the planning area that are evaluated in this EIS are shown in Figure 7. The action alternatives illustrated in Figures 3, 4, and 5 show vehicle access option A, which includes the alignment of I Street NE preferred by RPG. This EIS evaluates the impacts of different road alignments, including, in the Transportation section, variations in the location of traffic signals, timing of completion of I Street NE, and connections to properties east of the planning area. It is the intent of this analysis to evaluate the potential adverse impacts of any of the action alternatives in combination with any of the access options. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 50 Draft EIS S I E D / 1 0 0 - 2 0 3 - 0 0 0 - 4 2 9 1 0 - 1 O 0 / b r - O - C E H / b t r / 4 0 T388uiTusffu - 6 2 t - e t 1 e 0 e r t e r u t S u T S " T " D I " " PQUJPOB 5:uiTusffu T388uiTusffu t e t e re t u e r S u t T " S T PQUJPOC D " " I " 5:uiTusffu T388uiTusffu t t e e e e r r t u t u S T S " T " PQUJPOD I D " " 5:uiTusffu >UsbggjdTjhobm Tdifnbujd;OpuupTdbmf Note:Each of the access options could include any of the "I" Street NE alignments: Tdifnbujd;!!Opu!up!tdbmf the existing right-of-way and the two alignments to the west. Figure7.PrimaryoptionsforvehicleaccesstotheplanningareafortheNEAuburn/Robertson PropertiesSpecialAreaPlan. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Table 4 provides a comparison of the impacts of the three action alternatives and the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. It also includes a summary of mitigation measures included in the EIS. Any of the action alternatives could be implemented with any of the vehicle access options; therefore, a separate comparison of advantages and disadvantages of each of the primary vehicle access options (A, B, and C) is presented in Table 5. Several suboptions (A-1, B-1, B-2, and C-1), which involve variations in the signalization of intersections, are also evaluated in the Part 3 of the EIS, in the Transportation section. There would be no significant differences among the vehicle access options with regard to the following elements of the environment: Geology, soils, and seismic conditions Air quality Hazardous materials Cultural and historic resources Land Use Recreation Utilities and public services wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 53 Special Area Plan Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Table 4. Comparison of impacts due to the alternatives. Alternative 3: Retail and No-Action/ Existing Zoning Environmental Element Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 2: Retail Residential Alternative Proposed Mitigation Geology, Soils, and Placement of approximately Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Implement standard erosion Seismic Conditions 500,000 cubic yards of fill. control measures. Excavation of 250,000 During building cubic yards of soil construction, comply with Construction on Uniform Building Code. liquefaction-prone soils Water Resources Potential erosion and Same as Alternative 1, except: Same as Alternative 1, except: Same as Alternative 1, except: Provide construction best sedimentation impacts and Less vehicle-related Less vehicle-related Most landscaping and management practices small hazardous waste pollutant loadings than pollutant loadings than least quantity of parking (BMPs) for hazardous spills during construction those from Alternative 1 those from Alternative 1 spaces, resulting in the waste and temporary Approximately 27.5 acre-but more than those from or 2 but more than those least impact on surface erosion control according to feet of floodplain fill, with Alternative 3 or the No-from the No-water quality City of Auburn and state a 1:1ratio of compensatory Action/Existing Zoning Action/Existing Zoning An increase in impervious regulations. floodplain storage provided Alternative Alternative surfaces that would be Provide water quality onsite or at the Port of substantially less than that treatment according to City Seattle wetland mitigation from the action regulations. site alternatives, largely due to Stormwater detention and An increase in impervious redevelopment of the flow control may need to surfaces to a total of Valley 6 Drive-in Theater exceed standard regulations approximately 2.3 million with single-family uses to avoid raising water levels square feet from an existing in the adjacent City storm total of approximately 1.6 system during major storm million square feet, events; alternatively, the including graveled theater total impervious surface lots) area must be decreased. Greatest quantity of parking Provide geotechnical spaces and traffic volume analysis with grading plans among the alternatives; verifying the effects of the therefore, the greatest development on ground extent of vehicle-related water and ensuring that pollutant loadings grading and construction Decrease in ground water will not adversely affect infiltration wetlands. Possible increase in ground water levels in adjacent areas due to filling and compaction Possible impacts on wetland viability due to potential changes in ground water levels wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 54 Draft EIS Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Table 4. Comparison of impacts of the alternatives (continued). Alternative 3: Retail and No-Action/ Existing Zoning Environmental Element Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 2: Retail Residential Alternative Proposed Mitigation Air Quality Construction impacts Same as Alternative 1, except: Same as Alternative 1, except: Same as Alternative 1, except: Prohibit wood-burning including dust from Less vehicle-related Less vehicle-related Less vehicle-related devices. excavation, demolition, and emissions than those from emissions than those from emissions than those from Use well-maintained grading; emissions from Alternative 1 but more Alternative 1 or 2 but any of the action equipment and trucks. trucks and small equipment than those from more than those from the alternatives Retrofit off-road equipment operation; and odor Alternative 3 or the No-No-Action/Existing with emission reduction emissions during paving Action/ Existing Zoning Zoning Alternative equipment. Increased vehicular Alternative Restrict construction truck pollutant emissions due to idling. increased vehicle activity Stage construction where and modifications to major diesel emissions will be regional roadways away from residential uses No significant operational and air intakes to buildings. impacts, according to Spray exposed soil with results of air quality water or other dust conformance analysis suppressant. Cover dump trucks, or provide adequate freeboard. Wash wheels of construction vehicles. Remove particulate matter that is deposited on paved roads. Route and schedule construction trucks so that traffic delays are reduced during peak travel times. Noise Temporary increase in Same as Alternative 1, except: Same as Alternative 1, except: Same as Alternative 3, except: Minimize construction noise by: sound levels during Less project-related Less project-related Less project-related Use of portable noise multiple construction vehicle noise on I Street vehicle noise on I Street vehicle noise than that barriers phases NE than that from NE than that from from any action Substituting hydraulic or Potential operational noise Alternative 1 Alternative 1 or 2 alternative electrical tools for impact impacts from rooftop More vehicle-related noise Less vehicle-related noise Residential uses that cover tools thth equipment and activities in at D Street NE near 49 at D Street NE near 49 a greater area than that Minimizing use of back-up loading and service areas Street NE than that from Street NE than that from under Alternative 3 but alarms. Effects on existing Alternative 1, Alternative Alternative 1, Alternative result in fewer residents Minimize operational noise by: residences along I Street 3, or the No-Action/ 2, or the No- Use of fences, berms, and NE, 45th Street NE, D Existing Zoning Action/Existing Zoning landscaping in Street NE, and 49th Street Alternative with some Alternative (see Table 5) shipping/receiving areas NE due to increased noise access options (see Table New noise-sensitive Limiting deliveries and from vehicle traffic 5) receivers (residents) waste hauling to daytime hours Use of noise barriers. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 55 Special Area Plan Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Table 4. Comparison of impacts of the alternatives (continued). Alternative 3: Retail and No-Action/ Existing Zoning Environmental Element Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 2: Retail Residential Alternative Proposed Mitigation Substantial increase in noise Noise (continued) on I Street NE due to completion of the street south of the planning area as planned prior to this project Minimal project impacts on Mallard Pointe apartments, but sound level in excess of WSDOT noise threshold of 66 dBA Project-related traffic noise increases of 6 to 7 dBA for residences in commercial zone near D Street NE and th 49 Street NE Varying levels of impacts depending on vehicle access option chosen (see Table 5) Mitigation for the filling of Plants and Animals Construction impacts Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternatives 1 and 2 Same as Alternative 3 wetland ditches along including noise, potential except: th South 277Street has Potential increase in erosion/sedimentation already been provided by wildlife mortality and in and/or accidental spills of City of Kent. fecal coliform bacteria pollutants; and temporary Design lighting to minimize from domestic animals clearing and grading in impacts on remaining associated with wetland buffers habitat areas. residences. Permanent loss of small Provide an average 100- forest habitat in northeast foot buffer for forested portion of Auburn Gateway scrub-shrub type wetlands project area and an average 75-foot New or enhanced native buffer for remaining plantings in wetland emergent type wetlands. buffers, proposed to Ensure that mitigation for average 50 feet in width. additional wetland impacts Filling of 0.5 acres of is consistent with the wetland ditches along th requirements of the Mill South 277 Street Creek Special Area Potential impacts from Management Plan. noise, human activity, and night lighting Impacts on additional wetland areas resulting from vehicle access options B and C (see Table 5) wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 56 Draft EIS Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Table 4. Comparison of impacts of the alternatives (continued). Alternative 3: Retail and No-Action/ Existing Zoning Environmental Element Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 2: Retail Residential Alternative Proposed Mitigation Hazardous Materials Potential for discovery of, Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as action alternatives but Conduct Phase 2 hazardous release of, or worker possibly slower development, material investigation on exposure to contaminants leaving potential risks in place sites with known potential during construction until development occurs risks prior to construction Disposal of all discovered and/or require the hazardous materials, contractor to monitor for according current hazardous materials during regulations. construction. Dispose of contaminated materials in an approved facility. Cultural and Historic Potential for disturbance of Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 1 Enlist the services of a Resources Native American artifacts professsional archeologist during excavation to monitor ground- Demolition of existing disturbing construction in Valley 6 Drive-in case archeological remains Theaterhas been determined are found. not to be a significant Coordinate the treatment of historic resource archaelogical remains, if any, through consultation among agencies with jurisdiction. Prepare photographic documentation of the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex. Land Use Change of use from drive- Change of use from drive- Change of use from drive- Change of use from drive- Restrict location of filling in theater, auto sales, three in theater, auto sales, three in theater, auto sales, three in theater, auto sales, three stations to at least 1,000 single-family residences, single-family residences, single-family residences, single-family residences, feet from residences. and undeveloped land to and undeveloped land to and undeveloped land to and undeveloped land to Locate outdoor activity office and retail retail, which could include retail and multifamily retail uses, other areas away from residences. Increase in intensity of uses large retailers (also known residences commercial uses, and Design loading areas to Approximately 4,000 jobs Increase in intensity of single-family and minimize noise and glare. in retail and office uses as discount or membership uses multifamily residences Provide landscaping to Increase in bulk and scale stores) Approximately 650 jobs in Increase in intensity of promote pedestrian safety. of buildings in surrounding Increase in intensity of retail uses uses area uses Approximately 1,200 new Moderate increase in bulk Heavier evening and residents and scale of buildings in weekend activity than that Increase in bulk and scale surrounding area under Alternative 1 of buildings in Increased demand for Approximately 1,300 jobs surrounding area services in retail uses Increased demand for goods and services wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 57 Special Area Plan Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Table 4. Comparison of impacts of the alternatives (continued). Alternative 3: Retail and No-Action/ Existing Zoning Environmental Element Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 2: Retail Residential Alternative Proposed Mitigation Land Use (continued) Increase in bulk and scale of buildings in surrounding area Aesthetics Office buildings up to 75 Same as Alternative 1 except: Same as Alternative 2 except: Mix of single-family, Apply the setbacks, height, feet high No office buildings Less of an increase in multifamily, and retail landscaping, and other Retail buildings up to 70 Larger scale retail outdoor lighting and signs development standards found in C3 feet high buildings likely than that under Alternative Multifamily buildings that zoning code . Buildings generally facing Greater potential for 1 or 2 because a smaller are lower in height (30 Implement proposed toward the center of the public views of loading portion of the project area feet allowed) than those Auburn Gateway Design development, parking areas, and waste storage areas would be developed for under Alternative 3 and Guidelines through a design and major pedestrian and blank walls than that commercial uses that consist of fewer units review approval process. connections, with some under Alternative 1 or 3 Multifamily residential Single-family Additional recommended windows or other features because of larger scale and units 45 feet in height development that is measures include facing public roadways more extensive retail (lower in scale than the smaller in scale and that development of a master Potential public views of development buildings included in consists of more numerous sign plan and consolidation loading and waste storage Possibly greater increase commercial development buildings than that under of signs, and development areas and blank walls, but in outdoor signs because under Alternatives 1 and the action alternatives of a master pedestrian the proposed Auburn of need for retail signs 2) Retail buildings that are movement plan that Gateway Design Guidelines likely to be one-story high identifies where amenities include provisions for and likely to exclude large would be located. screening and architectural retailers because of treatments to minimize limited lot size in these impacts commercial zone Increase in outdoor lighting Potential public views of and signs loading and waste storage Preserved wetland areas areas and buffers and enhanced Less of an increase in plantings outdoor lighting and signs Enhanced wetland buffers, than that under any of the which would reduce visual action alternatives impacts on properties to the east, but the degree of impact could vary with vehicle access option (see Table 5) wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 58 Draft EIS Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Table 4. Comparison of impacts of the alternatives (continued). Alternative 3: Retail and No-Action/ Existing Zoning Environmental Element Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 2: Retail Residential Alternative Proposed Mitigation Recreation Minor increase in demand Minor increase in demand Increase in demand for Increase in demand for Implement proposed for new recreation for new recreation new recreation resources, new recreation resources, Auburn Gateway Design resources from office resources similar to that including play areas, including play areas, Guidelines through a design workers who would not under Alternative 1, but sports fields, and pet sports fields, and pet review approval process. likely increase demand for demand would come from exercise areas due to new exercise areas Additional recreational offsite park and recreation retail customers and residents resources or contributions amenities workers Same pedestrian trail to park development may Completion of adjacent Same pedestrian trail improvements as those be required for Alternative segment of pedestrian trail improvements as those under Alternative 1 3 or the No-Action/Existing th on South 277 Street under Alternative 1 Provision of Zoning Alternative. connecting to other city and approximately 1.7 acres of county trails along the active recreation areas for Green River and pedestrian multifamily development, trail west of planning area according to the proposed Creation of a private, onsite Auburn Gateway Design pedestrian trail system Guidelines connecting passive Not all new demand for recreation areas near recreation would be met wetlands and stormwater by the proposed facilities, ponds with pedestrian resulting in increased use linkages within the of other parks and development, according to recreation resources, the proposed Auburn particularly community Gateway Design Guidelines parks Utilities and Public Increased demand for Same as Alternative 1 except: Same as Alternative 1 except: Same as Alternative 1 except: Development may need to Services utilities, including sewer, Less of an increase in Less of an increase in Less overall demand for wait until sewer upgrade to water, and wastewater, demand for emergency demand for emergency utilities than that under be able to tie-in to sewage which will require services than that under services than that under any of the action system. expansion and relocation of Alternative 1 but more of Alternative 1 alternatives due to less City is planning for long- utility lines to serve this an increase in demand for Less of an increase in intensive uses term need to increase water development law enforcement demand for law Less of an increase in supply. th Sewer line in South 277 enforcement than that demand for emergency Increased taxes and fees Street scheduled for under Alternative 2 but services and law from development of the upgrade in order to be able higher than that under enforcement than that project area. to carry additional flows Alternative 1 under any of the action including this development An estimated 264 alternatives prevention through Increase in demand for additional students An estimated 132 emergency services and law enrolled in schools additional students measures. enforcement including Kent School enrolled in schools School impact fees are District including Kent School expected to offset District additional demand for public school facilities wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 59 Special Area Plan Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Table 4. Comparison of impacts of the alternatives (continued). Alternative 3: Retail and No-Action/ Existing Zoning Environmental Element Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 2: Retail Residential Alternative Proposed Mitigation th Transportation Generation of 2,193 new Generation of 1,433 new Generation of 944 new Generation of 406 new Improve and widen 45 PM peak-hour vehicle trips PM peak-hour vehicle PM peak-hour vehicle PM peak-hour vehicle Street NE if access option per day trips per day trips per day. trips per day. B is chosen. Auburn Way North corridor Auburn Way North Auburn Way North LOS was not separately Install a traffic signal at average LOS: D corridor average LOS: D corridor average LOS: D calculated for the No-Auburn Way North/D ththth South 277 Street corridor South 277 Street corridor South 277 Street average Action/Existing Zoning Street NE. average LOS: E average LOS: E corridor LOS: E Alternative, but impacts would Improve eastern half of D Central Avenue/Willis Central Avenue/Willis Central Avenue/Willis be less than those under all the Street NE adjacent to Street intersection LOS: F Street intersection LOS: F Street intersection LOS: F action alternatives Auburn Gateway project ththth 116 Avenue NE/Kent- 116 Avenue NE/Kent- 116 Avenue NE/Kent-area. The no-build condition would Kangley Roadintersection Kangley Road Kangley Road intersection Construct a southbound have the following levels of LOS: F intersection LOS: F LOS: F right-turn pocket or an service: Intersection levels of Intersection level of Intersection level of eastbound right-turn pocket Auburn Way North thththth service on S 277 Street, service service on S 277 service service on S 277 at Auburn Way North/30 corridor average LOS: D th and on Auburn Way North Street, and Auburn Way Street, and Auburn Way Street if Alternative 1 or 2 South 277 Street corridor would depend on vehicle North would depend on North would depend on is implemented. average LOS: E access option chosen (see vehicle access option vehicle access option Construct a westbound Central Avenue/Willis Table 5) chosen (see Table 5) chosen (see Table 5) right-turn lane at South Street LOS: F th th Possible additional impacts Possible additional Possible additional 277 Street and Auburn 116 Avenue NE/Kent- on intersections at Auburn impacts on intersections at impacts on intersections at Way North. Kangley Road LOS: F Way North, if the Auburn Auburn Way North, if the Auburn Way North, if the Implement transportation Gateway project area is Auburn Gateway project Auburn Gateway project demand management developed before I Street area is developed before I area is developed before I strategies for commercial NE is completed south of Street NE is completed Street NE is completed office development. the planning area south of the planning area south of the planning area dBA = A-weighted decibels LOS = level of service WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 60 Draft EIS Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives Table 5 Comparison of impacts due to the primary vehicle access options. Environmental Element Vehicle Access Option A Vehicle Access Option B Vehicle Access Option C Water Resources Option A is included in the estimate of total grading and floodplain fill Additional floodplain fill would be required The amount of floodplain fill required would be required for Auburn Gateway project area. outside of Auburn Gateway project area. more than that under option A but less than that under option B. Noise For Alternative 1: For Alternative 1, same as option A, except: For Alternative 1, same as option A except: ththth I Street NE/45 Street NE: 66 dBA D Street NE/49 Street NE: 68 dBA. D Street NE/49 Street NE: 64 dBA. th 45 Street NE/Auburn Way North: 67 dBA For Alternatives 2 and 3, same as option A For Alternatives 2 and 3, same as option A except th th D Street NE/49 Street NE: 65 dBA. except greater impacts would be likely at D lesser impacts are likely at D Street NE/49 Street th For Alternative 2: NE. Street NE/49 Street NE. th I Street NE/45 St NE: <66 dBA th 45 Street NE/Auburn Way North: <66 dBA th D Street NE/49 Street NE: 67 dBA. For Alternative 3: th I Street NE/45 Street NE: <66 dBA th 45Street NE/Auburn Way North: <66 dBA th D Street NE/49 Street NE: 65 dBA. th Plants and Animals Other than wetland ditches along South 277 Street, no filling of wetlands In addition to the filling of wetland ditches In addition to the filling of wetland ditches along thth would be necessary, but some impacts on wetland buffers are likely. along South 277 Street, the filling of South 277 Street, the filling of approximately 0.25 approximately 0.55 acres of wetlands would be acres of wetlands would be necessary. necessary. Aesthetics Wetland buffers would provide visual screening between the residential Wetland buffers would provide less visual Wetland buffers would provide less visual screening zone to the east and the Auburn Gateway project area. screening between residential area to the east between residential area to the east and the Auburn and the Auburn Gateway project area than with Gateway project area than with option A but more option A unless replacement wetlands and than option B, unless replacement wetlands and buffers are located in this area. I Street NE buffers are located in this area. I Street NE would would provide separation between commercial provide separation between commercial uses and uses and residential to the east. residential to the east. Transportation Would provide more than adequate separation of I Street NE/South There would be inadequate separation of I There would be adequate separation from thth 277 Street intersection from Green River bridge, which allows ample Street NE/ South 277 Street intersection Green River bridge for left-turn queues. th room for left-turn queues. from Green River bridge for left-turn Auburn Way North/45 Street NE intersection th I Street NE/South 277 Street would operate at level of service E for queues. would be at LOS F unless signalized. th Alternative 1 and at LOS D for Alternatives 2 and 3. Auburn Way North/45 Street NE Auburn Way North/Robertson Way th Auburn Way North/45 Street NE intersection would be at LOS F intersection would be at LOS D with intersection would be at LOS E unless unless signalized. signal. signalized. Roundabout proposed by RPG would operate at LOS F when the Roundabout proposed by RPG would Roundabout proposed by RPG would operate at Auburn Gateway project area is fully developed under Alternative. 1 operate at LOS F when the Auburn LOS F when the Auburn Gateway project area th Robertson Way could alleviate cut-through traffic on 45 Street NE. Gateway project area is fully developed is fully developed under Alternative 1. th With no connection between 49 Street NE and either I Street NE or under Alternative 1. Robertson Way could alleviate cut-through th Robertson Way, access to properties west of D Street NE would be Would provide better access from traffic on 45 Street NE. limited. properties on D Street NE to arterials than Would provide better access from properties on th Signal at 49 Street (option A-1) would attract short-cut through option A. D Street NE to arterials than option A. ththth traffic from South 277 Street to Auburn Way North. Signal at 49 Street would attract short- Signal at 49 Street (option C-1) would attract thth cut through traffic from South 277 Street short-cut through traffic from South 277 to Auburn Way North. Street to Auburn Way North. dBA = A-weighted decibels RPG = Robertson Properties Group wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 61 Special Area Plan Benefits and Disadvantages of Delayed Implementation Benefits and Disadvantages of Delayed Implementation Benefits Many of the impacts described in Part 3 of this EIS would be avoided, at least temporarily, if implementation of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is delayed. Delayed implementation of the subarea plan would allow additional time for the completion of th street and other improvements that are already planned, such as the widening of South 277 th Street, the connection of I Street NE to South 277 Street, the upgrading of the King County th sewer line in South 277 and floodplain connection. The completion of th Gateway project could reduce the overall amount of grading required because temporary flood storage would not be required onsite. Potential impacts associated with the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would be likely to occur if market forces are sufficient to motivate property owners to develop land in accordance with current zoning. Therefore, some impacts would be expected to occur whether a subarea plan is adopted or not. th The portion of the South 277 Street right-of-way and roadway adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area is not within the city limits of Auburn. Presently, the north half of the roadway is located within the City of Kent. The south half of the roadway is located in unincorporated King County. There have been preliminary discussions among the jurisdictions to bring the roadway within a single jurisdiction but additional consultation and approvals are required. Annexation by the City of Auburn is anticipated within a year. Jurisdiction by a single authority would simplify construction approvals and permitting. Disadvantages If road and utility improvements are made in the planning area without an adopted subarea plan, the improvements might require modifications when the development in the Auburn Gateway project area does occur, because the current plans might not provide sufficient capacity for the development that is ultimately approved. Street improvements that are planned but not funded would likely occur only as adjacent development occurs, which means that the benefits of th widening South 277 Street and creating an alternative north-south route along I Street could be delayed. Street improvements using the existing right-of-way for I Street NE (vehicle access option C, shown in Figure 7) would result in problems related to left-turn queues when I Street NE is completed through to Harvey Road NE. Furthermore, the City would not realize any of the employment and tax revenue benefits associated with the proposed development of the Auburn Gateway project area until the project is implemented. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 63 Special Area Plan PART 3 Affected Environment, Impact, and Mitigation Measures Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions Applicable Laws and Regulations The Washington Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requires each city and county to identify critical areas within its jurisdiction and to adopt development regulations for their protection. Among the critical areas designated by the statute are geologically hazardous areas, defined as areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquakes, or other geological events can support only limited development consistent with public health and safety concerns. The City of Auburn has developed regulations governing environmentally critical areas, which are published in the Auburn City Code (ACC), Title 16, Environment. A series of maps has been developed by the City and King County to delineate geologically hazardous areas, including seismic (liquefaction-prone) and volcanic (lahar-prone) areas, known and potential slide areas, and steep slopes of 40 percent or greater (Auburn 2002e, King County 1990). A grading permit is required by the City of Auburn for excavation or grading of 50 cubic yards or more. A drainage plan must be submitted with the grading permit request, according to ACC 15.72.030. In addition, all structures must be designed and constructed to the standards of the Uniform Building Code, which specifies engineering requirements for construction in seismically active areas. Affected Environment The information in this section is based primarily on data, maps, unpublished geotechnical reports, and other information obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey, the City of Auburn, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Project Location and Topography The Auburn Gateway project area is located in the northeastern portion of Auburn, Washington, in Section 31, Township 22 north, Range 5, east of the Willamette Meridian. It lies in the southern portion of the Puget Sound Lowland physiographic region in the Duwamish Valley, is relatively level, and has an elevation of approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (USGS 1983). Before 1906, the White River became bifurcated just before reaching the floor of the Duwamish Valley, with the White River flowing northward into the Green River and the Stuck River flowing southward as a tributary of the Puyallup River. After a flood in 1906, most of the flow wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 65 Special Area Plan Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions was directed into the Stuck River, and subsequent engineering projects permanently diverted the north-flowing White River into the Stuck River (which was then renamed the White River). The land occupying the abandoned channel and adjacent floodplain of the pre-1906 White River (Luzier 1969) has subsequently been developed. Geology and Soils The surficial geology of the Auburn Gateway project area consists of Quaternary alluvium (stream deposits) and stratified clay, silt, and gravel. The alluvial deposits extend to depths greater than 305 feet below the ground surface, as determined by means of a well completed north of the project area. The alluvial deposits are underlain by unconsolidated and undifferentiated Quaternary deposits including those originating from the Osceola mudflow (Luzier 1969). The mudflow deposits consist of volcanic rock fragments in a clayey, sandy matrix. Tertiary bedrock consisting of sedimentary rocks and some intrusive rocks underlies the unconsolidated Quaternary deposits. The depth of the bedrock in the project area likely exceeds 650 feet below the ground surface (Woodward et al. 1995). Twenty-three test pits ranging in depth from 9 to 14 feet below the ground surface were completed in the project area (AESI 1998). The sediments in the area generally consist of silty sand and sandy silt with some clean sand and silt lenses. Three of the test pits encountered clayey silt and six encountered gravelly sand. The gravelly sand was likely placed as a result of previous fill activities. Soil mapped throughout the project area includes the Briscot, Oridia, and Woodinville series (Snyder et al. 1973). The Briscot and Oridia series consist of somewhat poorly drained soils formed on alluvium in river valleys with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. The Woodinville series consists of poorly drained soils formed on alluvium in stream bottoms with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. Urban land soils, indicating filled areas, are mapped along area streets and the south theater complex. Runoff is slow for the three soil series and high for the paved area mapped as urban land. The erosion hazard is slight for all of the soil series mapped in the project area. Steep Slope and Landslide Hazard Areas Steep slopes are generally defined as those that rise at a slope of 40 percent or more with a vertical change of at least 10 feet. Steep slopes and landslide hazard areas have not been identified in the Auburn Gateway project area (King County 1990; Auburn 2002e). wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 66 Draft EIS Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions Seismic Conditions Just west of the Washington coast lies the boundary between two major tectonic plates: the Juan de Fuca plate and the North American plate. The convergent boundary is the Cascadia subduction zone, and the shallow, dipping zone of contact (thrust fault) between the two tectonic plates is the Cascadia fault zone (USGS 1996). Converging plates often result in low-angle thrust faults, common in areas of compression where one plate is abducted beneath another. Consequently, the Auburn Gateway project area is susceptible to three types of earthquake: crustal, intraplate, and subduction. Crustal earthquakes (e.g., the Seattle fault) result from the shifting of rock masses within the North American plate. Crustal earthquakes are the shallowest of the three types and often occur close to the ground surface, resulting in ground rupture. The Coast Range Boundary fault, a crustal fault occurring within the North American plate, passes close to the project area (Johnson et al. 1999). The recurrence interval for movement of the Coast Range Boundary fault is unknown, although this fault is considered active and the potential for ground rupture exists. Intraplate earthquakes involve shifting within the underlying Juan de Fuca plate. The 1949 Olympia earthquake, the 1965 Seattle earthquake, and the 2001 Nisqually earthquake (of magnitudes 7.1, 6.5, and 6.8 on the Richter scale, respectively) are examples of intraplate events. While the recurrence interval for these intraplate events is uncertain, six events of magnitude 6.0 or greater have been recorded since 1870. Most of the earthquakes recorded historically in the Seattle-Auburn area have occurred 25 to 35 miles deep, within the Juan de Fuca plate (USGS 1996). Subduction earthquakes typically occur along boundaries between converging tectonic plates. The Cascadia subduction zone, however, has not been seismic historically, and no record of thrust earthquakes has been identified over the 200-year period of record (McCrumb et al. 1989). However, recent geological research indicates that western Washington is at risk from subduction earthquakes exceeding magnitude 8 on the Richter scale (Noson et al. 1988). Earthquakes of this type are estimated to have a 400- to 500-year return period. Seismic Risk Zones The Uniform Building Code, which establishes building design and construction standards used by architects and engineers, has assessed seismic risk in the Puget Sound region to provide earthquake design standards for regional construction. The Puget Sound region is currently classified in seismic zone 3 on the Uniform Building Code seismic risk scale of 0 (low risk) to 4 (high risk) (ICBO 1997). Liquefaction When shaken by an earthquake, certain soils are susceptible to liquefaction; i.e., they lose strength and temporarily behave like liquids. The seismically induced loss of strength can result in failure of the ground surface, most typically expressed as lateral spreads, surface cracks, wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 67 Special Area Plan Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions settlement, or sand boils. A structure can sustain substantial damage during a large seismic event if the soil beneath it liquefies. Seismically induced liquefaction typically occurs in loose, saturated, sandy material commonly associated with recent river, lake, and beach sedimentation; or it can be associated with areas of loose, saturated fill (Palmer et al. 1995). The soil in the Auburn Gateway project area includes artificial fill, modified land, and Holocene alluvium. The entire project area has been mapped as Category I (high liquefaction susceptibility) (Palmer et al. 1995). Volcanic Hazards (Mudflow) Because of its proximity to Mount Rainier, the Auburn Gateway project area is susceptible to volcanic mudflows. According to geological mapping, the project area is underlain by deposits originating from the Osceola mudflow that occurred approximately 5,500 years ago (Luzier 1969). The entire project area has been mapped as a volcanic (mudflow) hazard area by the City of Auburn (Dixon 2003b personal communication). Environmental Impacts Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives The Puget Sound area is susceptible to seismic activity, including ground motion amplification. The amount of earthquake risk for any particular area depends on its depth, its distance from the earthquake epicenter, local soil conditions, and types of construction in the area. However, although the recent Nisqually earthquake in February 2001 (6.8 on the Richter scale) caused significant damage to many buildings and structures in the Seattle area, modern buildings constructed under seismic zone 3 design standards were not damaged by that earthquake. If damage due to seismic activity were to occur, the affected populations for each alternative would differ. For a daytime event, Alternative 1 would likely affect the greatest number of people, because offices would be occupied. For a night time event, Alternative 3 would likely have the greatest population, because of the residences. Before the implementation of any of the three action alternatives, significant site grading would be required to prepare the site for development. Approximately 500,000 cubic yards of fill and 250,000 cubic yards of excavation would be necessary. Standard erosion control measures would be implemented during the earthwork portions of the project. These measures are addressed in the Water Resources section of this EIS. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative Impacts resulting from the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would be similar to those from the proposed action alternatives. In the event of damage from a seismic event, the impacts wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 68 Draft EIS Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would be similar to those under Alternative 3; however, there would be fewer residents and workers that could be affected. Cumulative Impacts No cumulative seismic or geological impacts are expected to result from any of the alternatives. Mitigation Measures Facilities would be designed and constructed to meet Uniform Building Code. The soil would be replaced or reworked to improve its engineering properties, because the entire Auburn Gateway project area has been mapped as an area with high-liquefaction susceptibility. A geotechnical report would be prepared by a Washington state-licensed geotechnical engineer as part of the design process. If found necessary by a geotechnical engineer, foundations would be designed in accordance with site-specific recommendations, based on expected peak ground acceleration during the design earthquake. According to the Uniform Building Code, the design earthquake must at a minimum be one with no greater than a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse geological or seismic impacts are expected to result from the proposed action under any of the action alternatives, provided that recommended design, engineering, and construction practices are followed. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 69 Special Area Plan Water Resources Water Resources Applicable Laws and Regulations State and local regulations govern activities associated with stormwater runoff and water quality for the proposed Auburn Gateway project. At the state level, the Washington Department of Ecology regulates stormwater runoff from large construction sites with greater than 1 acre of soil disturbance via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permitting program. The Auburn Gateway project would require an NPDES permit for construction activities, and it is expected that the resultant general permit conditions would require the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and diligent implementation and maintenance of a variety of temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures and other pollution prevention measures throughout the period of project construction. The Department of Ecology also issues Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certifications for projects that require one or more federal permits, such as a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 permit. If the Auburn Gateway project requires a Section 404 permit from the Corps for wetland fill or other in-water work, then the Department of Ecology will require a water quality certification. This certification would impose specific requirements for water quality on the construction project, and possibly for the permanent drainage systems, in order to achieve the state standards for surface water quality. At the local level, the City of Auburn has several regulatory requirements pertaining to floodplains and stormwater management. The City is revising its critical areas regulations and currently relies on adopted SEPA policies and uses SEPA review to identify impacts and require the displacement of flood storage volume. The Auburn City Code does not prohibit potential increases in expected water levels of up to 1 foot during the 100-year flood in the Green River in several policies of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Auburn 2003g) and Section 13.48.420 of the Auburn City Code authorize the City to mitigate impacts on floodplains resulting from development, and the City regularly exercises this authority to ensure no net loss of floodplain storage capacity. ation are discussed further under c basis, this floodplain mitigation can be accommodated offsite as approved by the City. Flood storage compensation must be provided concurrently with the flood storage displacement to ensure that adverse effects on nearby properties do not occur. The City of Auburn also regulates stormwater runoff associated with construction activities and permanent site development, primarily Design and Construction Standards (Auburn 1998b). Specifically, these standards set forth the following: wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 71 Special Area Plan Water Resources Requirements for a variety of grading, erosion, and sedimentation control measures during construction The timing of installation and removal of erosion and sedimentation control measures Requirements for storm drainage conveyance systems, analysis of offsite conveyance impacts, and provision of permanent stormwater treatment and flow control (infiltration and detention) facilities Design criteria for sizing of drainage conveyance systems and runoff treatment and flow control facilities. ion and sedimentation controls are similar to what the Department of Ecology requires in a SWPPP in its NPDES construction permits. The or detention of runoff from developed sites are intended to reduce or prevent adverse effects on downstream properties, drainage conveyance systems, and receiving waters. The specific standards for treatment and flow control are described later in this section. Affected Environment Surface Water The primary surface water bodies of concern in this analysis are the Green River, located within one-half mile of the planning area to the north and east (Figure 1), and several wetlands within and near the planning area. In addition to these water bodies, several constructed drainage features within and near the planning area are also described below and shown in Figure 8. Green River Floodplain Flow in the Green River is managed by releases from Howard Hanson Dam, which is located approximately 25 river miles upstream of the Auburn Gateway project area. Discharges from the dam are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in an effort to limit peak flows to 12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less in the Green River downstream of the dam, up to the 100-year recurrence interval flood event. As a result, expected peak flow downstream of the dam could be the same for large magnitude storms such as the 25- or 100-year recurrence interval events. Therefore, it is expected that the peak water surface elevations in the Green River floodplain near the project area are somewhat predictable, but that the duration of river discharge at this maximum level would be longer for the 100-year flood than for the 25-year flood (Carlaw 2003 personal communication). The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) was contacted for confirmation of peak-flow scenarios in the Green River. Flood flow conditions downstream of Howard Hanson Dam are described as follows (Levesque wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 72 Draft EIS Water Resources 2003 personal communication). The authorized release for the dam, is up to 12,000 cfs for any storm, from the 2-year event to the standard project flood (SPF) (or 100-year flood event). On two occasions, the Corps has exceeded this limit within the Auburn city limits, once in 1975 and again in 1996. Based on analyses performed by King County WLRD for the 1993 King County flood Hazard Reduction Plan, the record of the releases indicates that dam discharges during more frequent events are not typically ramped up to 12,000 cfs. Although the authorized peak release from the dam is 12,000 cfs, it is possible that greater flows may occur downstream. The U.S. Geological Survey published a schedule of estimated flows for water years 1961 through about 1979, and predicted that the peak flow in the Green River downstream of the dam could be slightly greater than 13,000 cfs in the 100-year event. Whether flows actually reach or exceed 13,000 cfs in the river in the vicinity of the project area depends on the geographic distribution of precipitation within the basin and how this affects various tributaries between the dam and the planning area. Only one set of flood elevations for the Green River are evaluated in this EIS. These flood elevations are those associated with the maximum 12,000 cfs discharge that is targeted in the management of releases from Howard Hanson Dam. If the peak flow estimate of approximately 13,000 cfs as derived by the USGS is realized, the maximum floodwater elevations in the vicinity of the project area would be slightly higher. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has published flood insurance rate maps for the Green River floodplain in the Auburn vicinity, showing the extents of flooding that would occur in a 100-year recurrence interval event. During such a maximum flow, the Green River would back up from the main channel north of the planning area through a narrow connection into a larger, quiescent slackwater area located between the Green River and the planning area. thth Most of this slackwater area is north of South 277 Street, but some is also south of South 277 Street. As indicated in Figure 8, this maximum floodwater inundation area covers approximately half of the Auburn Gateway project area and the larger planning area. FEMA reports the elevation of this maximum slackwater area inundation as 45.0 feet in the national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD) of 1929, although the peak flood elevation in the reach of the river to which it is attached is probably closer to 44.8 feet NGVD (FEMA 1995). An elevation of 45.0 feet NGVD is equivalent to an elevation of 48.5 feet in the North American vertical datum of th 1988 (NAVD88). The total estimated existing floodplain storage south of South 277 Street and east of Auburn Way North is nearly 60 acre-feet (Ulman 2003 personal communication). th A larger twin-barrel culvert was installed across South 277 Street near the northeast corner of th the Auburn Gateway project area during the recent roadway improvements on South 277 Street th (Figure 8). This culvert was designed to convey floodwaters across South 277 Street in a hydraulic manner similar to what existed prior to the recent roadway improvements. It provides a partial connection from the north to the additional flood storage that will be created once the Port of Seattle completes its wetland mitigation project for the Seattle-Tacoma International (Sea-Tac) Airport third runway at a location between the planning area and the reach of the Green River to the east (Figure 8). This mitigation project is discussed in more detail later in this section. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 74 Draft EIS Water Resources Soil Characteristics Affecting Stormwater Runoff and Infiltration Surficial geology in the Green River valley in the vicinity of the planning area consists of Quaternary alluvium (stream deposits) of the Briscot, Oridia, and Woodinville soil series. These soils consist of stratified clay, silt, and gravel that extend down at least 305 feet and have low runoff potential and only slight erosion potential (Luzier 1969; Snyder et al. 1973). Native surficial soils in the planning area consist mainly of silty sand and sandy silt, with some areas of clean sand. These sediments occur in lenses typically 1 to 7 feet thick, consistent with alluvial deposition (AESI 1998). Geotechnical borings by AESI indicated 1 to 4 feet of fill throughout much of the Auburn Gateway project area. This fill has higher runoff potential and unknown erosion potential. See the Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions section for more information on the regional geology. As noted below, high ground water levels relative to ground surface elevations prevent the infiltration of runoff in much of the planning area. Storm Drainage The planning area and its surrounding area are generally level, consistent with their location within the broad Green River valley. As a result, the most prominent topographic features in and near the planning area are manmade, such as road embankments. It is likely that a significant percentage of the precipitation that falls on the planning area simply ponds in various topographic low spots. For example, water is known to pond between the rows of parking spaces within the drive-in theater. Runoff from the Auburn Gateway project area flows overland to one of the many ditches that crisscross the planning area and line the northern and eastern boundaries of the project area, and to several wetlands. The Auburn Gateway project area does not appear to receive surface runoff from adjacent areas. All of the runoff from the planning area eventually thth flows to a ditch north of South 277 Street along the west side of 86 Avenue South that conveys the water to the river. This ditch is also known as Auburn Creek, although it shows very little resemblance to a natural stream. Some of the areas within the planning area west of the Auburn Gateway project area also drain to the existing storm sewer that flows north along D Street NE (Auburn 2002c; Carlaw 2003 personal communication). This sewer also drains other developed areas of the city south of the planning area. During site reconnaissance work performed for this project on March 4, 2003, all of the ditches in the planning area had water in them even though the preceding month had been unusually dry. Based on this observation, it is likely that the ditches are recharged to a significant degree by ground water, in addition to being conduits for surface water runoff during storms. Figure 8 shows the storm drainage network in and near the Auburn Gateway project area and the planning area. The two north-south ditches that are adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area are tributaries of the east-west ditch along the northern boundary of the planning area (along the south side of th South 277 Street). Water in this east-west ditch flows west and under D Street NE at the th northwest corner of the project area, crosses South 277 Street in a culvert, and flows through a ditch known as Auburn Creek to a box culvert outfall at the Green River, approximately one-half mile north of the project area (Figure 8). None of the runoff from the Auburn Gateway project wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 75 Special Area Plan Water Resources area exits via any of the storm drain inlets along D Street NE and Auburn Way North. The entire th majority of the drive-in theater site drains to the ditch on the south side of South 277 Street via culverts installed to drain the gravel driving aisles of the theater, or indirectly via the large ditch located adjacent to the eastern property line. Runoff from a small portion of the site may enter the D Street NE channel (Auburn 2002c; Carlaw 2003 personal communication). When floodwaters in the Green River rise significantly, drainage from the Auburn Gateway project area is affected. When water backs up into the Auburn Gateway project area during larger storms, local runoff from the project area joins the large slackwater area that stretches north to the river (described above), and drainage of the project area is delayed until waters within the Green River floodplain recede. Using the U.S. EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), the City constructed a hydraulic model of the storm drainage network that includes the drainage features in the planning area. The model was used to identify conveyance capacity (flooding) problems within the storm drainage network during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Tailwater conditions in the Green River were specified as an elevation of 44.8 feet, associated with the maximum river flow of 12,000 cfs (discussed earlier). The model results indicated storm drain surcharge (elevated water levels) and resultant local flooding due to drainage system backup at several locations in this subbasin of the city; however, none of the identified flooding problem areas are in the Auburn Gateway project area or along the flow path downstream of the project area (Auburn 2002c). e structures) indicate surcharging to an extent that would overtop the ground surface during the 100-year event, unless the area surrounding the node is completely inundated by river floodwater. This model was rerun for the purposes of analyzing the impacts of drainage from the Auburn Gateway project area for various storm events as described later in this section. Although the model was never calibrated to the observed flooding or flow conditions, it generally replicated flooding problems known to occur. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the model results that the most significant flooding and surcharge problems in this subbasin of the city are not downstream of the Auburn Gateway project area. According to the Comprehensive Drainage Plan, there is an existing surcharge problem along the storm th Street NE. sewer that flows adjacent to D Street NE near the intersection of D Street NE and 49 This storm sewer receives stormwater runoff from a portion of the planning area west of the Auburn Gateway project area (Auburn 2002c) and conveys runoff from Auburn Way North th towards South 277aulic model of existing conditions indicates a th flooding situation in this storm sewer at the intersection of D Street NE and 49 Street NE. As a Comprehensive Drain Plan recommends upgrading the storm sewer to a diameter of 36 inches (Auburn 2002c). Surface Water Quality According to the recently revised state surface water quality standards (WAC 173-201A), the reach of the Green River adjacent to the planning area is designated for the following uses: non- core salmon and trout rearing, primary contact recreation, all water supply uses, and all other wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 76 Draft EIS Water Resources miscellaneous uses. This reach of the Green River is listed for elevated temperatures on the t of impaired and threatened surface waters, which is mandated by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (Ecology 2003). River reaches several miles downstream are also listed for elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria, mercury, and chromium. There are currently no known water quality data available for any of the surface waters in the immediate planning area, including the stormwater drainage and conveyance system described above. Existing pollutant loading to surface waters in the Auburn Gateway project area likely results from motor vehicle use of the currently operational drive-in theater parking lots. The pollutants that are likely present in the site runoff include automotive pollutants, particularly petroleum- based fuels and lubricants, as well as copper fines from brake pads. Landscaping chemicals are probably much less prevalent in site runoff, although herbicides may be used on the gravel parking lots to keep them free of weeds. There are no known stormwater treatment facilities in the project area. Although the runoff is not treated prior to discharge to surface waters, the existing contribution of pollutants to downstream areas is likely to be minor because much of the stormwater ponds in the project area at its source and then infiltrates the soil or evaporates. In the Auburn Gateway project area, there is some shading of surface drainages provided by trees and tall fences, but the prevailing slow runoff rates due to low channel gradients and a significant amount of unshaded area potentially result in significant warming of surface runoff during the summer months under existing conditions. Currently much of the rest of the planning area is undeveloped grassland, which generates very little pollutant loading in runoff. The exceptions are a few small business and residential properties, which probably contribute minor amounts of automobile-related and/or landscape maintenance-related pollutants to runoff. The only agricultural activity observed in the planning area is the harvest of hay from grasslands. Wetlands Wetlands in the planning area occur in topographic low areas that have formed naturally or have been created by human activity. An example of the latter is the various drainage ditches crisscrossing the planning area, which have been delineated as wetlands (see the Plants and Animals section for a more complete discussion). Standing water occurs in some of the wetlands for varying durations throughout the year. The wetlands likely receive water from surface runoff only in their immediate vicinity, and inputs from direct precipitation are probably minor. The wetlands are most likely expressions of ground water and, therefore, receive hydrologic input derived from infiltration of precipitation and runoff over the larger surrounding area for much of the year. The existing water quality in these wetlands has not been documented. It is possible that they have been affected by runoff from adjacent urban areas, particularly by motor vehicles that use the drive-in theater facility. The Plants and Animals section discusses in detail the sizes, locations, delineations, existing plants and wildlife, and origin of each of the existing wetlands, as well as anticipated wetland impacts and the corresponding mitigation measures. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 77 Special Area Plan Water Resources Ground Water Ground Water Hydrology On a regional scale, precipitation and runoff infiltrate the ground and recharge ground water on the uplands that flank the Green River valley in this area. This ground water then slowly percolates downward and reemerges on the flanks and bottom of the valley. Consistent with this are broad-based upward ground water gradients beneath the valley floor. Some of this water also provides base flow to the Green River (Woodward et al. 1995). Ground water appears to be very shallow immediately beneath the planning area. Geotechnical borings by AESI (1998) indicate saturated soils and seepage typically at depths of 4 to 8 feet below ground surface. These data appear to have been gathered in October 1997 at the end of the dry season; therefore, the observations of ground water depths may be representative of the lower limit of seasonal conditions. Consequently, shallower ground water levels could reasonably be expected at other times of year (AESI 1998). This is consistent with water level data from nearby domestic and irrigation wells that indicated a depth to ground water of generally less than 10 feet (EDR 2002). Field observations by Herrera staff on March 4, 2003, indicated water levels in the various surface water bodies (ditches and emergent wetlands) in the planning area to be only a few feet below ground surface. Because rainfall had been unusually absent during much of the preceding month, it is reasonable to assume the water levels observed during the site visit were, in part, expressions of the ground water table. Horizontal ground water gradients are likely very shallow and would follow the similarly shallow topographic gradients. However, it is probable that shallow ground water is slowly migrating northeast toward the Green River. This is consistent with regional interpretations of ground water movement (Woodward et al. 1995) and typical river valley systems. As shallow ground water moves slowly toward the river, some of it intercepts the numerous ditches in the project area and is then redirected as surface flow. There are no City of Auburn or domestic or other municipal public water supply wells in the immediate vicinity of the planning area. There are several abandoned (unused) wells and irrigation wells in the general area, but no actively used well appear to be close enough the Auburn Gateway project area to be of concern to this analysis (EDR 2002) Ground Water Quality Ground water quality in the planning area is generally believed to be good, with the exception of degraded conditions near a small number of suspected leaky underground storage tanks. This is discussed further in the Hazardous Materials section. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 78 Draft EIS Water Resources Environmental Impacts Short-Term Construction Impacts The potential short-term impacts of construction activities would generally be similar for all of the alternatives, as well as for development of the larger planning area. The timing of construction activity with regard to the phasing of development under any of the alternatives would have a major influence on the extent of impacts. If the development occurs in a piecemeal manner, with relatively small areas of ground disturbance occurring sequentially in time, the impacts of construction would extend out over the respective construction durations. This is likely to be the case under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, although Alternative 3 could result in fewer phases of construction due to a faster anticipated pace of build-out compared to that of Alternatives 1 and 2. Development under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative could take the longest timeframe for completion, with the greatest number of small projects occurring in phases. While the impacts of any one small-scale construction project may not be significant, the repeated cycles of ground disturbance, importing of fill, and subsequent increase in erosion potential could result in greater overall impacts on nearby surface waters relative to what would occur if a single, full build-out construction project occurs in the project area. Preliminary estimates of large quantities of fill to support any of the action alternatives indicate that a large number of trucks would be involved in delivering fill to the site. Such traffic would increase the potential for the deposition of soil and sediments on streets in the project area. Stormwater runoff on the affected streets could potentially carry high levels of suspended solids to receiving waters, thereby causing elevated turbidity. Construction activities would involve ground disturbance and placement of imported fill material throughout most of the Auburn Gateway project area or the larger planning area. If unmitigated, this would likely result in the erosion and transport of disturbed soils into stormwater drainage ditches within and near the planning area, and potentially into the Green River. Eroded sediment could also enter nearby wetlands. Water quality impacts could also result from construction- related spills of toxic materials. Material from any such spills could be transported to the Green River or nearby wetlands. An accidental spill of fuel, lubricant, or other construction fluids could also percolate into the soil, potentially contaminating the shallow ground water. The effects on resident ecosystems of sediment or pollutant transport into surface water are discussed Section 15.72 of the Auburn City Code requires the submittal of a drainage plan for projects such as the proposed development to demonstrate how the project will control runoff during construction. This plan would be required when the application is submitted for a grading permit, building permit, subdivision approval, or other City permit. The drainage plan must include details on best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control that meet the requirements of the City of Auburn Design and Construction Standards, Section 6.03 (Auburn 1998b). Similarly, the Washington Department of Ecology requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to obtain the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities, and the SWPPP wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 79 Special Area Plan Water Resources would have to outline the specific measures proposed for erosion and sedimentation control, control of dewatering discharges, and control of other pollutants. It is anticipated that the Department of Ecology would require that the construction SWPPP be based on BMP requirements that are commensurate with those presented in its Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2001). If appropriate BMPs are adequately designed, implemented, and maintained during the course of the construction work, significant impacts on aquatic organisms associated with sediment and turbidity are not expected to occur, and significant impacts in downgradient ditches, the Green River, and area wetlands could be avoided. The flat topography of the project area increases the probability of effective erosion and sedimentation control, as extensive earthen slopes vulnerable to erosion would not be prevalent. Construction could require excavation that encounters ground water due to the shallow water table in the area. These areas would need to be dewatered by pumping. Large volumes of dewatering discharges could result in downstream erosion and transport of sediment. This could, in turn, lead to turbidity problems in downgradient ditches and potentially in the Green River if appropriate BMPs are not implemented to control and treat the dewatering discharges. Existing ground water quality is expected to be generally good throughout the planning area, with only a few small areas of potential contamination. A discussion of known and suspected ground water contamination is included in the Hazardous Materials section. Any contaminated ground water that is pumped would need to be treated and/or disposed of according to state and federal regulations. Treatment and disposal of any contaminated ground water in accordance with such regulations will avoid significant contamination of soils, surface water, and other areas of ground water. Long-Term Operational Impacts The long-term operational impacts would be similar for all of the alternatives, including the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, although differences in land use and related vehicular traffic would result in minor differences in potential impacts on surface water quality. The amount of fill in the floodplain is expected to be 27.5 acre feet while the total impervious surface area to be created under the various alternatives is not precisely known at this time; however, it is expected to vary only slightly among the various land uses proposed. Thus, potential flooding and drainage system impacts would be very similar among the alternatives. The parking areas would likely be the greatest contributors to potential water quality impacts. The building rooftops under all of the alternatives would also be similar and are expected to be relatively benign in terms of their contribution of pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff. Due to different parking and circulation needs, the size of the parking and roadway areas within the project area boundaries would vary among the alternatives. Minor distinctions of anticipated long-term operational impacts among the alternatives are provided in the following subsections. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 80 Draft EIS Water Resources Surface Water Green River Floodplain Development of both the Auburn Gateway project area and other portions of the planning area would require significant filling of areas currently beneath the FEMA base flood elevation (i.e., 100-year flood). As a condition of approving the development, the City would require compensatory mitigation in the form of the creation of equivalent flood storage volume in a location not filled with ground water during the wet season. Thus, the proposed fill should not cause adverse flooding impacts on surrounding properties or downstream in the Green River a large wetland mitigation project east of the planning area as part of its Sea-Tac Airport third runway project (see Figure 8). Although the primary function of this wetland is to mitigate the habitat loss associated with the third runway project at Sea-Tac Airport, it will also provide significant floodplain storage. The City of Auburn intends to allocate this added floodplain storage to compensate for floodplain fill placed during the development of properties south of th South 277 Street and east of Auburn Way North. To establish this intent and agreement, the City entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Seattle (Auburn City Ordinance No. 5029) on January 15, 1998 (Auburn 1998a). However, the allocation schedule was not fully addressed in this agreement. The City's proposed methodology for allocation of the floodplain storage to be created by the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation construction will be based on the proportion of the floodplain present on each property that could be filled. First, compensation for all floodplain fill needed for public infrastructure such as roads and stormwater facilities would be provided in full, with the remainder divided proportionally among properties located south of South 277th Street and east of Auburn Way North that are within the same drainage area as the Port's wetland mitigation project. Several aspects of the potential floodplain impacts are described in the following subsections. The Port of Seattle wetland mitigation project and associated flood conveyance channel is anticipated to provide a total of 53.67 acre-feet of new flood storage during the 100-year flood event in the Green River (Wessels 2003a personal communication). In addition, future enlargement of a segment of the ditch on the south side of th Street between the twin-baflood conveyance channel may South 277 also provide a small amount of additional new floodplain storage. Development of the Auburn Gateway project area under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 is expected to displace approximately 27.5 acre-feet of floodplain storage volume (Hayes 2003 personal communication). Construction of I Street NE could require as much as approximately 5 acre- th feet of floodplain fill, and future widening of South 277 Street on the south side would also require additional fill (Ulman 2003 personal communication). The amount of floodplain storage displacement that would occur under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative is unknown; however, it is not likely be greater than that under any of the other alternatives. Based on these figures, the total amount of floodplain storage that the proposed Port of Seattle mitigation wetland project will create is expected to considerably exceed the total amount of floodplain storage compensation required to develop the Auburn Gateway project area. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 81 Special Area Plan Water Resources th However, the total current volume of floodplain storage south of South 277 Street and east of Auburn Way North is estimated to be nearly 60 acre-feet (Ulman 2003 personal communication). Much of that floodplain storage is beyond the proposed boundaries of the Auburn Gateway project area, but within the planning area (see Figure 8). If development occurs in this entire low-lying area, and floodplain storage is displaced (by filling) as part of that development, it is possible that full build-out of the area identified to benefit from the flood storage created by the Port of Seattle could exceed the proposed floodplain storage that will be created by the Port of Seattle mitigation wetland. This would require onsite mitigation of floodplain storage on an individual basis. However, because some of the 60 acre-feet of floodplain storage occurs in existing wetlands within the planning area, and at least 1.7 acres of wetlands within the proposed Auburn Gateway project area would not be filled, it is presumed that additional development in the planning area would not result in complete filling (and displacement) of the floodplain storage available within the planning area. If the existing wetlands, and the floodplain storage they provide, are preserved in the planning area, full build-out could make use of the floodplain storage created by the Port of Seattle mitigation project without the need for additional floodplain mitigation. Regardless of how the floodplain storage mitigation is accomplished to enable construction of the Auburn Gateway project, the remaining areas of floodplain nearby must not be disconnected from the rest of the floodplain. If the project were to cause such hydrologic disconnection, the impacts on the floodplain would be greater than just the extent of fill in low-lying areas. Connection of Wetland Flood St In order for the floodplain storage that is created by the Port of Seattle wetland to be effective in compensating for the loss of floodplain storage in the planning area, a flood conveyance channel of sufficient capacity is th required to connect it to the remaining Green River floodplain located north of South 277 Street. According to the Interlocal Agreement discussed above, the Port of Seattle is obligated to create a flood conveyance channel from the new wetland to the ditch along the south side of th South 277 Street (see Figure 8). An existing twin-barrel 6-foot by 3-foot box culvert connects th Street to the floodplain areas to the north. According the ditch on the south side of South 277 to the Port of Seattle, the capacity of the existing twin-barrel culvert, as well as the capacity of e sufficient to convey floodwater during the 100- year flood event in the Green River watershed. However, the Port also reports that the capacity th of the existing ditch on the south side of South 277 Street that connects the twin-barrel culvert and the location of the future Port channel is not sufficient (Wessels 2003b personal communication), thus necessitating the enlargement of the ditch. The enlarged ditch must be th located a sufficient distance from the proposed future widening of South 277 Street on the south side to ensure that additional modification of the ditch will not be required in the future. The enlarged ditch is not a responsibility of the Port. Construction of the Port of Seattle mitigation wetland is scheduled to start in 2004 at the earliest. Construction then could take one or two construction seasons given the narrow June to September construction window required for the protection of various biological communities in the area. However, it is possible that the wetland construction wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 82 Draft EIS Water Resources could be further delayed due to appeals that have been filed contesting the issuance of some of the necessary permits (Wessels 2003b personal communication). Because the City of Auburn requires provision of compensatory floodplain storage volume at the time of development that displaces floodplain storage, none of the alternatives would cause worsened flooding conditions in nearby areas in relation to Green River backwater. The potential impacts resulting from the placement of fill in the 100-year floodplain during the development of the Auburn Gateway project area depend on the timing of the fill placement relative to the construction of the Port of Seattle wetland and its associated flood conveyance channel, and the upg th conveyance channel to the new larger twin-barrel culvert that crosses South 277 Street. t is a consideration only for portions of the development in the planning area that result in the filling of floodplain storage. Development in other, higher elevation areas of the planning area may occur without the requirement for floodplain storage mitigation, and therefore is not for the wetland mitigation project. The impacts from full development of the planning area also depend on whether such full build-out would require more floodplain impact compensation than the compensation that will be provided by the Port of Seattle mitigation wetland and conveyance channel. If the Auburn Gateway project, or other development in the planning area, is constructed before the Port of Seattle mitigation wetland (including the floodwater conveyance) is constructed, onsite or other nearby mitigation for fill in the floodplain would be required by the City of Auburn to ensure no net loss of floodplain storage capacity. If the Auburn Gateway construction is staged to occur in phases, an interim floodplain storage basin would have to be excavated on the site and linked to other floodplain areas to the north, while construction of the Port of Seattle mitigation wetland is in process. Upon completion of the Port of Seattle wetland project, the remainder of the Auburn Gateway project construction could occur, with elimination of the interim storage basin. The grading quantities discussed in this EIS for the Auburn Gateway project area are expected to be sufficient to provide this type of interim floodplain storage on the site, although a specific design has not been developed at this time. nel are constructed and the connecting ditch th Street is enlarged by others before floodplain filling occurs in along the south side of South 277 the Auburn Gateway project area, there should be no significant water rise during the 100-year th flood as defined by City of Auburn or King County standards on either side of South 277 Street. This conclusion is valid for development of the larger planning area as well, unless the total floodplain fill required for such development is more than the total mitigation storage channel and the enlargement of the connecting ditch. If the total planning area floodplain fill exceeds the compensatory storage volume provided by the Port of Seattle mitigation project, floodplain storage compensation for the difference would be required on the site for each project. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 83 Special Area Plan Water Resources While sufficient capacity for flood storage for development of the Auburn Gateway project nd and associated flood conveyance channel, the constriction in the unimproved ditch that connects the flood conveyance channel to the large th twin-barrel culvert under South 277 Street could hamper water movement into and out of the Port of Seattle wetland during a 100-year Green River flood. Regardless, depending on the exact th nature of the topography on the south side of South 277 Street in the vicinity of the twin-barrel th culvert, water would either back up on the north side of South 277 Street or flood the area th above the banks of the undersized connecting ditch on the south side of South 277 Street. The water level and duration of these effects would depend on the degree of this constriction relative to required capacity. Storm Drainage Systems Development of the Auburn Gateway project or the larger planning area would trigger requirements to provide plans for stormwater flow control and conveyance sufficient to meet the requirements of Auburn City Code Section 15.72 at the time of application for grading permits, building permits, subdivision approvals, or other permits. Under this section of the City Code, the project proponent would need to submit a drainage plan for the project that demonstrates how the project will comply with the storm drainage requirements in the City of Auburn Design and Construction Standards. (These standards contain detailed storm drainage requirements for new construction \[Auburn 1998b\]). The drainage requirements included in the standards are based on Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (Ecology 1992). Some of the more important requirements in the Design and Construction Standards for the development under consideration include the following: For the design of stormwater facilities, the City of Auburn adopts by reference the hydrograph methods in the King County Surface Water Design Manual (which was most recently updated in 1998) (King County Design and Construction Standards refers to the November 1994 King County Surface Water Design Manual, employing the use of a single-event storm runoff model (Carlaw 2003 personal communication). The City prefers retention (i.e., no offsite discharge) to detention (flow control with release to offsite surface water) where soil infiltration rates are sufficient. For detention facilities, peak flow rates for post development storm runoff must be no more than 50 percent of the predevelopment peak rate for the 2-year 24-hour storm, and 100 percent of the predevelopment peak rate for the 10-, 25-, and 100-year 24-hour storms. For retention facilities, a factor of safety of 1.4 must be applied to the pond volume for the 25-year 24-hour storm if overflow is provided; the factor of safety is 1.5 if overflow is not provided. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 84 Draft EIS Water Resources For detention facilities, a factor of safety of 1.3 must be applied to the pond volume for the 25-year 24-hour storm if overflow is not provided. The site is assumed to be in its historical predeveloped condition (grassland) when determining the runoff characteristics under existing conditions. Water levels in drainage structures cannot be surcharged more than 2 feet above the downstream pipe crown elevation or have less than 1 foot of freeboard below the rim (top) of the structure during the 25-year 24-hour storm. During the 100-year 24-hour storm, manholes can be surcharged only if they are in a road, and flow along the roadway must be confined to the pavement, curb, and gutter areas. The lowest onsite storage elevation must be higher than the hydraulic grade line of the receiving offsite storm drainage system. The hydraulic grade line (water surface elevation) of the receiving system must be based on a 25-year design storm or as determined by the City Engineer, if the applicable elevation is known. Downstream conveyance capacity and backwater conditions must be assessed for existing and post development conditions. Improvements to roadway rights-of-way within the planning area will also require stormwater management measures in accordance with the City of Auburn Design and Construction Standards. The City generally prefers that the stormwater treatment and flow control facilities for these roadway corridors be constructed independently from the treatment and flow control facilities for the Auburn Gateway project, though they may be combined facilities that could be used to treat runoff from all of the developed areas upon specific approval and provision of a hold harmless agreement. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Drainage Plan adopted for this area (Auburn 2002c) will generally allow two separate methods of stormwater control for the Auburn Gateway project. The two methods are (1) contributing funds to the City to put toward construction of a regional stormwater detention facility (or constructing this regional detention facility as part of the Auburn Gateway project through a Local Improvement District (LID) process) or (2) providing individual (privately owned) detention facilities in the Auburn Gateway project area. The individual facilities could be located in multiple ponds or underground in stormwater detention systems on the developed property. Stormwater treatment could also be incorporated in a regional facility. The regional stormwater management method would likely minimize the total amount of land area dedicated to stormwater facilities and would also promote consistent implementation of long-term maintenance of those facilities. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 85 Special Area Plan Water Resources In order to assess the potential impacts of developing the Auburn Gateway project area and the planning area, the drainage conveyance conditions in the planning area vicinity were modeled in Comprehensive Drainage Plan hydraulic model (using SWMM) was used to evaluate conveyance capacity and surcharge or flooding conditions during the 25-year and 100-year storm events. To determine if the proposed Auburn Gateway project would affect the existing conveyance conditions downstream of the s re-run for this EIS with changes to the modeled land use in the Auburn Gateway project area. Specifically, the model was re-run for the following scenarios: A worst-case scenario in which the 60-acre Auburn Gateway project area is developed with 90 percent impervious surface cover (with the remaining 10 percent of the project area consisting of wetlands and landscaping) and with no stormwater flow control facilities provided. The same scenario as above but with stormwater detention facilities in place, with reduced peak flow rates from the project area to match the historical grassland peak flow rates for the 25- and 100-year storm events. The assumption of 90 percent impervious surface cover in the development of the Auburn Gateway project is deemed representative of a worst-case scenario for all of the action alternatives and is conservative. In the revised modeling using the SWMM, it was assumed that the Auburn Gateway project area could drain to the north in two ways: (1) by the conveyance of th Street, and (2) runoff from the entire 60-acre area into the ditch on the south side of South 277 by the conveyance of runoff from half of the area to the storm sewer along D Street NE and from th the remainder of the area to the ditch on the south side of South 277 Street. These two scenarios allowed an analysis of a range of potential drainage system impacts. The results of these SWMM runs (Herrera 2003) indicate that, as expected, without stormwater detention the development would cause increased surcharging (flooding) of drainage features at several locations in the downstream drainage conveyance systems along D Street NE and South th 277 Street and additional backwater surcharging at drainage structures farther upstream (west and southwest) along Auburn Way North. With detention facilities in place to reduce peak flow rates according to current City standards most of the surcharge conditions would be alleviated. However, even with detention of runoff to match grassland discharge rates, the added volume of runoff is predicted to cause some surcharging (Herrera 2003). For the modeled scenario in th which all of the developed project area runoff is detained and discharged toward South 277 Street, the SWMM predicts increased water surface elevations in the storm sewers along Auburn thnd Way North, from South 277 Street to a point south of 42 Street NE. For the modeled scenario in which project area runoff is detained and discharged in equal amounts to the ditch adjacent to th South 277 Street and to the storm sewer along D Street NE, less surcharging of drainage structures is predicted. In this scenario, a lesser extent of drainage system surcharging may still nd occur in the vicinity of Auburn Way North and 42 Street NE. Although the required detention facilities would negate most of the potential adverse high-flow effects in the offsite conveyance systems, the increased impervious surface cover in the Auburn wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 86 Draft EIS Water Resources Gateway project area would result in a discharge of greater volumes of runoff. There is increasing concern in the region about the effects of such increased flow volumes on the durations of high-flow events in streams that receive runoff from developed areas and the adverse effects that extended flow durations can have on stream morphology and habitat. However, because of the flat gradient and disturbed nature of habitat value in downstream ditches, including Auburn Creek, extended flow durations created by the proposed Auburn Gateway project should not be a cause for significant concern. The flat channel gradients correspond to low flow velocities that do not create erosive conditions. To fully evaluate issues related to storm drainage capacity for development that is proposed for other areas of the planning area in the future, hydraulic modeling similar to that done for this EIS would need to be performed. Particular attention should be paid to an existing flooding problem predicted by the City along the storm sewer adjacent to D Street NE, near its intersection with th 49 Street NE. Such modeling cannot be done at this time because no such development proposals have been formulated. In addition, more detailed quantitative hydraulic analysis of onsite and downstream conveyances for any development within the planning area (including that within the Auburn Gateway project area) will be a requirement for drainage plan approval Design and Construction Standards. The additional conveyance system modeling would be needed to support the design of the drainage systems. When this modeling is complete, offsite improvements such as increasing stormdrain pipe and/or ditch conveyance capacity may be required to mitigate surcharge conditions in existing drainage systems. The City requirement that onsite stormwater storage facilities be located entirely above the hydraulic grade of the downstream conveyance system during the 25-year storm also has implications. Because the backwater level in the river coincident with a 25-year storm event in the project area could be similar to that which results from the 12,000-cfs maximum flow in the river, the bottoms of onsite detention or retention facilities would need to be at or above the floodwater stage of 44.8 feet NGVD in the Green River floodplain to ensure positive drainage from the project area. In reality, the bottom elevations would probably need to be even higher to accommodate the slope of the water surface in the drainage system between the edge of the floodplain and the detention facility outflow pipe/ditch in question. The outflow performance of the stormwater detention facility would need to be modeled for specific storm drainage plans to evaluate this issue for any developments in the larger planning area. The ramifications of this requirement on the amount of fill required in the Auburn Gateway project area or at other nearby development sites within the planning area and/or on the amount of space dedicated to stormwater detention or retention systems could be significant. This is because the ground surface of drainage areas that are tributary to the stormwater management facilities would need to be even higher. Development of the Auburn Gateway project would not require any major relocation of the existing public stormwater drainage conveyances that would alter the current drainage patterns. However, the ditches on the northern and eastern margins of the project area might need to be improved or modified to accommodate the development. The existing ditch on the south side of th South 277 Street would need to be relocated in order to allow for widening of the road under any alternative or access option. The ditch on the eastern margin of the Auburn Gateway project wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 87 Special Area Plan Water Resources area would probably have to be relocated for vehicle access option C. The City has identified widening of a drainage channel along the east side of the Auburn Gateway project area as part of CIP project VHV-1 in the Comprehensive Drainage Plan to increase stormwater conveyance capacity. If development were to preclude this conveyance capacity improvement, there could be upstream drainage impacts off-site to the southwest along Auburn Way North in the future. Water Quality Most of the planning area, including the Auburn Gateway project area, would be converted from a mix of suburban land uses and open space to denser suburban land uses at full build-out. Without pollution prevention and runoff treatment measures, the result would likely be a significant overall increase in pollutant loading to surface waters relative to the existing conditions. The pollutants generated by new development would mainly be those associated with automobile use and landscape maintenance such as petroleum products, metals, and potentially fertilizers and/or pesticides. In general, parking and roadway areas generate greater pollutant loadings from surface runoff than commercial buildings and adjacent spaces, which in turn generate greater pollutant loadings than residential buildings and yards (Horner et al. 1994). The water quality impacts of the various project alternatives would be similar, with minor differences likely attributable to the extent of parking and associated roadway areas within the Auburn Gateway project area. Alternative 1 would require the greatest number of parking spaces in the project area. If this parking is provided in uncovered lots, Alternative 1 would be expected to generate the greatest extent of vehicle-related pollutant loadings. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have successively fewer parking spaces, with correspondingly less pollutant loadings as a result. Improvements to City roadway rights-of-way in conjunction with the Auburn Gateway project would likely result in increased impervious roadway surface area and adjacent landscaped areas that would be comparable under all of the action alternatives. Those improved areas could generate greater pollutant loadings in runoff relative to the current loadings. The No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would require the fewest vehicle parking spaces and perhaps a lesser extent of improvements to City roadway rights-of-way; therefore, it would probably have lesser effects on surface water quality compared to the action alternatives. In accordance with City requirements, the permanent stormwater drainage facilities would be required to include pollutant treatment provisions. The specific requirements, which are listed in Section 6.06 of the City of Auburn Design and Construction Standards (Auburn 1998b), focus on filtration using bioswales and wet ponds. Finally, any new development would also require the implementation of various BMPs for pollutant source control according to the City requirements listed in Section 6.08 of the Design and Construction Standards (Auburn 1998b). This section, in turn, referss 1992 manual for the specific practices required (Ecology 1992). Implementation of stormwater treatment facilities and pollutant source controls according to City requirements would greatly reduce the pollutant loading to offsite downstream areas of the storm drainage system relative to what would occur without them. However, whether there would be a net increase in pollutant loadings to surface water would depend on the effectiveness of those wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 88 Draft EIS Water Resources controls relative to the increases in pollutants generated. The site runoff could also potentially create higher water temperatures relative to existing conditions, due to the increased presence of warming features such as pavement and rooftops, depending on the degree of shading of stormwater facilities in project designs and the amounts of stormwater discharged from the project area (which could vary depending on how much water can be infiltrated or dispersed). It is anticipated that the extent of pollutant and thermal loading in site discharges would have a minor effect on water quality in the Green River, given the far greater pollutant loadings reaching the river from other developed areas in the watershed. However, these project area pollutant and thermal loadings could contribute to cumulative impacts on river water quality downstream. Because ground water is shallow and infiltrated ground water probably recharges area wetlands, pollutants in stormwater runoff could also affect ground water and nearby wetlands, which are discussed in separate subsections below. Ground Water Increased impervious surfaces resulting from development in the planning area would intercept water that is currently infiltrating to shallow ground water. It is likely that the proposed drainage design would route runoff through stormwater management facilities and then transport much or stem. Therefore, local ground water quality would not be affected by the development. To the extent that existing infiltration volumes are altered, local surficial ground water levels could drop slightly. On the other hand, the fill that already exists on site could compress and cause a rise in water table when subjected either to compaction during the construction process or to increased live and dead loads such as those from buildings and vehicles during operation. The overall effect on surficial ground water would depend on the relative degree of these effects. Altered hydraulic gradients in ground water in the area could also affect ground water levels offsite. Changes in the surficial ground water level could affect basements or subsurface utilities within the planning area or nearby. There are no known City of Auburn or other domestic or municipal drinking water supply wells close enough to be significantly affected. Likewise, there are no irrigation wells in close enough proximity to the project area to be affected. Changes in ground water levels could also affect area wetlands, as discussed below. Wetlands Development in the planning area could potentially increase or decrease ground water levels in the area, depending on the effects of increased soil compaction and decreased infiltration. As a result, water levels in onsite and nearby wetlands that are linked to ground water could also potentially increase or decrease. Wetland water quality could be affected by development within the planning area. Required stormwater treatment measures, in combination with the filtration capacity of the intervening soil, should be sufficient to protect the wetlands from significant water quality impacts associated with stormwater that is discharged to the wetlands or that reaches the wetlands wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 89 Special Area Plan Water Resources following infiltration to shallow ground water. However, increased runoff of pesticides, fertilizers, and other pollutants from any landscaped areas that drain directly overland to the wetlands could affect their water quality. The City of Auburn does not currently have stormwater regulations that specifically aim to prevent hydrologic or water quality impacts to nearby wetlands from new development or redevelopment. However, the City has adopted comprehensive plan policies that are designed to prevent hydrologic or water quality impacts on wetlands, and these policies are implemented via SEPA review of development projects. How these potential hydrologic and water quality impacts on wetlands could affect resident ecosystems is discussed in the Plants and Animals Cumulative Impacts Development in the planning area, when considered together with other potential developments nearby, could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts on water resources. Specifically, cumulative impacts could include increased pollutant and thermal loading to nearby wetlands and alteration of ground water and nearby wetland hydrology. In addition, the impacts of development in the planning area in combination with other development in the Green River watershed could result in greater pollutant and thermal loading to the Green River, which is already impaired by several pollutants bt!noted above. Mitigation Measures Because the impacts are expected to be similar under the various action alternatives as well as the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative the following discussion of applicable mitigation measures applies to all the alternatives. Mitigation Measures for Short-Term Construction Impacts The mitigation proposed for short-term construction impacts includes compliance with existing and maintenance of BMPs to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and release of other pollutants during construction would be necessary to secure the required permits from the City of Auburn and the Washington Department of Ecology. Several typical BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control would apply to the Auburn Gateway project area, including silt fences, stockpile covers, mulch or other temporary ground cover in disturbed areas, protection devices for storm drain inlets on nearby streets, stabilized construction entrances and staging areas, and sediment traps or ponds for concentrated runoff flows. The following mitigation measures are recommended to address specific construction-related impacts: wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 90 Draft EIS Water Resources Limit the area of exposed bare soil to a maximum acreage of 5 acres or less and apply mulch or other temporary ground cover to areas cleared or graded during previous construction stages prior to beginning a new stage of clearing or grading. Limit clearing, grading, and filling activities to the dry season (April through September) in areas that are within the 100-year floodplain, within wetland buffers, or near surface water conveyance ditches. Require wheel washing and regularly scheduled street cleaning to minimize the deposition of soil and sediments by construction vehicles on surrounding streets. Schedule clearing and grading operations in wetland buffers so that grading needs to occur only one time. Complete the final planting of wetland buffers within the first year following grading. Discharge water from dewatering activities into a filtration system, sediment trap, or sediment pond unless it is proven by turbidimeter measurements that the water is clean. The rate of dewatering discharge should not exceed the design capacity of the filtration system, sediment trap, pond, or downstream drainage system. If contaminated ground water is present in the vicinity of dewatering activities, provide control and treatment of the contaminated water to meet all applicable regulatory requirements. Mitigation Measures for Long-Term Operational Impacts In addition to compliance with the regulations governing water resources discussed above, the following mitigation measures are recommended for long-term operational impacts: Provide compensatory floodplain storage at a 1:1 ratio for all projects that involve the placement of fill in the FEMA 100-year floodplain pursuant to policies EN-57, EN-60, and EN-61 of the City of AuburnComprehensive Plan (Auburn 2003g) and in accordance with Auburn City Code, Section 13.48.420. Provide onsite compensatory floodplain storage for any developments within the planning area that are not compensated for completely by the Port of Seattle mitigation wetland. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 91 Special Area Plan Water Resources Ensure that the ground surface of any compensatory floodplain storage is below the 100-year Green River flood elevation and above the seasonal high ground water elevation, and ensure that it is provided with sufficient th connectivity to the floodplain areas north of South 277 Street. Plant stormwater ponds and other stormwater features with native trees and other vegetation for improved aesthetics and wildlife habitat, consistent with policies EN-37 and UD-15 of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Implement pollutant source control plans for landscape maintenance and parking lot maintenance and provide greater pollutant removal as described in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2001). Maximize stormwater infiltration and flow dispersion to reduce the amount of water residing in warm stormwater ponds. Provide shading for stormwater pond and open conveyance areas to reduce the temperature of runoff discharges to surface waters during the warmer months of the year. Prevent runoff from the post development site (with the exception of that from the wetland buffers) from flowing to the wetlands without flow control or treatment or without appropriate source control methods such as a landscape management plan. Suggested elements of such a plan include planting of native plants that minimize the long-term need for intensive watering and maintenance, and proper application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers if they must be used. Require that a master grading plan be prepared, including a geotechnical engineering report that evaluates the hydrogeologic effects of the grading plan and includes methods for grading and constructing the project in such a manner to prevent impacts on wetland hydrology and nearby basements. The report must: Assess the degree of soil compaction and settling expected and the corresponding change in soil porosity and transmissivity of existing or proposed soils throughout the proposed development. Assess the likely effects of altered geotechnical soil properties and stormwater infiltration processes on ground water levels at and near the proposed development. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 92 Draft EIS Water Resources Characterize the expected water level regime throughout a full typical annual cycle, as well as during reasonably foreseeable drought and storm periods. Propose specific methods for increasing or decreasing the infiltration of stormwater as necessary to maintain existing ground water levels, and/or for managing ground water levels with engineering controls such as cutoff walls and curtain drains. Increased infiltration could be accomplished by various methods including reducing the area of impervious surface at the site through reduction of area devoted to roofs, parking lots, and roadways; reducing the connectedness of the impervious surface to the storm drainage system; and incorporating design techniques such as porous pavement and downspout infiltration systems. Decreased infiltration could be accomplished in the design of the drainage collection and conveyance systems for runoff from impervious surface areas and in the design of stormwater pond linings. Demonstrate that the hydroperiod of wetlands in the planning area would not be adversely affected by the development throughout a full typical annual cycle, as well as during reasonably foreseeable drought and storm periods. If the hydroperiod analysis predicts reductions in wetland water levels, some stormwater runoff could be routed to the affected wetlands after appropriate flow control Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2001) provides guidance for performing the wetland hydroperiod analysis, information on maximum acceptable hydroperiod alterations, recommendations for reducing development impacts on wetland hydroperiod and water quality, recommendations for flow control and treatment for stormwater discharges to wetlands, and recommendations for post development wetland monitoring. Demonstrate that the ground water levels likely to result from the development will not adversely affect basements in nearby structures throughout a full typical annual cycle. Specify a monitoring plan to continue through development and for 5 years thereafter to ensure that the measures taken adequately mitigate the impacts on ground water and wetland water levels. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 93 Special Area Plan Water Resources Identify corrective measures that would be possible after development is complete if the project is found to be adversely affecting wetland hydrology. Because of predictions of increased water surface elevations in offsite drainage systems during 25- and 100-year storm events (Herrera 2003), site-specific stormwater detention criteria should be considered. Modeling conducted for this analysis indicates that, because of the increase in runoff volume discharged from the Auburn Gateway project area, minor offsite backwater impacts could be expected if stormwater detention is provided according to current City standards. One option to alleviate offsite impacts would be to provide drainage improvements adjacent to the property in accordance with Comprehensive Drainage Plan (Auburn 2002c). Specifically, the Auburn Gateway project could upgrade the storm sewer along D Street NE to a 36-inch pipe along the length of the street. Additionally, the project could provide drainage conveyance improvements on the south and east edges of the property if I Street NE is relocated and/or other aspects of the development affects the existing drainage ditch in that area. At a minimum, the project would need to accommodate the ability for the City to implement the drainage capacity improvements identified as CIP project VHV-1 (in the Comprehensive Drainage Plan) in the future. Ground water quality should be adequately protected by storm drainage quality controls. No additional mitigation for the protection of ground water quality is necessary. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts If the mitigation requirements and recommendations provided above are followed, there would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on water resources as a result of any of the project alternatives. All potential impacts and cumulative impacts from development within the planning area could be mitigated to a sufficient degree to avoid significant impacts through implementation of required and reasonable stormwater management and site design measures. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 94 Draft EIS Air Quality Air Quality Applicable Laws and Regulations Air quality is generally assessed in terms of whether the concentrations of air pollutants are higher or lower than the ambient air quality standards set to protect human health and welfare. Three agencies have jurisdiction over the ambient air quality in the Auburn Gateway project area: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Washington Department of Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). These agencies establish regulations that govern both the concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air and the contaminant emissions from air pollution sources. Although their regulations are similar in stringency, each agency has established its own standards. The U.S. EPA provides, at the least, the minimal concentration standards that must be met for any given pollutant. Unless the state or local jurisdiction has adopted more stringent standards, the U.S. EPA standards apply. The applicable ambient air quality standards pertaining to the air pollutants discussed in this section are listed in Table 6. To measure existing air quality, the Department of Ecology and the PSCAA maintain a network of monitoring stations throughout the Puget Sound region. Generally, these stations are placed where there may be air quality problems; therefore, they are usually in or near urban areas or close to specific large air pollution sources. Other stations in remote areas provide an indication of regional air pollution levels. Based on monitoring information collected over a period of years, the state (Department of Ecology) and federal (U.S. EPA) agencies designate regions as being attainment or nonattainment areas for particular air pollutants. Attainment status is therefore a measure of whether air quality in an area complies with the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs) and is discussed in relation to several specific air pollutants in subsequent text. Affected Environment There are several air emission sources near the project area that influence the overall air quality of the area, including agricultural activities, industrial and manufacturing facilities, commercial enterprises, residential wood-burning devices, and vehicle traffic. Each source type contributes to the pollutant concentrations measured at state and local air monitoring stations. For example, residential wood-burning produces a variety of air contaminants, including large quantities of fine particulate matter. Agricultural activities produce fugitive dust that also contributes to ambient concentrations of particulate matter. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 95 Special Area Plan Air Quality Table 6. Ambient air quality standards. National Washington Puget Sound Clean Pollutant State Air Agency Primary Secondary Inhalable particulate matter (PM) 10 3a Annual average (µg/m) 50 50 50 50 3 bbcc 24-hour average (µg/m) 150 150 150 150 Fine particulate matter (PM) 2.5 3 dd Annual average (µg/m) 15 15 NE NE 3 ee 24-hour average (µg/m) 65 65 NE NE Carbon monoxide (CO) f 8-hour average (ppm) 9 9 9 9 f 1-hour average (ppm) 35 35 35 35 Ozone (O) 3 gg 8-hour average (ppm) 0.08 0.08 NE NE hhcc 1-hour average (ppm) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sources: Most recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington Department of Ecology, and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency rules July 2003. a Attainment based on 3-year average bth Attainment based on 3-year average of the 99 percentile of 24-hour PM concentrations 10 c Attainment if expected number of events above this limit is equal to or less than one d Attainment based on 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors 2.5 eth Attainment based on 3-year average of the 98 percentile of 24-hour PM concentrations 2.5 f Not to be exceeded more than once per year gth Attainment based on 3-year average of the 4 highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration h Soon after the adoption of the revised standards for ozone and particulate matter, these new standards were subject to a number of court reviews. In February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the bases and the substance of the new rules. The U.S. EPA is now in the process of devising plans to implement these new standards. All values are not to be exceeded except as noted; all averages are arithmetic. 3 µg/m = micrograms per cubic meter NE = not established PM = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers 10 PM = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 2.5 ppm = parts per million Vehicles along area roadways constitute a significant source of cumulative emissions near the Auburn Gateway project area and in the region. Vehicles emit large quantities of carbon monoxide, which is used as an indicator of other pollutants that are generated by traffic, including small amounts of sulfur dioxide and the ozone precursors hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Vehicles also emit particulate matter directly in their exhaust and indirectly in dust raised by their tires from the paved and unpaved roads. Because project-related traffic would increase traffic volumes on area roads, and traffic is likely to be the only significant pollutant source related to the project, the pollutants of greatest concern are associated with vehicles. Several of these pollutants are discussed in detail in the following subsections. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide, the product of incomplete combustion, is generated by transportation sources and other fuel-burning activities like residential space heating, especially when solid fuels like coal or wood are used. Carbon monoxide is usually the pollutant of greatest concern related to wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 96 Draft EIS Air Quality transportation sources because it is the pollutant emitted in the greatest quantity for which there are short-term health standards. Short-term standards (as opposed to standards for annual average concentrations) are often the controlling or most restrictive National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Table 6). There are two air quality standards for carbon monoxide: a 1-hour average standard of 35 parts per million (ppm) and an 8-hour average standard of 9 ppm. These levels may be exceeded once per year without violating the standard. Carbon monoxide is a pollutant whose impact is usually localized. The highest ambient carbon monoxide concentrations usually occur near congested roadways and intersections during periods of cold temperatures (autumn and winter months), light winds, and stable atmospheric conditions. Such weather conditions reduce the mechanisms that disperse the pollutants emitted into the air. The project study area is located in the carbon monoxide nonattainment area established in 1991 that encompassed a large portion of the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma urban area. Designation of the area as a carbon monoxide nonattainment area required the PSCAA and the Department of Ecology to develop strategies and plans to achieve compliance with the ambient standards. These plans led to attainment of the standards before 1997. In that year, the U.S. EPA designated the area as an attainment area and approved a maintenance plan developed to ensure the continued attainment of the carbon monoxide standards. The former carbon monoxide nonattainment area is now considered a carbon monoxide maintenance area. The maintenance plan for carbon monoxide relies on continuation of the existing vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The carbon monoxide monitoring station closest to the planning area is located in Tacoma at 1101 Pacific Avenue. This station and others in the Puget Sound region have not measured a violation of the 1-hour or 8-hour carbon monoxide standard in recent years (U.S. EPA 2003). Because the impacts due to carbon monoxide occur close to the source, it is not possible to extrapolate the concentrations of carbon monoxide from regional data or distant monitors to the planning area. But given trends throughout the region, it is likely that the concentrations of carbon monoxide in and around the planning area are well below the health-based standards most of the time. The proposed action alternatives would redistribute traffic on roadways near the project area, thereby affecting carbon monoxide emissions in the carbon monoxide maintenance area. Consequently, if the proposed changes to the ro proposed alternatives or as part of a mitigation measure, the project would be subject to review under state and federal conformity rules for air quality. These rules are intended to ensure that projects and actions affecting air quality will conform with existing plans and timetables for attaining and maintaining federal health-based air quality standards. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 97 Special Area Plan Air Quality Ozone Ozone is a highly reactive form of oxygen created by sunlight-activated chemical transformations of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (hydrocarbons) in the atmosphere. Unlike carbon monoxide concentrations, which tend to occur very close to the emission source(s), ozone problems tend to be regional. The atmospheric chemical reactions that produce ozone occur over time, and during the delay between emission and ozone formation, ozone precursors can be transported far from their sources. Transportation sources are one of a number of sources that produce the precursors to ozone. During the summer of 1990, ozone concentrations exceeded the 1-hour NAAQS of 0.12 ppm several times at monitoring stations in both Enumclaw and Lake Sammamish State Park. Because of these violations, the U.S. EPA designated all of Snohomish, King, and Pierce Counties as a nonattainment area for ozone. In late 1992, the ozone nonattainment area was reduced to include all of Pierce County, all of King County except a small portion in the northeast corner, and the western portion of Snohomish County. In 1997, the U.S. EPA redesignated the Puget Sound region as an attainment area for ozone, and approved the associated air quality maintenance plan (Ecology 1997). This plan, which includes measures to continue controlling ozone emissions, is intended to ensure that the standard is maintained for at least 10 years. The planning area is located within the ozone maintenance area; however, under current air quality plans and policies, this status has no direct implications for the action alternatives being considered. At this time, there is no acceptable means for assessing project-level (as opposed to regional level) impacts of ozone due to transportation sources. Although a new ozone standard has been proposed by the U.S. EPA, the new standard has not yet been fully implemented. Consequently, the Puget Sound region currently adheres to the 1- hour average ozone standard of 0.12 ppm. If this standard is exceeded more than three times in the next several years, it would tip the area back into nonattainment for ozone (PSCAA 2003). None of the Puget Sound ozone monitoring sites in King or Pierce Counties has had a measured 1-hour average concentration greater than the standard during the last 3 years. Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM) 10 Federal, state, and local regulations set limits for particles less than or equal to approximately 10 micrometers in diameter. This fraction of particulate matter, called PM, is important in terms 10 of potential human health impacts, because particles this size can be inhaled deeply into human lungs. PM is generated by industrial activities and operations, fuel combustion sources like 10 residential wood burning, motor vehicle engines, vehicle tire action on pavement, and other sources. Such sources occasionally cause high PM levels in the Puget Sound region. Three 10 areas in Seattle, Tacoma, and Kent at one time were nonattainment areas because past PM 10 concentrations exceeded the allowable levels. In 1997, the PSCAA applied to the U.S. EPA for redesignation of this area as an attainment area because measurements in recent years had indicated that PM levels no longer exceeded the standards. This redesignation was approved in 10 March 2001 and those areas are now considered a PM maintenance area. (U.S. EPA 2003) 10 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 98 Draft EIS Air Quality The Auburn Gateway project area is not included in any of the three PM maintenance areas in 10 the Puget Sound region. With the exception of an unhealthy local level of PM after the Fourth 10 of July fireworks in the Lake Forest Park area, a review of available data indicated that all recently measured PM concentrations have been lower than the levels allowed by federal, state, 10 and local PM standards (U.S. EPA 2003). 10 Because the proposed project is not located in a PM nonattainment or maintenance area, a 10 conformity evaluation for PM is not required under current air quality rules. 10 Fine Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Effective on September 16, 1997, the U.S. EPA adopted a new federal standard for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (Table 6). This fine fraction of particulate matter, called PM, is a subset of PM. Such small particles (e.g., a typical human 2.510 hair is about 100 micrometers in diameter) can be breathed deeply into the lungs and have been found to pose the most dangerous risk to human health. Although the new PM standard was 2.5 delayed by court challenges, the U.S. EPA prevailed in court and is now developing plans to implement the standard. A review of data on the U.S. EPA AIRData Web page revealed that PM concentrations 2.5 measured at the Bellevue monitoring location in 2000 and at the Lake Forest Park and Kent locations in 2001 exceeded the levels allowed by the annual PM standard (U.S. EPA 2003). Of 2.5 all the monitoring stations, the PM monitoring stations closest to the Auburn Gateway project 2.5 area are located in Puyallup and Kent. Although the allowable levels have been exceeded in Kent, the Puyallup and Kent stations are too far away to directly apply those measured concentrations to the Auburn Gateway project area. Because most emissions of particulate matter from residential wood burning and vehicle exhaust are in this size range, and it is likely that these source types are predominant during the winter, it is reasonable to assume that emissions in the planning area are predominantly composed of PM (PSCAA 2003); however, 2.5 the relative concentration of PM is unknown. 2.5 Environmental Impacts Short-Term Construction Impacts Common to All Alternatives During construction under any of the alternatives, dust from excavation, demolition, and grading would contribute to ambient concentrations of suspended particulate matter. Construction contractor(s) would be required to comply with PSCAA Regulation I, Section 9.15, which requires reasonable precautions to avoid dust emissions. Construction would require the use of heavy trucks and smaller equipment, such as generators and compressors. Although the engines would emit air pollutants that would slightly degrade the local air quality, these emissions and the resulting pollutant concentrations would be far outweighed by the emissions from traffic around the Auburn Gateway project area. However wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 99 Special Area Plan Air Quality there is a growing awareness that the chemical constituents in diesel exhaust include a number of known and suspected human carcinogens, and many air pollution control agencies are beginning s exposure to such air pollution. Some construction phases would cause odors that would be detectible by some people near the Auburn Gateway project area. This would be particularly true during paving operations using tar and asphalt. The construction contractor(s) would be required to comply with the PSCAA regulations requiring the best available measures to control the emissions of odor-bearing air contaminants (Regulation I, Section 9.11). Such odors would be short-term. Site preparation would also include some clearing of existing vegetation; however, open burning is prohibited in the Auburn Gateway project area and the construction contractor would need to comply with PSCAA Regulation I, Section 8.04, and WAC 173-425, Open Burning. During construction of the facility, existing buildings that may contain asbestos would be demolished. The demolition contractors would be required to comply with U.S. EPA regulations related to the safe removal and disposal of any asbestos-containing materials. Construction equipment, material hauling, and detours for excavation and grading could affect traffic flow in the Auburn Gateway project area. If construction delays traffic enough to significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic-related emissions would increase. Long-Term Operational Impacts Common to All Alternatives Operational sources could affect air quality in the Auburn Gateway project area. Wood-burning devices such as woodstoves and fireplaces represent a potentially major source of wintertime emissions of fine particulate matter (PM and PM) and carbon monoxide. The RPG 102.5 development proposal states that the development associated with the project would not include the installation of wood-burning devices or other sources of major pollutant emissions. In the absence of emissions from wood burning and other sources, the only other potential long-term impact associated with the project would be a result of vehicle traffic generated by the development under the action alternatives. Traffic generated by the project would affect carbon monoxide emissions in the Puget Sound area. Because the planning area is within a carbon monoxide maintenance area and the proposed project would alter the regional transportation system, the project is subject to an air quality conformity review as required by the federal Clean Air Act and the Washington State Clean Air Act. Specifically, because structural modifications to regionally significant roadways are proposed components of the alternatives under consideration in the form of modifications to existing intersections and the construction of new intersections, the project is subject to a project-level conformity review. Because carbon monoxide is the pollutant of greatest concern from transportation sources and the only pollutant for which there is an acceptable means for assessing impacts in terms of conformity on a project level, a carbon monoxide hotspot analysis was conducted. In this hotspot analysis, two standard computerized tools were used to evaluate potential air quality impacts due to the proposed project in both its opening year (2008) and its design year wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 100 Draft EIS Air Quality (2020): the Mobile Sources emissions model (U.S. EPA 1996) and CAL3QHC dispersion model (U.S. EPA 1992a). In accordance with the agreement between the U.S. EPA and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the PSRC was contacted regarding vehicle emission factors for the years of analysis being considered for the Auburn Gateway project. The Tier II adjusted Mobile5b emission factors for carbon monoxide and worst-case meteorological conditions were then used as input to the CAL3QHC dispersion model to calculate ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide near the signalized intersections selected for hotspot modeling. Based on U.S. EPA guidance and available traffic data, three intersections were selected for detailed dispersion modeling for this project and represent the intersections that would be affected most by the project during the PM peak hour in both the opening year and the design year: thth South 277 Street at Kent-Kangley Road and 116 Avenue SE th South 277 Street at West Valley Highway th South 277 Street at Auburn Way North. Consistent with U.S. EPA guidance, the calculated 1-hour carbon monoxide concentrations include a background level of 3 ppm to account for emissions from other sources in the area. The modeled 1-hour concentrations were converted to represent 8-hour concentrations using a persistence factor of 0.7 to reflect both meteorological and traffic variability as recommended by the U.S. EPA. A detailed discussion of the analytical method is included in Appendix D). As shown in Table 7, the assessment of the relative significance of potential air quality impacts was based on a comparison of predicted worst-case carbon monoxide concentrations under each action alternative with the predicted concentrations under the no-build condition. The no-build condition assumes that the existing Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex would remain the predominant use in the Auburn Gateway project area, and this assumption led to projected traffic volumes that would have minimal effects on future PM peak-hour traffic. In contrast, the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative considered in other portions of this EIS could result in the complete build-out of the Auburn Gateway project area as allowed under existing zoning, which could include development of retail space and single-family and multifamily housing that would be expected to generate more traffic during the PM peak hour. Therefore, traffic projections based on the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in traffic volumes and conditions that would have greater effects during the PM peak-hour traffic situation than those under the no-build condition. In other words, a comparison of the effects of the action alternatives with those assumed for the no-build condition is a more conservative (i.e., protective) approach than a comparison with the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. This comparison is also consistent with the approach used in the traffic impact analysis discussed in the Transportation section. The results of the modeling impact analysis for each of the alternatives are discussed in the following sections. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 101 Special Area Plan Air Quality Table 7. Calculated maximum PM peak-hour carbon monoxide concentrations (ppm). Alternatives in 2008 Alternatives in 2020 Location Averaging Time No Build 1 2 3 No Build 1 2 3 tha Auburn Way North with South 277 1-hour 7.8 7.8 8.0 7.9 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.3 b Street 8-hour 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.5 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.4 tha South 277 Street with West Valley 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.3 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.2 1-hour b Highway 8-hour 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.8 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.3 a th 1-hour 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 South 277 Street with Kent-Kangley b Road 8-hour 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 a The 1-hour national ambient air quality standard is 35 parts per million. b The 8-hour national ambient air quality standard is 9 parts per million. Alternative 1: Retail and Office Maximum predicted carbon monoxide concentrations under Alternative 1 are well below the 1- hour and 8-hour NAAQSs in both the opening and design years. In 2008, the development under Alternative 1 would be partially completed and would generate less traffic than it would in the 2020 design year. The maximum carbon monoxide concentration predicted for 2020 is nonetheless even lower than that predicted for 2008. This decrease is attributable to the expected significant decrease in vehicle emission rates predicted by the Mobile model, due to the continuing vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. Under Alternative 1, the maximum 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations predicted for both 2008 and 2020 are about the same as the concentrations expected under the no-build condition in these same years. The predicted worst-case carbon monoxide concentrations for Alternative 1 are the same or slightly lower than the expected concentrations for Alternatives 2 and 3 in 2008; however, by 2020 the predicted concentrations for Alternative 1 are slightly higher than those for Alternatives 2 and 3. This prediction results from the expectation that Alternative 1 would generate less PM peak-hour traffic in 2008 than the other action alternatives. However, it would generate more total traffic by 2020 than any of the other alternatives because its initial phase of development is projected to be smaller in scale than that of the other alternatives. Alternative 2: Retail Under Alternative 2, the maximum predicted 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations are also well below the NAAQSs. Similar to Alternative 1, concentrations predicted for 2020 are less than those predicted for 2008 due to decreasing vehicle emission rates. th In 2008, the predicted 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration at the intersection of South 277 Street and West Valley Highway is 0.3 ppm higher than that predicted under the no-build th condition. At the intersection of South 277 Street and Auburn Way North, the predicted carbon monoxide concentration is 0.2 ppm higher than that predicted under the no-build condition, and wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 102 Draft EIS Air Quality th at the intersection of South 277 Street and Kent-Kangley Road, it is slightly lower than that under the no-build condition. The predicted differences are due to the larger short-term increases in traffic under Alternative 2 by 2008. By 2020, the predicted worst-case 1-hour carbon th monoxide concentration at the intersection of South 277 Street and Auburn Way North is 0.1 ppm higher than that under the no-build condition and the same or lower than that under the no- build condition at the other two intersections. Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Under Alternative 3, the predicted carbon monoxide concentrations remain well below the NAAQSs in both future years. Generally, the predicted concentrations differ slightly from those under the no-build condition, increasing or decreasing by 0.2 ppm more or less in 2008. For th 2020, the predicted concentration at South 277 Street and West Valley Highway under Alternative 3 is less than that under the other alternatives (by at least 0.4 ppm), but the predicted concentrations at the other study intersections are the same or slightly less. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, the existing zoning would restrict the complete build-out of the Auburn Gateway project area to one or a combination of elements that may include retail space, single-family residential units, and multifamily residential units. Such a change in land use would likely result in greater PM peak-hour traffic than that under the no- build condition; however, it would not affect traffic to the extent of future conditions under the action alternatives. Thus, it is highly likely that the maximum carbon monoxide concentrations resulting from the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would be no greater than the concentrations predicted for any of the action alternatives, remaining well below the NAAQSs (Table 7). Conformity with State Implementation Plan The federal Clean Air Act requires states to take actions to reduce air pollution in nonattainment areas so that federal health-based standards are not exceeded. States must also provide control measures in maintenance areas that will ensure attainment for at least 10 years. The framework for meeting these goals is the state implementation plan. As required by the federal Clean Air Act, both the Department of Ecology and the PSCAA have submitted the state implementation plans for ozone and carbon monoxide to the U.S. EPA for review, and these plans have been approved. The Washington State Clean Air Act of 1991 (Chapter 70.94 of the Revised Code of Washington) states that the Puget Sound Regional Council, as the responsible metropolitan planning organization, and the Washington State Department of Transportation cannot adopt, approve, or accept any plans, programs, or projects that affect regionally significant transportation facilities or roadways unle wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 103 Special Area Plan Air Quality implementation plans. Conformity with a state implementation plan is defined as complying with the intent of the plan to reduce or eliminate the number and severity of violations of an ambient air quality standard and to achieve expeditious attainment of such standards. The federal and state rules and regulations governing conformity are described in the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 51 and 93, and in Chapter 174-420 of the Washington Administrative Code. Typically, a project that affects the transportation system is subject to a regional conformity review. However, the transportation impacts from the Auburn Gateway project alternatives are not subject to a regional conformity review because the transportation components of the proposed project are not extensive enough that they would be expected to affect the regional transportation system. Instead, the regionally significant arterials, Auburn Way North and South th 277 Street, would be affected at the local level by the proposed construction of new intersections as part of the proposed project. Therefore, even though the project triggers a local hot spot conformity evaluation, it does not require a regional conformity review. Under these circumstances, the site-specific air quality analysis described above constitutes a project-level (hotspot) conformity review as defined in the clean air rules, and the following project-level conformity statement applies. Local carbon monoxide concentrations related to the alternatives of the proposed project were predicted using approved regulatory models and protocol. In th the maximum 8-hour carbon monoxide concentration at each intersection would be less than the NAAQS of 9 ppm. By the design year (2020), all carbon monoxide concentrations resulting from project-related traffic increases would be even lower than those in 2008 and well below the NAAQS. Although the project-related carbon monoxide concentrations would be higher than those under the no-build condition in both years, the proposed project would neither create a new violation nor perpetuate an existing violation of the carbon monoxide standards. Therefore at the project level, the project conforms with the purpose of the current state implementation plan and with all requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Washington State Clean Air Act of 1991. Cumulative Impacts Because the transportation modeling that provided the data used in the air quality analysis considered expected traffic increases that would be caused by both the proposed project and other planned actions and growth in the area, both the traffic data and the air quality analysis effectively include consideration of the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. No further analysis is warranted. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 104 Draft EIS Air Quality Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures for Short-Term Construction Impacts Possible mitigation measures for reducing the potential for air quality impacts during construction include measures for reducing both exhaust emissions and fugitive dust. The Washington Associated General Contractors brochure Guide to Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects suggests several methods for controlling dust and reducing the potential exposure of people to emissions from diesel equipment. The following is a list of recommended mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce potential impacts during construction. Use only equipment and trucks that are maintained in optimal operational condition. Require all off-road equipment to be retrofitted with emission reduction equipment (i.e., require participation in the Puget Sound region Diesel Solutions by project sponsors and contractors). Use bio-diesel or other lower emission fuels for vehicles and equipment. Use carpooling or other trip reduction strategies for construction workers. Stage construction to minimize overall transportation system congestion and delays to reduce regional emissions of pollutants during construction. Implement construction curbs on hot days when the region is at risk for exceeding the NAAQS for ozone, and work at night instead. Implement restrictions on construction truck idling (e.g., limit idling to a maximum of 5 minutes). Locate construction equipment away from sensitive receptors, such as fresh air intakes for buildings, air conditioners, and sensitive populations. Locate construction staging zones where diesel emissions will be unnoticeable to the public and away from sensitive populations, such as the elderly and the young. Spray exposed soil with water or other suppressant to reduce emissions of PM and deposition of particulate matter. 10 Pave or use gravel on staging areas and roads that will be exposed for long periods. Cover all trucks transporting materials, spray water on materials in trucks, or provide adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 105 Special Area Plan Air Quality top of the truck bed) to reduce PM emissions and deposition during 10 transport. Provide wheel washers for the removal of particulate matter that would otherwise be carried off the site by vehicles to decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways. Remove particulate matter deposited on paved public roads, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and pedestrian paths to reduce mud and dust; sweep and wash streets continuously to reduce emissions. Cover dirt, gravel, and debris piles as needed to reduce dust and wind- blown debris. Route and schedule construction trucks so that traffic delays are reduced during peak travel times to minimize air quality impacts caused by a reduction in traffic speeds. Mitigation Measures for Long-Term Operational Impacts Because the air quality modeling analysis did not indicate the potential for significant air quality impacts related to the proposed project alternatives, no mitigation measures are proposed or warranted. In the event that wood-burning devices would be proposed for use as part of the Auburn Gateway project, additional analysis would be required to assess the potential significance of air impacts due to this source type. Alternatively, wood-burning devices could be prohibited. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable impacts on air quality have been identified, and no impacts are anticipated. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 106 Draft EIS Noise Noise Applicable Laws and Regulations The proposed project would potentially affect noise-sensitive properties adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area as well as those along traffic corridors leading to the area. Therefore, this section describes the existing noise environment and compares noise associated with the project alternatives with relevant regulatory criteria. A brief discussion of noise concepts and terminology are presented below followed by a discussion of applicable noise regulations, including those established by the City of Auburn, Washington state, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Noise Terminology In this section, the terms noise and sound are used more or less interchangeably. The human ear responds to a very wide range of sound intensities. The decibel scale used to describe sound is a logarithmic scale that provides a convenient system for considering the large differences in audible sound intensities. On this scale, an increase of 10 decibels (dB) represents an approximate perceived doubling of loudness to someone with normal hearing. Therefore, a 70- dB sound level sounds twice as loud as a 60-dB sound level. A doubling of sound energy results in a sound level increase of 3 dB. People generally cannot detect a difference in sound level (increases or decreases) of 1 dB from a given noise source. Although differences of 2 or 3 dB can be detected under ideal laboratory situations, such changes are difficult to discern in an active outdoor acoustical environment. A 5-dB change in a given noise source or environment would be likely to be perceived by most people under normal listening conditions. When assessing the effects of noise on people, it is necessary to consider the frequency response of the human ear, or those frequencies that people hear best. Sound-measuring instruments are therefore often programmed to weight measured sound levels based on the way people hear. The frequency-weighting most often used to evaluate environmental noise is A-weighting, and measurements using this system are reported in A-weighted decibels, or dBA. In evaluating noise impacts, regulatory agencies often use equivalent sound level. The equivalent sound level (Leq) is a constant sound level that has the same sound energy as the actual fluctuating sound being measured by an instrument. As such, it can be considered an energy-average sound level. In discussing sound level measurements and predictions, it is important to identify the time period being considered, because most sound-energy criteria address sound-energy averages over some time period. In this way, noise criteria address both the intensity and the duration of sounds. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 107 Special Area Plan Noise For a given noise source, a number of factors affect the sound transmission from the source, which in turn affects the potential noise impact. Important factors include the distance from the source, the frequency of the sound, the absorbency and roughness of the intervening ground surface, the presence or absence of obstructions and their absorbency or reflectivity, and the duration of the sound. The degree of impact on people also depends on the listener and the existing noise levels. The degree of impact on plants and animals is discussed in the Plants and Animals section. Typical sound levels of familiar noise sources and activities are provided in Table 8. Table 8. Common sound levels and sources and subjective human responses. Thresholds/ Sound Level Subjective a a Possible Effects on Humans Noise Sources (dBA) Evaluation Human threshold of pain 140 Carrier jet takeoff (50 feet) Siren (100 feet) 130 Loud rock band Deafening Jet takeoff (200 feet) 120 Possible hearing loss in Auto horn (3 feet) majority of population with Chain saw continuous exposure to levels 110 Noisy snowmobile above 70 dBA Lawn mower (3 feet) 100 Noisy motorcycle (50 feet) Very loud Heavy truck (50 feet) 90 Pneumatic drill (50 feet) 80 Busy urban street, daytime Loud Normal automobile at 50 mph 70 Vacuum cleaner (3 feet) Speech interference Large air conditioning unit (20 feet) 60 Conversation (3 feet) Moderate Quiet residential area 50 Light automobile traffic (100 feet) Sleep interference Library 40 Quiet home Faint Soft whisper (15 feet) 30 Slight rustling of leaves 20 Broadcasting studio 10 Very faint Threshold of human hearing 0 DBA = A-weighted decibel a Both the subjective evaluations and the physiological responses are continuums without true threshold boundaries. Auburn City Code source certain categories of noise that are considered public disturbances and are prohib specific noise levels that cannot be exceeded but are intended to prohibit noises that are considered objectionable. For example, sounds originating from construction sites during wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 108 Draft EIS Noise nighttime hours (between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on Sunday) are considered public disturbances and are subject to civil penalty. Washington State Noise Limits requires conformance with the noise limits established by the state of Washington. The zoning code states that noise emanating from the premises of industrial and other activities shall not exceed the standards established by the state of Washington. Chapter 173-60 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-60) establishes limits on sounds that cross property boundaries based on the environmental designation for noise abatement (EDNA) of the sound source and the receiving properties. Generally, lands with residential uses are considered Class A EDNAs, commercial properties are considered Class B EDNAs, and industrial properties are considered Class C EDNAs. In Auburn, the EDNA limits are based on land use. Table 9 lists the allowable operational noise limits for all sources based on the EDNAs of the source and receiver and timing restrictions for construction noise. Table 9. Washington state maximum permissible noise levels. a Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement of the Receiving Property Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement of the Noise Residential Source Day/Night Commercial Industrial (WAC 173-60-040) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Operational Noise Limits Class A (residential) 55/45 57 60 Class B (commercial) 57/47 60 65 Class C (industrial) 60/50 65 70 Construction Noise Limits Construction noise is exempt from maximum permissible levels listed for residential receivers only during daytime hours, which are defined as 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday. dBA = A-weighted decibels WAC = Washington Administrative Code a Sound levels at any receiving property may exceed the maximum permissible limits during any hour of the day or night by no more than the following limits \[WAC 173-60-040c\]: 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in any 1-hour period 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in any 1-hour period 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any 1-hour period. Noise from traffic traveling on public roadwa permissible noise levels in WAC 173-60. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 109 Special Area Plan Noise Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation Noise Criteria The proposed development would include the construction of roads and points of access to existing roads in the Auburn Gateway project area that will increase traffic on major roadways in the Auburn area and on less traveled access roads to the project area. The FHWA has adopted noise standards that apply to traffic noise associated with its projects. Although these standards do not apply to this project because they are intended for use along roads controlled by state or federal agencies (e.g., freeways and highways) that are being structurally altered by a project or action, they provide a generally accepted means for assessing impacts that could occur at noise- sensitive receivers along transportation corridors. Therefore, the FHWA impact criteria are considered relevant to this noise analysis and are presented in this section. The FHWA defines a traffic noise impact for exterior uses at noise-sensitive receivers (e.g., residences) as a predicted traffic noise level that approaches or exceeds 67 dBA or a predicted traffic noise level that substantially exceeds the existing noise levels. FHWA leaves the definitions of approach and substantially exceed to the states. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) defines approaching the FHWA limit as a sound level within 1 dBA of the criterion level. Thus, traffic noise levels of 66 dBA or higher constitute an impact under this criterion. WSDOT defines substantially exceeding existing noise levels as an increase of 10 dBA or more if the calculated future sound level is greater than 50 dBA. Affected Environment Existing Noise Levels Residences, parks, and schools are examples of noise-sensitive receivers that are most likely to be affected by noise from a project. Of these, residences are the only type of noise-sensitive receiver near the Auburn Gateway project area or along access routes and roadways that would be affected by project-related traffic; therefore, they are the focus of this noise analysis. Other types of noise-sensitive receivers, such as the Thomas Academy, are located farther away or are dominated by other noise sources and are not likely to be affected by the Auburn Gateway project. Existing sound levels in areas potentially affected by the project were measured during off-peak travel periods on two occasions: June 6 and July 11, 2003. Each sound level measurement lasted 15 minutes, during which time attributable noise sources were documented, and visible traffic sources were counted and categorized. Exceptional noise events (e.g., a loud plane overhead or a dominating car stereo) were also documented, and the equivalent sound level for the interval was adjusted by omitting these events from the subsequent calculations. These sound level measurement locations represent certain residential receiving locations near the Auburn Gateway project area that would potentially be affected by the project. These residential receiving locations are designated as study areas N1 through N4, which are shown in Figure 9. No measurements were taken north or east of the Auburn Gateway project area boundary because there are no noise-sensitive receivers in these areas. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 110 Draft EIS Noise These sound level measurements have been used to characterize the existing acoustical environment near the Auburn Gateway project area. However, these levels may not represent peak noise levels at the locations that are affected mainly by traffic because the data were collected outside of the PM peak hour. The existing PM peak-hour sound levels are probably 1 or 2 dBA higher than the measured levels. The measured existing sound levels are provided in Table 10. Table 10. Measured existing sound levels. Equivalent Sound Level Location Description (dBA) Time of Day SLM 1 At the existing mobile home within the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater 50 11 a.m. to noon complex. This location represents the sound environment of residences not dominated by heavily traveled roadways or lightly traveled side streets and not affected by residential, retail, or commercial land uses, such as those residences on private access th roads southeast of 45 Street NE. ath SLM 2 Near the single-family mobile home at the dead end of 45 Street 50 Noon to 1 p.m. NE (southeast corner of Auburn Gateway project area). This location represents the Mallard Pointe residences located a distance from Auburn Way North, which experience similar sound levels as those measured in SLM 1. Although the sound levels are not dominated by noise from roadways, this area is subject to noise th from occasional vehicles traveling on 45 Street NE into Mallard Pointe. ath SLM 3 North of Riverbend Office Park on 45 Street NE facing the Valley 51 Noon to 1 p.m. 6 Drive-in Theater complex, (southwest corner of Auburn Gateway project area). This location is within the planning area boundary and is influenced more by noise from Auburn Way North than th from SLM 2. This location represents receivers along 45 Street NE that are not directly adjacent to the dominant roadway and are partially shielded from traffic by intervening buildings. a SLM 4 Near building 4, residence 101, of Mallard Pointe. This location 55 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. represents residences in the Mallard Pointe complex adjacent to and dominated by noise from Auburn Way North. th SLM 5 On 85 Avenue South near its intersection with Auburn Way 60 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. North. This location represents residences west of and dominated by noise from Auburn Way North, setback at least 150 feet from the road edge. SLM 6 Adjacent to the main entrance to the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater 58 Noon to 1 p.m. complex, west of the Auburn Gateway project area. This location represents three single-family residences along D Street NE, th dominated by traffic-related noise on D Street NE and 49 Street NE. SLM 7 On a vacant lot 30 feet west of the single-family residence at 219 64 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. thth 49 Street NE. This location represents two residences on 49 Street NE within 75 feet of the roadway edge of Auburn Way North. Noise from Auburn Way North dominates the sound environment. dBA = A-weighted decibel SLM = sound level measurement a These sound level measurements correlate with the noise levels experienced at residences in the Mallard Pointe complex in terms of their distance from Auburn Way North and the degree of shielding provided by intervening buildings. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 112 Draft EIS Noise Existing sound levels that are not dominated by heavily traveled roads are well below the WSDOT noise impact criteria for sensitive receivers. The residential areas along Auburn Way North currently experience higher noise levels than the other measured areas, and the noise levels at the residences closest to the travel lanes are within 2 dBA of the WSDOT impact criterion of 66 dBA. During peak travel periods, the closest residences currently may be affected by noise from Auburn Way North. Environmental Impacts Noise impacts can be described on the basis of a comparison of expected sound levels due to the implementation of the project with applicable control ordinances or other noise standards. Noise impacts can also be described in terms of substantial increases in sound levels or major changes in the nature of an acoustical environment, whether or not a specific standard applies, as is the case with most traffic-related noise impacts. Such impacts may be short term and temporary like those often associated with the construction of a project or long term as may occur because of the future operation of a facility. Because the Auburn Gateway project area and the surrounding lands are located in Auburn, sounds emanating from the project area would be subject to noise limits mandated by the City of Auburn and Washington state. Short-Term Construction Impacts Common to All Alternatives Construction activities under any of the proposed alternatives would create temporary, intermittent noise due to the hauling of construction materials, the use of heavy equipment, and the use of portable power generators and a variety of miscellaneous construction equipment typically required for such a project. Construction workers and equipment would also generate noise associated with travel to and from the site. These activities, which typically occur during noise levels during daytime hours. The proposed alternatives would be constructed in phases over a period of approximately 10 years. During each of the phases, heavy construction equipment would be used to demolish, clear, grade, and construct new structures and onsite parking and roadways. The phasing of the proposed project would require the sporadic occurrence of construction activities anywhere from 50 to more than 2,000 feet from the nearest noise-sensitive receivers, resulting in highly variable construction noise levels throughout the 10-year period. Table 11 provides the equivalent sound levels associated with several types of construction activities and indicates the ranges of noise produced by various types of construction equipment. As shown in Table 11, the potential ranges of construction noise that may be received at residences during the entire construction period vary greatly with distance and activity. The actual construction noise levels experienced by receivers in the project vicinity would depend on the type of equipment being used, the amount of time it is in use, intervening topography or other wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 113 Special Area Plan Noise obstructions that may provide shielding effects, and the relative distances between the active construction areas and any noise-sensitive receiving locations. Table 11. Noise from typical construction equipment. Estimated Equivalent Sound Level Range of Noise Levels Construction Types of 500 feet 2,000 feet 50 feet 50 feet 500 feet 2,000 feet Activity Equipment (dBA) (dBA)(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Clearing 83 63 51 Bulldozer Dump truck Bulldozer Dump truck Building construction Concrete pump Crane (movable) Crane (derrick) Pump Generator Compressor Source: Modified from U.S. EPA 1971. Note: These ranges of sound levels stem from the variety of equipment types that may be used for particular tasks as well as the different sound levels that may be produced by different operational modes of the same equipment. For example, some equipment will make more noise when handling heavy loads than when simply idling. dBA = A-weighted decibel As shown in Table 11, when the construction equipment is being operated at locations nearest residential receivers and could be intrusive at times. However, with the phased 10-year construction period, much of the construction activity would likely occur far from individual noise-sensitive receivers. Although noise from construction activities at locations far from the site may be audible on occasion at noise-sensitive receivers surrounding the site, it is unlikely that the noise would be intrusive much of the time. Construction noise is exempt frng daytime hours (i.e., 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays) and could be considered a public disturbance according to the Auburn City Code if it occurs outside of these hours (ACC 8.28). Long-Term Operational Impacts Common to All Alternatives The predominant current land use in the Auburn Gateway project area is the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex, which does not contribute to the overall noise levels in the vicinity of the project area except during late evening hours during a portion of the year. (Other uses include small agricultural fields and single-family residences, which do not generate significant noise.) Vehicles entering and leaving the theater complex generate traffic-related noise that results in wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 114 Draft EIS Noise increased noise levels during the hours of theater use. Under any of the action alternatives or the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, the complex would be replaced by different land use types, eliminating the late night traffic noises and creating new noise sources. Therefore, under any of the project alternatives, the existing acoustical environment near the Auburn Gateway project area would change. One potentially major new noise source would be the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems associated with office and retail buildings. Such systems are often placed on rooftops (i.e. rooftop mechanical equipment) operating as needed 24 hours per day. Depending on the size, placement, and orientation of these systems, noise from this mechanical equipment could be audible at nearby offsite locations. The Auburn zoning code includes requirements for front and street-side yard setbacks that may assist in reducing noise from such sources although proper placement and/or noise containment systems would likely be more effective than setbacks at controlling noise from most HVAC systems. The maximum permissible noise levels established by the state in WAC 173-60 would pertain to these systems, and ensuring that these noise limits are met would minimize their noise impacts. Groundskeeping and maintenance activities, solid waste compactors, outdoor retail speakers, and backup power generators would also represent new operational noise sources related to each alternative. These sources would emit noise on occasion, and these sources would have the greatest potential for affecting offsite receivers when they are closest to the current offsite uses. Traffic generated by the project would increase both onsite and offsite noise levels. Trucks carrying supplies to the retail and office buildings could be unloaded at loading docks, generating noise that could affect offsite receivers, depending on the location of the loading dock relative to the receivers and on the timing of the loading and unloading. Similarly, waste removal trucks could represent major noise sources in the area, depending primarily on the timing of the haul events. The impacts due to waste hauling and supply provisioning would be greatest during late night or early morning hours when the ambient noise levels are lower. Onsite traffic in parking areas would also represent a new noise source. Most offsite residences that are very close to the project area are in areas that either are already dominated by traffic noise or would be in the future; therefore, the potential for significant offsite noise impacts due to onsite sources associated with the operation of the proposed Auburn Gateway project is low. Offsite Traffic Noise The project alternatives would increase traffic volumes on area roadways, with the largest increases expected during the afternoon peak traffic hours (PM peak-hour traffic). Because it takes a doubling of traffic volume to cause a 3-dBA increase in related traffic noise, the overall th increases in traffic noise along major roads (Auburn Way North and South 277 Street) in the area would be minimal. Along roads that are currently less traveled, project-related traffic would result in larger relative increases in traffic volumes and, therefore, larger increases in overall traffic-related noise levels. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 115 Special Area Plan Noise To determine whether project-related traffic would increase sound levels at noise-sensitive receivers along area roads, future traffic-related noise levels were predicted. Where feasible, future roadway noise was predicted using the NOISE calculations were not possible because the level of detail required by the model was unavailable. For these locations, the analysis was limited to comparisons based on expected changes in traffic volumes or a simple qualitative review. The determination of traffic noise impacts associated with each alternative was limited to locations where noise-sensitive receivers currently exist because at the time of this analysis, no planned developments adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area had been submitted to the City for approval. Potential traffic- related impacts under each alternative are discussed in the following subsections Alternative 1: Retail and Office Alternative 1 would generate significantly more new vehicle trips on area roads in 2020 than any of the other project alternatives. Alternative 1 would generate 35 percent more roadway trips than Alternative 2, 57 percent more than Alternative 3, and 81 percent more than the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Under each alternative, the distribution of expected new trips among the area roadways would be slightly different, and the potential for each alternative to result in noise impacts at noise-sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the project area would also be different. The distribution of vehicles also depends on the proposed vehicle access options. Several vehicle access options (A, A-1, B, B-1, B-2, C, C-1) are being considered in conjunction with the proposed action alternatives. This discussion of noise impacts covers the primary vehicle access options (A, B, and C). Sub-options A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, and C-1 differ only in the number and location of traffic signals and would have no affect on the traffic volumes associated with each option category and therefore would not affect the noise analysis. A complete discussion of the access options is included in the Transportation Analysis of the EIS. The following subsections present the project-related noise impacts at each of the residential receiving locations. Each subsection begins with a discussion of the potential impacts at project- affected receiver areas resulting from the traffic under Alternative 1 with access option A, as determined on the basis of available traffic data. The relative potential impacts associated with access options B and C under Alternative 1 are then presented. The results of the impact analysis are summarized in Table 12. th I Street NE near 45 Street NE Regardless of whether any one of the action alternatives or the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative is implemented, one residential area that will be affected by future traffic noise is the th area along I Street NE near 45 Street NE (study area N1). This road will be extended south to complete the linkage to Harvey Road NE and widened to arterial roadway standards. By 2020, the completion of this roadway will result in substantially more traffic in an area with very limited existing traffic, therefore, substantially increasing the traffic noise. The existing 50-dBA sound level measured during an off-peak hour will increase to 65 dBA during the PM peak hour in 2020 because of the new roadway. Based on the WSDOT impact criteria, future sound levels wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 116 Draft EIS Noise in this area will substantially exceed the existing noise level, which is considered an impact. However, this impact is the result of a previously planned completion of I Street NE and is therefore not attributable to the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. Table 12. Estimated changes in sound levels at potentially affected locations under each action alternative with various vehicle access options. Future No-Build a Condition Access Option A Access Option B Access Option C (2020) Sound Sound Sound Sound level level level level IncreaseIncreaseIncrease (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) b N1: I Street NE near 45th Street NE 65 Alternative 1 - Retail and Office 1 66 <1 <66 1 66 Alternative 2 - Retail <1 <66 Alternative 3 - Retail and Residential <1 <66 Alternative 2 - Retail <1 <66 Alternative 3 - Retail and Residential <1 <66 c N3: D Street NE at 49th Street NE 61 Alternative 1 - Retail and Office 4 65 7 68 3 64 Alternative 2 - Retail 6 67 Alternative 3 - Retail and Residential 4 65 Alternative 1 - Retail and Office 1 < Alternative 2 - Retail <1 < Alternative 3 - Retail and Residential <1 < Note: Estimates of project-related sound level changes assumed a worst-case condition at the nearest receiver in each area based on peak-hour traffic volumes. Access options and associated traffic conditions were not available for Alternatives 2 and 3. a Future sound levels are based on the no-build traffic condition that assumes no additional development of the project area. The no-build condition is not the same as the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, which assumes some level of additional development in the project area, in keeping with the existing zoning. b Along I Street NE, where the distance between the future roadway and the receiver was not available, sound levels were estimated assuming that the nearest receiver would be located 50 feet from the most-traveled lane; actual levels would vary according to the distance of the receiver from the roadway. c At receivers on D Street NE, where future the roadway configuration and design were not available, estimated changes in sound levels were based on increases in traffic volumes on the existing roadways. Actual changes in sound levels will vary depending on the roadway design, the distance between roadway and receiver, and the potential for intervening structures and terrain between new or revised access roads and the existing receivers. In comparison, project-related traffic stemming from Alternative 1 would increase the noise level by approximately 1 dBA, an increase that would be undetectable by receivers. Although a 1- dBA increase would have minimal impact, the predicted overall noise level resulting from Alternative 1 (66 dBA) would be considered a noise impact under the WSDOT criteria. The different access options would have little impact on the relative distribution of project- th related traffic along I Street NE south of 45 Street NE. The predicted traffic volumes in this wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 117 Special Area Plan Noise area (N1) under access options A and C are the same; therefore, the predicted noise levels would also be the same (66 dBA). The predicted traffic volumes with access option B are slightly less than those with the other options, which would result in less than a 1-dBA increase over the future traffic noise under the no-build condition. Mallard Pointe Mallard Pointe (study area N2), which is south of the Auburn Gateway project area (represented by sound level measurement locations SLM 2, SLM 3 and SLM 4), would also be likely to experience increases in traffic-related noise under Alternative 1. However, the overall sound levels would vary depending on the distance of the receiver from the new I Street NE corridor, the location relative to Auburn Way North, and intervening buildings. Comparing existing noise levels to predicted future peak-hour traffic noise levels under the no-build condition, future roadway configurations and traffic volumes would likely result in noise increases of up to 10 dBA due to the new connector. A 10-dBA increase would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. However, additional traffic directly due to the project under Alternative 1 would result in an increase of only approximately 1 dBA more than the overall traffic noise levels under the no-build condition, which would be undiscernible. With access option B, the noise levels would increase slightly less than the levels associated with options A and C, which have slightly higher traffic volumes than option B. However, with any of the vehicle access options, traffic-related noise would approach the WSDOT impact criterion th of 66 dBA at noise-sensitive receivers facing 45 Street NE and Auburn Way North. D Street NE Any one of the proposed alternatives and access options would result in substantial changes in the acoustical environment near the few residences along D Street NE (study area N3 represented by SLM 6). Several new and/or improved access roads to the Auburn Gateway project area would be constructed, but the design of these roadways was unknown at the time of the noise analysis. Although it was not possible to perform NOISE calculations for this area because of uncertainties about the future roadway configurations in this area, it was still possible to compare the expected future traffic volumes and resulting changes in noise levels. For example, compared to the traffic volumes counted during the sound level measurement, traffic volumes are expected to increase 30 percent in 2020 under the no-build condition, resulting in a traffic noise increase of approximately 1 dBA over the measured sound level of 60 dBA for existing off-peak conditions. Unlike areas N1 and N2, which would experience substantial increases of 10 dBA in traffic noise under the no-build condition due to the proposed I Street NE connector, the 1-dBA increase expected at N3 would undiscernible. Under Alternative 1, the vehicle access option that is chosen could substantially affect the traffic th volumes in the D Street NE area. Access option B would connect D Street NE and 49 Street NE to I Street NE and would generate the largest increases in total traffic volume along these two nearest roads to the receivers in this area. Compared to the no-build condition, traffic volumes would increase 386 percent with access option B, 240 percent with access option A, and wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 118 Draft EIS Noise 170 percent with access option C. Corresponding traffic-related noise levels in area N3 could increase as much as 7 dBA with access option B; 4 dBA with access option A; and 3 dBA with access option C. Noise level increases of this magnitude would be noticeable. Also, with access option B, overall traffic noise levels would be considered an impact according to the WSDOT criteria. The previous traffic noise levels were calculated with the assumption that the existing road configurations would be similar in the future under both the no-build condition and the proposed action alternatives and access options. In reality, the road configurations will change; therefore, the actual changes in noise levels might not be accurately predicted using this methodology. Adjacent to Auburn Way North th Along Auburn Way North near 49 Street NE (study area N4 represented by SLM 7), minor project-related increases in traffic noise would be expected under Alternative 1 with access option A. At receivers 150 feet from the travel lanes, future peak-hour traffic noise levels could reach 64 dBA under the no-build condition and 65 dBA under Alternative 1, a 1-dBA increase that would be undiscernible by the receivers. Closer to the road (within 75 feet of the travel lanes), traffic noise levels could reach 66 dBA under the no-build condition and 67 dBA under Alternative 1, again resulting in a 1-dBA increase that would be undiscernible. Comparing access options, the traffic volumes on Auburn Way North under access options B and C would be slightly less than those under access option A; however, the difference would be so slight that the noise levels would remain about the same as those predicted for access option A. Under Alternative 1, the noise level increase due to project-related traffic for receivers located within 75 feet of Auburn Way North would be considered a noise impact from that roadway according to the WSDOT criteria. Alternative 2: Retail For Alternative 2, only traffic noise associated with access option A was analyzed because detailed traffic information was not calculated for options B and C. In 2020, Alternative 2 would generate 1,433 new PM peak-hour trips, 35 percent fewer than that under Alternative 1. In general, the traffic-related noise impacts from roadways would be expected to be less than those predicted for Alternative 1 in each of the project-affected locations. Nevertheless, the distribution of traffic on local roadways would differ slightly under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1, which could result in an increase in traffic along D Street NE, affecting N3. At all locations except along D Street NE, project-related traffic noise impacts on existing residences would be minimal. Similar to Alternative 1, under Alternative 2 project-related traffic along area roadways would be slightly greater than that under the no-build condition, resulting in increases in traffic noise of 1 dBA or less. Project-related traffic noise increases would be indiscernible at the receivers in study areas N1, N2, and N4, although the traffic noise levels wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 119 Special Area Plan Noise would be considered an impact according to the WSDOT criterion (approaching or exceeding 66 dBA). th On D Street NE and 49 Street NE, Alternative 2 would likely result in traffic-related noise impacts at the nearest receivers, three single-family residences in study area N3. Traffic volumes are predicted to increase 282 percent (with access option A) over that of the no-build condition. Assuming only changes in traffic volume and not in roadway configuration, Alternative 2 could result in a traffic noise level of 68 dBA, up to 6 dBA more than that under the no-build condition. An increase of 6 dBA would be noticeable by these receivers, and traffic noise levels would exceed the WSDOT noise impact criterion of 66 dBA. Because the predicted traffic volumes in study area N3 under Alternative 2 are higher than those under Alternative 1, it is likely that Alternative 2 with access option B would cause even greater increases in traffic-related noise than those under Alternative. Alternative 3: Retail and Residential As with Alternative 2, access option A was the only traffic scenario analyzed because traffic information was not available for options B and C. In 2020, Alternative 3 would generate fewer new PM peak-hour trips than the number under either of the other action alternatives previously discussed. With smaller increases in project-related traffic volumes, traffic-related noise impacts would be less than the impacts identified for Alternatives 1 and 2. At all locations except along D Street NE, project-related traffic noise impacts on existing residences would be minimal. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, project-related traffic along area roadways would be slightly greater than that under the no-build condition, resulting in increases in traffic noise of 1 dBA or less. Project-related traffic noise increases would be undiscernible by the receivers in study areas N1, N2, and N4, although the traffic noise levels would be considered an impact according to the WSDOT criterion (approaching or exceeding 66 dBA). Near D Street NE, the traffic-related noise impacts under Alternative 3 would be expected to be greater than those under Alternative 1 because the traffic volumes at this location would be 45 percent greater than those under Alternative 1. The noise impacts under Alternative 3 would be expected to be less than the impacts under Alternative 2 because Alternative 3 would generate traffic volumes at this location that would be 23 percent less than those under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, increases in traffic volumes could result in noise levels at D Street NE and th 49 Street NE up to 4 dBA higher than those under the no-build condition (which assumes the road network as it currently exists). Unlike the other action alternatives, Alternative 3 would include onsite residential units. These onsite residences are more likely to be affected by operational noise sources such as HVAC units, loading and unloading activities, waste hauling, and groundskeeping activities. Onsite traffic would also affect noise levels at these locations. The potential for such impacts could be minimized by means of the site layout and facility design and by a restriction of truck deliveries wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 120 Draft EIS Noise and waste hauling to daytime hours. Under Alternative 3, if residential development is completed at an early phase of the project, construction noise impacts could also affect residents within the Auburn Gateway project area. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative assumes the full build-out of the Auburn Gateway project area as allowed under the current zoning. Although I Street NE would be completed under this alternative, other aspects of the vehicle access alternatives would not be constructed. Based on the estimated traffic volumes, the traffic noise impacts under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would be slightly more than under the no-build condition and substantially less than those under any of the action alternatives, because this alternative would generate substantially less traffic. Cumulative Impacts Future traffic forecasts considering cumulative traffic growth are included in all the traffic volumes used for the noise analysis. Noise-sensitive receivers potentially affected by traffic noise but located far from the Auburn Gateway project area (i.e., in areas N1, N2, and N4) would not be likely to be affected by operational noise coming from the project area. For these noise-sensitive receivers, the cumulative noise impacts are fully represented in the discussion of potential traffic noise impacts. For the noise-sensitive receivers in areas N2 and N3, which are close to the Auburn Gateway project area, operational noises due to HVAC units, loading dock activities, and other sources may result in overall noise levels greater than the traffic noise levels identified in previous sections. Ensuring that all onsite noise sources comply with the Washington state noise limits will help to minimize potential cumulative noise impacts. Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to mitigate noise during construction of the project: Develop a mitigation plan for construction noise based on the schedule of construction activities, the intensity and duration of the noise generated during these activities, and the location of the activities relative to the nearest noise-sensitive receivers, to be approved by the City prior to construction. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 121 Special Area Plan Noise Use properly sized and maintained mufflers, engine intake silencers, and engine enclosures. Turn off idling equipment. Restrict construction activities to daytime hours. Place stationary equipment, including pumps, compressors, welding machines and similar equipment, as far as possible away from noise- sensitive receiving locations, while maintaining the effective use of such equipment. Where this is infeasible or where noise impacts are still likely, place portable noise barriers around the equipment with the opening directed away from the noise-sensitive receiving property. Substitute hydraulic or electric models for impact tools such as jackhammers, rock drills, and pavement breakers. Require equipment operators to drive forward rather than backward, where feasible, to minimize noise from backup alarms. Require operators to lift rather than drag materials, wherever feasible. The following mitigation measures are recommended for operational impacts of the project: Include noise control techniques in the site design. Before a building permit is issued, require a noise control plan to be approved by the City for areas in which noise-generating equipment, such as mechanical equipment (i.e. HVAC systems), loading docks, solid waste removal areas, compactors, outdoor retail speakers, and backup power generators, cannot be located away from noise-sensitive receivers. Require noise containment systems where necessary to meet the noise regulations. Use buildings, fences, berms, or large landscape buffers to shield noise- sensitive receivers from onsite traffic noise. Restrict truck deliveries and waste hauling to daytime hours. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The short-term nature of the construction activities coupled with the restriction of these activities to daytime hours and the implementation of effective noise control techniques would minimize or eliminate the potential for significant unavoidable adverse impacts. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 122 Draft EIS Noise Although the construction of the I Street NE connector could result in traffic noise level increases of 10 dBA at noise-sensitive receivers in areas N1 (I Street NE) and N2 (Mallard Pointe) in the future under the no-build condition, and a 10-dBA increase is considered substantial and a traffic noise impact by WSDOT, the predicted project-related increases would be 1 dBA or less, which would be undiscernible. Therefore, even though the overall traffic sound levels resulting from each of the project alternatives (including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative) could reach or exceed the 66-dBA level that is considered an impact by WSDOT in certain portions of areas N1 and N2, the minor increase in traffic noise due specifically to any of the project alternatives would not be considered significant. Noise-sensitive receivers in area N4, nearest Auburn Way North, would be affected by the overall traffic noise levels in the future, reaching 66 dBA under both the no-build condition and each of the project alternatives (including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative). However, traffic noise increases specifically due to any of the project alternatives are anticipated to be 1 dBA or less, which would be undiscernible and would not result in significant noise impacts. Noise-sensitive receivers in area N3, along D Street NE, have the most potential to be affected by each of the project alternatives (including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative). Assuming that the project alternatives would affect only the traffic volumes and not the future roadway configurations, Alternatives 1 and 3 in conjunction with access options A or C are anticipated to have the least impact. Under Alternatives 1 and 3 in conjunction with access options A or C, the predicted increases in traffic noise of 3 to 4 dBA would be discernible but would not be considered substantial by WSDOT, and the overall predicted levels of traffic noise would be less than 66 dBA. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 3 in combination with access options A or C would not be expected to result in traffic noise impacts. In area N3, Alternatives 1 and 3 with access option B and Alternative 2 with any of the access options would be expected to have the greatest potential for noise impacts. Predicted traffic noise increases of 6 to 7 dBA would be quite noticeable by nearby residents, although not considered substantial by WSDOT, and the predicted overall levels of traffic noise would reach or exceed the 66 dBA level that is considered a traffic noise impact by WSDOT. Therefore, noise-sensitive receivers in area N3 could experience potentially significant noise impacts under Alternative 1 with access option B or under Alternative 2 with any of the access options. These potentially significant adverse noise impacts may be avoidable if effective traffic noise barriers can be identified and constructed for residences in area N3 (which would require more detailed traffic information and roadway alignment information than is currently available) or if access option B and Alternative 2 are eliminated from consideration. Because the residences in area N3 are located in an area zoned for heavy commercial use, it is also possible that they would be redeveloped to commercial use within the time frame of the redevelopment of the Auburn Gateway project area. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 123 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals Plants and Animals This section focuses on existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation measures related to plant and animal habitats. Data collected for this section were obtained from existing reports provided by the Cities of Auburn and Kent, field reconnaissance visits, and environmental agency staff. No formal wetland delineations, stream surveys, or habitat mapping were completed for this EIS. Applicable Laws and Regulations Federal, state, and local regulations govern activities associated with implementing the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan project. At the federal level, the Endangered Species Act is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and protects endangered and threatened plant and animal species. The USFWS also oversees the protection of active bird nests by means of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. All waters designated as waters of the United States, including wetlands, are regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires consultation with NOAA Fisheries and/or the USFWS and the preparation of a biological assessment to evaluate potential impacts on federally endangered and threatened species. A biological evaluation might need to be prepared for this project as part of consultation with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries; however, negligible impacts on special status species are expected from the project. If a CWA Section 404 permit is required for the project, then consultation with the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries will be required. If compliance with the Endangered Species Act is necessary for this project, then the project proponent, Robertson Properties Group (RPG), and the City of Auburn will follow the recommended conservation measures for impacts on federally listed species stipulated by NOAA Fisheries and/or the USFWS. In Washington state, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) and local governments regulate shorelines as mandated by the Shoreline Management Act. The Department of Ecology also issues the CWA Section 401 water quality certification for waters of the United States and regulates impacts on isolated wetlands that are not regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) implements the hydraulic project approval (HPA) regulations, which govern activities that can occur within streams and alter their flow regime. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), under the direction of the commissioner of public lands, governs activities within forested areas. WDNR also manages a Natural Heritage Program that catalogs the presence of rare, sensitive, threatened, and endangered plant species throughout Washington. Plants may also be protected under federal Endangered Species Act regulations. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 125 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals Local critical areas ordinances and other municipal regulations and policies regulate activities in wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and critical aquifer-recharge areas. The City of Auburn is currently revising its critical areas regulations and currently relies on adopted SEPA policies and uses the SEPA review process to identify impacts and mitigation. General guidance from the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan regarding the protection of critical areas includes the following elements: Determine the types of critical areas within the project area and map them. Prepare a critical areas report that describes the critical areas within the project area. Wetland classifications and functions and values are determined using the Department of accepted methods for functional assessment. Develop a mitigation plan to protect and/or mitigate the potential impacts on critical areas, including suggested critical area buffers. Compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts would have the goal of replacing lost wetland functions. guidelines for classification and mitigation of wetland impacts or follow the recommendations for mitigation in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) (U.S. COE et al. 2000). The goal of compensatory mitigation as outlined in the Mill Creek SAMP (U.S. COE et al. 2000) is to replace lost wetland functions. The Mill Creek SAMP recommends wetland mitigation ratios of 1.25 acres of replacement wetland to 1 acre of wetland loss for mitigation projects that include the creation of new wetlands. The Mill Creek SAMP recommends a mitigation ratio of 3 to 1 for mitigation that includes the enhancement of existing wetlands. For example, if 0.5 acres of wetland is lost due to the planned project, 0.625 acres of wetland creation or 1.5 acres of wetland enhancement would be required to meet the objectives of the Mill Creek SAMP. The Mill Creek SAMP also provides a basis for requiring buffers for wetlands that are preserved or created. Under the Shoreline Management Act, the City of Auburn also regulates shoreline development along designated shorelines of the state. The only shoreline of the state in the project vicinity is a portion of the Green River that flows to the north and east (1/2 mile east) of the project area. Shorelines of the state can include floodplains adjacent to designated water bodies at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 126 Draft EIS Plants and Animals Affected Environment Plant Communities Plant community types identified in the planning area were mapped using a combination of the habitat classification categories from the King County Wildlife Habitat Profile system (King County 1987) and Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and plant community type can vary considerably depending on several factors such as size of habitat area; connectivity and presence of adjacent high-quality, diverse habitat; diversity of plant species; diversity of plant structure (i.e., trees, downed logs, shrubs, and grassland); and disturbance of the habitat area by humans and domestic animals. The King County system consists of 31 wildlife habitat categories that are grouped into saltwater, freshwater, riparian, and upland. Only the upland and freshwater categories apply to the planning area. The upland and wetland plant communities within the planning area include a mixture of native, nonnative invasive, and horticultural species that provide valuable habitat for wildlife (Figure 10). The upland habitats in the planning area consist of lowland grass/forb habitat (grass/forb habitat), lowland mixed coniferous/deciduous second-growth forest (mixed second-growth forest), and agricultural land as classified by King County (1987) and mixed environs as classified by Johns describe the developed portions of the planning area. Shrub, forested, and emergent wetlands and emergent wetland ditches are also present in the planning area. Upland Plant Communities The upland plant communities in the planning area include lowland grass/forb habitat, mixed second-growth forest, agricultural land, and mixed environs, which are described below. Grass/Forb Community Six grass/forb community areas are present in the planning area (Figure 10). Two grass/forb areas are on the Port of Seattle (Port) construction access property. One is in the southern th portion of the planning area, near 45 Street NE, and is dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The other is in the northern portion of the Port property and appears to have been disturbed. Hummocks in the area indicate previous grading; however, this area has grown over with reed canarygrass, indicating that the disturbance may have occurred several years ago. The grass/forb area in the northern portion of the Port property is dominated by reed canarygrass, which extends from the shrub/emergent wetland southward. th Two grass/forb communities are located east of the north theater complex, abutting South 277 Street. These areas are surrounded by mixed second-growth forest and wetlands. The land is sparsely vegetated and appears to have been previously cleared, graded, and/or compacted by heavy vehicles. Household debris has been dumped along the western edge of this area near a chainlink fence that blocks entry into the area. Compaction of the soils has resulted in ponding wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 127 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals of water in this portion of the project area and wetland plants, such as soft rush (Juncus effusus) and common cattail (Typha latifolia), have begun to colonize this area, along with grasses. Grasses that dominate this area include bentgrasses (Agrostis sp.), fescue (Festuca sp.) and reed canarygrass. Additional grass/forb communities are located south of the main entrance of the drive-in movie theater (McKee property), and east of Auburn Way North behind Buyrite Motors. These areas are mowed lawns consisting of nonnative grasses. The lawn behind Buyrite Motors contains Wetland C (see Figure 10). During the Corps review of the wetland delineations on the Auburn Gateway project area, including the drive-in movie theater sites but not the Stein property (David Evans 1998a, 1998b), a historical aerial photographic analysis was completed (U.S. COE 2001). The aerial photographs indicate that in the past fill was placed within the planning area. They also indicated that the land east of the north theater complex had been used as a staging area for the construction of the drive-in movie theaters. The Corps concluded that the areas of upland fill on the Auburn Gateway project area are nonjurisdictional under CWA Section 404 (U.S. COE 2001). Mixed Second-Growth Forest Mixed second-growth forest exists east of the north theater complex as well as east of the southeast corner of the south theater complex (Figure 10). These areas are dominated by black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). Additionally, coniferous trees including Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) are interspersed within the deciduous forest. Agricultural Land The northwest corner of the planning area, which is outside the boundary of the Auburn Gateway project area, is currently being used for agricultural production (Figure 10). This area has recently been cultivated, but is zoned for commercial use. This area has been tilled and planted with agricultural crops. The periphery of this property consists of grassland areas with nonnative pasture grasses, including reed canarygrass and fescue. An emergent wetland (Wetland E) exists in the northwest corner of this area (see Figure 10). Mixed Environs Mixed environs are areas of human development (e.g., buildings, roads, drainage ditches, and parking lots) that typically contain landscaped areas of horticultural plant species, which provide limited habitat for certain species of wildlife. The remaining portion of the planning area consists of residences, businesses, gravel drives and parking lots, drainage ditches, four drive-in movie screens, and a ticket booth. The drive-in theater areas are fenced and surrounded by landscaped hedgerows, which consist of ornamental cedar (Chamaecyparis spp.), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus), and nonnative grasses, including reed canarygrass, fescue, and wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 129 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals bentgrasses. Residences are located at the corner of D Street NE and Auburn Way North and at th the corner of 45 Street NE and Auburn Way North. Buyrite Motors is located along Auburn th Way North between D Street NE and 45 Street NE. As desc ed behind these buildings. An emergent wetland is located in the center of the grass/forb community area and is described in the discussion of wetlands, under Emergent Wetlands. Coniferous and deciduous trees have been planted on the western side of G Street NE, which is located on the eastern side of the drive-in theaters. These include red maple (Acer rubrum), western redcedar, and Douglas-fir. During a March 4, 2003, site visit, nonnative grasses such as reed canary grass, fescue, and bentgrasses were observed growing in a drainage ditch along the west side of G Street NE, and the ditch contained 3 to 4 inches of water. Vegetation along the eastern side of G Street NE includes black cottonwood, red alder, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, fescue, and bentgrasses. Wetlands Information on wetlands was obtained from existing wetland reports and a field reconnaissance conducted March 4, 2003. Wetlands were therefore not delineated for this EIS. Existing wetland reports provided information on the Stein and Auburn Properties, Inc. (API) properties (which are included in the Auburn Gateway project area). The Corps verified the wetland delineations on the Stein property and API properties in 1999 and 2000, respectively. The API properties are now controlled by RPG. Additional wetland information was obtained from the EIS that was conducted for widening and ndth safety improvements along 272 Street and South 277 Street, which were constructed under the direction of the City of Kent. A mitigation plan for that project provided information on th wetlands and wetland mitigation (Coot 1995) for wetland ditches along South 277 Street that nd abut the planning area. A CWA Section 404 permit was issued by the Corps for the 272/South th 277 Street improvement project in 1996, and it expired in 1999. Mitigation required under that th permit for the entire street widening project (including filling the ditches along South 277 Street) was completed by the City of Kent. Wetland delineations were recently completed on the Port property located east of the project area (Parametrix 2003). The Corps issued a memorandum for record (U.S. COE 2001) regarding access routes to the mitigation site on the Port property, which will be constructed to compensate for wetland impacts on the Sea-Tac Airport third runway project. That memorandum discusses the wetland history of the API properties and the Port properties. The Corps analyzed historical aerial photographs to determine whether wetlands on the Stein and Auburn properties were adjacent to the Green River. The Corps determined that Wetlands A through D that were that the river and the site were historically hydrologically connected and the river water levels determined the surface water, subsurface water, and soil saturation on the site (U.S. COE 2001). This connection has now been altered, and there is no surface connection between the Green River and those wetlands on the API properties site. The Corps recently issued a wetland wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 130 Draft EIS Plants and Animals verification for Wetlands D, F, and K (and others to the east and south of the planning area) (U.S. COE 2003). These three wetlands are considered jurisdictional under CWA Section 404. Shrub/Emergent Wetlands A palustrine shrub/emergent wetland (Wetland A) is located in the southern portion of the Stein property (Figure 10). The wetland consists of approximately 0.79 acres, includes shrub habitat dominated by Hooker willow (Salix hookeriana). Himalayan blackberry is present at the periphery of this portion of the wetland. The emergent portion of the wetland (approximately 70 percent of the wetland) is dominated by reed canarygrass and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). A ditch containing standing water runs west to east through the wetland and drains to the ditch that runs along the western boundary of the Port property, a portion of which is included in the planning area. Water sources for the wetland appear to be primarily precipitation, ground water, and runoff from adjacent areas. The northern portion of the wetland encompasses a small open-water area that appears to have been created by excavation. Hummocks (covered with Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass) likely created from excavated soils are adjacent to the wetland. Forested Wetlands A palustrine forested wetland (Wetland B) is located along the northern edge of the Stein property (Figure 10). The wetland comprises an area of approximately 0.20 acres. It appears to be an isolated depressional wetland that receives water primarily from precipitation, ground water, and overland runoff. Vegetation in this wetland is dominated by black cottonwood trees that range from 12 to 20 inches in diameter. The understory in the wetland consists of occasional Himalayan blackberry and a ground cover of reed canarygrass. Emergent Wetlands Three palustrine emergent wetlands are located in the project area (Wetlands C, D, and E). Wetland C is located in a mowed lawn area near existing office and residential buildings th between 45 Street NE and D Street NE, southwest of the existing drive-in theater (Figure 10). This 0.39-acre wetland occupies a swale that drains into a catch basin (David Evans 1998b). The wetland vegetation is dominated by mowed quackgrass (Agropyron repens), bluegrass (Poa sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and velvet-grass (Holcus lanatus). Wetland D is 0.02 acre at area and is located at the northern portion of the Port of Seattle construction access property. The vegetation in the wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass, with small patches of creeping buttercup, meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) and Himalayan blackberry (David Evans 1998b). tland inventory map (Auburn 2002e) and the size appears to be similar to that of Wetland B, 0.20 acres. During field observations on March 4, 2003, this wetland was being planted with row crops. Without property access, more information about this wetland was unobtainable. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 131 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals An emergent wetland (Wetland F) is located on the Port property that is within the planning area, but east of the Auburn Gateway project area boundary (Figure 10) (Parametrix 2003). This wetland is predominantly vegetated with reed canarygrass. It receives its water sources mainly from ground water and precipitation and may be influenced by water levels in the Green River. This wetland is connected to a larger wetland th mitigation site for the Sea-Tac Airport third runway project. Emergent Wetland Ditches th Four wetland ditches (Wetlands G, H, I, and J) are located along the South 277 Street frontage of the planning area (Coot 1995). The ditches extend east beyond the project area. The wetland th ditch system is divided into segments where driveways enter the project area from South 277 th Street, and the segments are connected through culverts. The wetlands along South 277 Street were delineated (Coot 1995) in preparation for the road widening and bridge extension of South th 277 Street project that was conducted by the City of Kent in 1999. The wetland ditches along th the south side of South 277 Street are approximately 10 feet wide and 2,270 feet long, totaling approximately 22,700 square feet or 0.5 acres. These wetland ditches are vegetated predominantly with nonnative pasture grasses, including reed canarygrass, bentgrasses, and fescues. Portions of the ditches also contain willows (Salix spp.) and Himalayan blackberry. The wetland ditch along the Port property is connected to Wetland D, as described above. Water th Street to a series of within these ditches generally drains west along the south side of South 277 th culverts that cross D Street NE and eventually drains to the north side of South 277 Street. More information regarding drainage to and from the project area is provided in the Water Resources section. Another wetland ditch (Wetland K) is located on the western edge of the Port property and crosses onto the Stein property at the northern end of the project area (Figure 10) (Parametrix th 2003). Water from the ditch flows toward South 277 Street and into Wetland Ditch J. Vegetation within the ditch is dominated by reed canarygrass. Wildlife Species and Habitat Information on wildlife species and habitat was obtained predominantly from existing documentation. Three existing biological assessment reports that have been prepared for other projects in the vicinity provided information on fish and wildlife in the project vicinity (Pentec 2000; Parametrix 2001a, 2001b). A field reconnaissance was conducted for this EIS on March 4, 2003, during which limited wildlife observations were made. Several amphibian and reptile species may use the project area. They are expected to use areas closest to wetlands, because most amphibians and reptiles require wetlands for a portion of their life cycle or for a water source. They would also use shrub and forested wetland and uplands for cover, breeding, and foraging. No observations of amphibians and reptiles were made during the field reconnaissance. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 132 Draft EIS Plants and Animals Bird species that were observed or identified by means of their sounds in or adjacent to the project area (Parametrix 2001b) include the mallard duck, American crow, red-tailed hawk, kingfisher, short-eared owl, barn owl, common snipe, common yellowthroat, marsh wren, meadowlark, song sparrow, and house finch. The great blue heron and bald eagle have been seen flying over the area and are known to use the Green River for perching, nesting, and feeding. The bald eagle, which is a federally threatened species, is discussed further in the next section. Several mammal species may exist in the project area or within its vicinity. The diversity of habitats and the presence of one of the few areas of forest and shrub cover in the agricultural landscape provide cover, foraging, and possibly breeding habitat for mammals. The wetlands in the project area provide one of the sources of water for mammals. Small mammals such as mice and shrew use grass/forb communities and emergent wetlands for all parts of their life cycles. A coyote and the tracks and scat of deer and raccoon were observed in the project area during the field reconnaissance. th Fish were not observed in the ditches along South 277 Street; however, these ditches connect to th the Green River to the north via open channels and culverts along 86 Avenue South (referred to as Auburn Creek) (Figure 10). According to the City of Kent staff (Fielding 2003 personal communication), there is a floodgate at the end of the pipe that drains Auburn Creek to the Green River; however, it has been observed to be rusted open. The pipe hangs above the Green River at low flows; however, during high flow events, it becomes submerged and fish may be able to enter the pipe at that time. The project area is located approximately 0.75 miles from the th Street confluence of Auburn Creek with the Green River. The wetland ditches along South 277 do not contain properly functioning fish habitat. The factors described above severely limit or prevent their use by fish. The presence of endangered or threatened fish species in the Green River is discussed in the next section. Although limited field observations resulted in few fish and wildlife observations, several species are likely to use the onsite and adjacent habitats. Appendix E provides a list of species that may be expected to use this habitat or for which habitat is available. Threatened and Endangered Species The USFWS and NOAA Fisheries provided information regarding the presence of federally endangered and threatened species in the project area or its vicinity (Berg 2003 personal communication; NOAA Fisheries 2003). The biological assessment reports that have been prepared for other projects in the vicinity provided information on endangered and threatened species that are known to exist near the project area (Pentec 2000; Parametrix 2001b). Wildlife The USFWS indicated that wintering bald eagles may exist in the vicinity of the project area (Berg 2003 personal communication). Bald eagles overwinter in this area from October 31 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 133 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals through March 31. Biologists have observed bald eagles flying over the project area and have seen them perched to the south of the Port property and along the Green River (Louther 2003 personal communication). Bald eagles typically perch during the day on the tallest trees that are nearest their food source, which is primarily fish. If fish are unavailable, eagles will forage on small mammals. Bald eagles also typically roost near their major foraging areas (Rodrick and Milner 1995). The WDFW priority habitat and species map shows no eagle nests within 1 mile of the project area (WDFW 2003). The biological assessment states that the closest nest is approximately 3 miles to the east, near the confluence of Big Soos Creek and the Green River (Parametrix 2001b). Table 13 lists federal and state species of concern that have been documented in King County and indicates whether habitat for these species is present in the planning area. ist in the Auburn Gateway project area and its vicinity and it is likely to use grass/forb communities and forested wetlands and uplands. The valley silverspot butterfly is not likely to the use the area because its host plant and nectar-producing plants were not observed and are not likely to grow in the project area. Habitat is available for the western toad and cascades frog within the Auburn Gateway project area. However, breeding habitat for these species is limited because the open-water emergent wetlands are small and disturbed. These species tend to favor emergent marshy areas, but will use the upland forest and shrub habitats surrounding the wetlands (Corkran and Thomas 1996). According to WDFW, northwestern pond turtles existed in Washington state only in the past (WDFW 1999). They typically inhabit a variety of permanent and intermittent aquatic habitats, including marshes, ponds, sloughs, small lakes and ponds, gravel pits, and sewage treatment lagoons. They nest from 9 to 2,500 feet from water, but most nests are within 270 feet of water. Limited habitat for the northwestern pond turtle is available in the planning area, since there is limited open-water emergent wetland habitat. If they exist at all, they are more likely to use sites with larger bodies of water. Three bird species of concern (the peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, and olive-sided flycatcher) exist within King County; however, only the olive-sided flycatcher is likely to use the Auburn Gateway project area and adjacent areas (Table 13). The olive-sided flycatcher prefers habitat with large tree patches, primarily coniferous, adjacent to open areas, which is available in the project area, although it is disturbed. Flycatchers inhabit the Puget Sound region in late spring and summer. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 134 Draft EIS Plants and Animals Table 13. Species of concern that exist within King County and presence of habitat for each species within the planning area. Presence of Habitat for Species in planning Species Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Area Insects Agonum belleri Species of concern None Yes Valley silverspot Speyeria zerene bremeri Species of concern None No Eanus hatchi Species of concern None Potential Amphibians Western toad Bufo boreas Species of concern None Yes Cascades frog Rana cascadae Species of concern None Potential Reptiles Northwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Species of concern Endangered Potential marmorata Birds Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Species of concern None Yes Northern goshawk Accipter gentilis Species of concern None No Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Species of concern None No Mammals California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus Species of concern None No Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis Species of concern Candidate Yes Long-legged myotis Myotis volans Species of concern Species of concern Yes Pacific fisher Martes pennanti pacifica Species of concern None Not in planning area; potentially within Green River Corynorhinus townsendii Species of concern None Yes eared bat townsendii Fish Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata Species of concern None Not in planning area; potentially within Green River River lamprey Lampetra ayresi Species of concern Candidate Not in planning area; potentially within Green River Plants White-top aster Aster curtus Species of concern None Potential Mammal species of concern include the California wolverine, Pacific fisher, and three bat long-legged myotis, and long-eared myotis. The wolverine and fisher typically use coniferous forest habitat in more pristine areas and are not likely to exist in the project area or its vicinity. The bat species are nocturnal, roosting during the day in tall large-diameter trees and foraging at night. They are nocturnal insectivores foraging primarily on moths, flies, termites, ants, bees, wasps and sawflies (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). The feeding rates of bats are much higher over water than in forest habitats (Thomas and West 1986). The second-growth forest stand in the project area, although limited in quality and size, wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 135 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals and the wetlands would provide both roosting and foraging habitat for the bats, as would the adjacent Green River riparian habitat. Fish species of concern that exist in King County include the Pacific lamprey and river lamprey (Table 13). These species are anadromous fish that spawn and rear in streams in the Puget Sound region and then migrate to the Pacific Ocean. No habitat is available for these species in the project area. The only plant species of concern growing in King County is the white-top aster (Table 13). The presence of this species was not noted on the WDFW priority habitat and species map of the project vicinity (WDFW 2003). This plant typically grows in prairie habitat, which is not present in the project area or its vicinity (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). It is unlikely that this plant would grow in or near the project area. Fish The USFWS (Berg 2003 personal communication) and NOAA Fisheries (2003) provided the following list of endangered and threatened fish species that may exist within the vicinity of the project area. Information on the status and presence of anadromous populations of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) within the Puget Sound is limited and under debate in the scientific community. The anadromous form of bull trout is difficult to distinguish from the Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Separate inventories of the status of the two species are currently not available because the species are biologically similar, and methods to separate them are new and not widely applied (WDFW 1998). There is little information available on the presence, abundance, distribution, or life history of Dolly Varden/bull trout populations in the Green River. Records indicate that Dolly Varden or bull trout have been harvested as far upstream as river mile 40 th (277 Street crosses the Green River at river mile 28), although it is unclear whether these were fluvial or anadromous bull trout, and no observations of spawning have been made (WDFW 1998). Because bull trout prefer cold, low-gradient streams with loose, clean gravels for spawning and rearing, the habitat in the project vicinity is unsuitable. Portions of the Green River have high concentrations of metals and ammonia, and low concentrations of dissolved oxygen (Ecology 1995). Habitat for the threatened and endangered fish species listed in Table 14 is not present in the planning area, although it is available in the nearby Green River. Construction activities in the project area could affect these fish species. Because of intensive hatchery planting programs over many decades, current runs of chinook in the system are primarily hatchery and wild th hybrids. Chinook salmon spawn and rear their young in the Green River near the South 277 Street bridge (approximately at river mile 28) (Pentec 2000). Chinook spawning occurs in patches between river miles 24 and 29, in the riffles and shoreline areas of the river. Fall chinook are the main species using this section of the river. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 136 Draft EIS Plants and Animals Table 14. Endangered and threatened species potentially in the vicinity of the planning area. Species Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Candidate Chinook salmon Onchorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened Priority species Coho salmon Onchorhynchus kisutch Candidate Priority species In the Green/Duwamish River system, coho salmon spawn and rear their young in the main stem and in all accessible reaches of the smaller streams and side channels (Williams et al. 1975). The coho stock in this system are considered healthy, although their populations were depressed from 1992 through 1997 (WDFW 1998). There are two stocks of coho salmon in the Green/Duwamish River system: Soos Creek stock and Newaukum Creek stock. Coho hatchery stock were planted in the river between 1950 and 1980. Coho exist in the reach of the Green River near the project area. Environmental Impacts Short-term environmental impacts on plants and animals would occur during the 10-year construction period. Long-term operational impacts would occur after any completed build-out phase of the project and after full build-out is complete. Construction impacts would include temporary clearing of vegetation, potential erosion and sedimentation of water bodies, accidental spills of pollutants from construction machinery, and noise, human activity, and night lighting during construction. Construction impacts are expected to be similar for all the alternatives, including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Long-term impacts could include permanent loss of vegetation and loss of habitat, hydrologic alterations, disturbance due to increased noise and human activity, increased sedimentation and pollutant runoff due to increased vehicle traffic, and the effects of night lighting on species. Alternative 1: Retail and Office Short-Term Construction Impacts Temporary Clearing of Vegetation Under Alternative 1, temporary clearing of vegetation could occur during construction in areas where construction staging takes place. Clearing would result in a temporary loss of habitat for animals that are able to relocate, such as birds and mammals. These animals could potentially return if suitable vegetation is restored, depending on the proximity of the habitat to human activity and structures. Other animals that cannot easily relocate, such as amphibians or reptiles, could perish during construction. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 137 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals Potential Erosion and Sedimentation of Water Bodies Under Alternative 1, erosion of exposed soils would occur during land clearing, grubbing, and grading. Sediment-laden runoff could enter onsite wetlands or be transported toward the Green River in wetland ditches. Although this effect would be minimized by the use of best management practices, it could temporarily alter the quality of the water and, therefore, adversely affect amphibians (and their eggs) and macroinvertebrates. High levels of sedimentation and low concentrations of dissolved oxygen could also alter the respiration of plants, amphibians, and fish, impairing their growth. However, impacts of this magnitude are not anticipated and plants and wildlife should be able to recover from any short-term impairment of water quality. Accidental Spills of Pollutants Under Alternative 1, accidental spills from construction vehicles could release pollutants such as petroleum, grease, oil, and other petroleum products. A spill of petroleum products into upland areas could have negligible effects on the upland vegetation, but more significant impacts if the spill reaches surface water, including wetlands and wetland ditches. Depending on the size of the spill, petroleum products may cause mortality or health problems in amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most species that are able, would avoid contact with the pollutants. Vegetation may be temporarily harmed until cleanup occurs. Use of emergency spill kits on the construction site would minimize the potential effects of pollutant spills on plants and animals. Noise, Human Activity, and Night Lighting Under Alternative 1, increased noise, human activity, and night lighting would affect wildlife in the project area. Increased vehicle traffic could cause higher incidences of animal mortality. Construction equipment and human activity would generate increased noise levels in the area immediately surrounding the construction site. Noise levels associated with construction, typically up to 90 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at a distance of 50 feet from the noise generator, could affect wildlife that use habitats in the vicinity of the construction area. Studies have shown that certain wildlife species respond negatively to aircraft overflights, military operations, recreational activities, and automobile traffic (Larkin 1995; Radle no date). Noise from these activities could affect wildlife activity and communication patterns, including predator-prey relationships and reproductive success. Noise from heavy machinery and equipment also could affect wildlife physiology and behavior in a similar manner (Larkin 1995). Wildlife species, or individuals, not accustomed to human generated noise are likely to be less tolerant of increased noise and activity and may avoid construction areas or experience other behavioral or physiological responses including fatality. Human activities resulting in noise and other disruptions could have variable affects on the behavior of wildlife in wetland habitats and possibly adjacent stream habitats. For example, predators such as the red-tailed hawk might avoid or be flushed from high-noise and high-traffic wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 138 Draft EIS Plants and Animals areas, which would benefit rodents. Background activities could cause other bird species that are nesting in the forest or shrub habitat to abandon their nests, disrupting their reproductive cycle. Night lighting during construction might be required to meet construction schedules and to light areas of high traffic along the corridors. Although night lighting during construction is expected to be minimal and directed downward to the specific work areas, it could affect animal behavior by attracting insects and species that prey upon these insects. Night lighting can disrupt the movements of amphibians, birds, and fish, negatively affecting some species and potentially altering predator-prey relationships. Long-Term Operational Impacts Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Under Alternative 1, the construction of the buildings and parking would cover approximately 90 percent of the land with impervious surfaces. Generally, as proposed, wetland habitat and a surrounding buffer averaging 50 feet would remain undisturbed. RPG has requested that buffers be allowed to be reduced to as low as 25 feet around wetlands. As discussed in further detail th below, some wetland fill would occur with the widening of South 277 Street and would also occur with some of the access options. Lost upland habitat would include grass/forb habitat, shrubs, and forest. Alternative 1 would provide the largest amount of office space (1.6 million square feet), although it would still cover the same amount of land surface as the other alternatives. It would result in a loss of upland habitat elements including cover, nest sites, and foraging areas. Because the project area encompasses one of the few remaining forest patches within the surrounding riparian and agricultural landscape, development of the area would reduce its use by wildlife compared to its use under existing conditions. Development of the project area could have a significant impact on avian and mammal species that would normally use the area as a patch of refuge surrounded by open spaces. Most of the existing wetland habitat would remain in the project area, but its wildlife habitat function would be diminished, because it would be cut off from adjacent habitats by buildings and parking areas and possibly I Street NE. The habitats of Wetlands A, B, and D would become less accessible to animals. Only animals that can tolerate increased human activity and noise would continue to use the project area. A trail surrounding the wetlands would result in further disturbance of the wetland areas and the wildlife that may use these areas. Direct losses of wetland area could occur due to the project; however, they would be minimal, and the extent of loss would depend on the alignment of the I Street NE corridor and the thth improvements to South 277 Street. South 277 Street is expected to be widened as part of this project, resulting in the filling or relocation of the wetland ditches along the south side of the street. If these areas were not replaced with open channels, approximately 0.5 acre of relatively low-quality wetlands would be lost. This direct loss of wetlands would alter the hydrologic connection to the Green River through Auburn Creek. Although these roadside ditches do not provide as high a quality of habitat as the wetlands in the interior of the project area, they can wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 139 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals provide shelter, food, and nesting sites (Johnson have indicated that the ditches typically are used to a greater extent by birds and mammals than the adjacent Neil 2001). The predominant functions of these wetlands are water quality improvement and flood control, but they also provide limited wildlife habitat. Vehicle access option A utilizes the westernmost alignment of I Street NE and would not directly affect wetlands, but may affect wetland buffers. Vehicle access option B utilizes the easternmost alignment of I Street NE (in the existing right- of-way). This option would require filling approximately 0.55 acres of wetlands. Of these wetland impacts, approximately 0.34 acres of wetland impact were determined to be under Corps jurisdiction under CWA Section 404 (U.S. COE 2003). Wetland buffers would also be affected. Vehicle access option C would align I Street NE along the eastern edge of the Auburn Gateway project area, which would require filling approximately 0.25 acres of wetlands that are located on the Port of Seattle construction access property. Wetland buffers would also be affected. Loss of the vegetated buffer area surrounding the wetlands could result in diminished functions of the buffers and wetlands, including flood control, microclimate maintenance, provision of woody debris, water quality improvement, erosion control, and provision of a water source, nesting areas, foraging areas, and refuge for wetland-dependent wildlife species. Hydrologic Alterations As discussed in the Water Resources section, the potential hydrologic impacts on wetlands include ground water level increases or decreases, stormwater fluctuations, and water quality degradation. These impacts could result in modifications to habitats and plant community composition. Generally, the impacts foster growth of invasive, nonnative plants that thrive in disturbance regimes. Animal species that forage on nonnative plant species and can survive within fluctuating water conditions would reside in the wetlands, while those that cannot adapt to these conditions may be lost or relocate to less disturbed wetlands. Successful relocation depends on the wildlife carrying capacity of the adjacent wetlands. Additionally, wetland loss could occur if ground water levels increase or decrease. Increased Noise, Lighting, and Human Activity The operational activities of the office and retail facilities would contribute to increased noise levels from vehicles, people talking, and ventilation equipment. Operational noise is likely to reduce the numbers of noise-sensitive animals that currently use existing sites. Other effects would be similar to those discussed for noise, lighting, and human activities during construction under Alternative 1. Animal species, including special status species (endangered, threatened, candidate, and species of concern), would avoid the retail areas and immediately adjacent habitats in response to increased noise and traffic, resulting in fewer animals using these areas and increased wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 140 Draft EIS Plants and Animals competition for food and space in other less-disturbed habitats. The provision of more structurally diverse habitats is proposed within the wetland mitigation area on the Port property 650 feet to the southeast of the Auburn Gateway project area. Alternative 2: Retail Under Alternative 2, impacts on plants and animals from construction and development of the project area would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. Whereas office uses under Alternative 1 would have more employees, the retail uses under Alternative 2 would generate more daily customers, and thus there would be a similar amount of human activity that would affect wildlife. Wildlife that currently use the project area would likely be displaced, except for those animals that are tolerant of human activity and higher ambient noise levels. The configuration of buildings would still isolate Wetlands A, B, and D from the adjacent properties to the east, where a natural habitat connection currently exists, and would result in a loss of grassland, forest, and shrub habitat. Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Under Alternative 3, construction and long-term operational impacts on plants and animals would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. Under Alternative 3, there could be less human activity than under Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the configuration of buildings would still isolate Wetlands A, B, and D from the adjacent properties to the east, where a natural habitat connection currently exists, and would result in a loss of grassland, forest, and shrub habitat. Wildlife that currently use the site would likely be displaced, except for those animals that are tolerant of human activity and higher ambient noise levels. Because housing is included in Alternative 3, use of the project area by domestic animals would increase. Increased use of the area by domestic animals would result in increased wildlife mortality and disturbance both in the project area and in adjacent areas. Increased use by domestic animals also contributes to fecal coliform bacteria increases in stormwater and potentially in surface waters and wetlands (U.S. EPA 2002; Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 2001). However, studies are inconclusive regarding the percentage or amount of fecal coliform bacteria that is contributed by domestic animals. Wildlife and leaking septic tanks can also contribute to fecal coliform bacteria in stormwater and surface waters. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in less intensive development of the Auburn Gateway as compared to the action alternatives. Development under the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in impacts similar to those described for Alternative 3, although there would be both fewer residents and less commercial development within the Auburn Gateway project area. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 141 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals Cumulative Impacts Both short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts on plants and animals are expected to result from development of the Auburn Gateway and other properties in the planning area. If the Port of Seattle construction access property to the east is developed for residential uses or the vacant land to the west is developed for commercial uses, this development would have similar short-term construction and long-term operational impacts as those described for all of the alternatives above. uld result in more impacts on wetlands because property. Such development could result in direct loss of wetland or wetland buffers or reduce the functions of the wetlands and buffers. Development in this area would further isolate the wetlands from the adjacent undisturbed habitats to the east. The property in the northwest corner of the planning area is zoned commercial and is expected to be developed. This area has recently been used for agricultural production, but it includes Wetland E and the Wetland Ditch G. Development of this area would have short-term construction and long-term operational impacts similar to those described for all of the alternatives above. Because the area is already disturbed, significant impacts on wildlife habitat and wetlands are not expected. Mitigation Measures This section discusses the general mitigation measures for impacts due to both construction and long-term operations that apply to development under the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, including the Auburn Gateway project. As noted above, the project must comply with local, state, and federal regulations that protect wildlife habitat in various ways. This section begins with mitigation required by law for impacts that may occur as a result of the project. The discussion of regulations that provide assurance of mitigation is followed by additional recommendations for mitigation that should be employed by the City and RPG in conjunction with implementation of the project. CWA Section 404 requires mitigation for wetland impacts. For any wetland impacts anticipated, the design and construction of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan project must follow the mitigation sequence developed by the Corps for waters of the United States: 1. Avoid impacts on wetland, stream, and wildlife habitats and associated species and their associated species 2. Minimize impacts, if avoidance is not possible wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 142 Draft EIS Plants and Animals 3. Rectify and restore areas where possible 4. Reduce the adverse impacts by preservation and maintenance operations 5.Provide compensatory mitigation (i.e., replacement of lost wetlands) 6. Monitor the impacts and mitigation and take appropriate corrective measures. The Corps generally requires a 1 to 1.25 replacement of wetlands that have been filled and may also allow mitigation through wetland enhancement at a 1:3 ratio. As noted above, impacts due th to the filling of the wetland ditches associated with widening South 277 Street have been previously mitigated by the City of Kent. An HPA may be required for potential impacts on Auburn Creek, which drains from the project area to the Green River. WDFW typically issues an HPA on the condition that approved mitigation measures, determined on a case-by-case basis, and best management practices will be implemented during and after the construction of the project. stormwater regulations, as discussed in the Water Resources section of the EIS. The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines indicate that native plantings would be used in wetland buffer areas and around detention facilities (Architects BCRA 2003). The guidelines also indicate that trees and other landscaping would be used in the parking areas, around loading areas and in building setbacks, and along public roadways within the Auburn Gateway project area. The following mitigation measures are recommended for impacts on plants and animals: Prepare a wetland mitigation plan based on current wetland delineations, indicating the exact extent of any impacts on wetlands and wetland buffers and a plan for mitigating the potential impacts. The plan should: Coordinate wetland mitigation conservation with phasing of earthwork and construction to avoid/reduce reoccurrence of disturbance or impacts. Include information on measures to be employed to avoid impacts on wetland hydrology, as discussed in the Water Resources section of the EIS. If wetlands would be affected by dredging or filling, stipulate measures to mitigate impacts in accordance with the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) (U.S. COE et al. 2000). wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 143 Special Area Plan Plants and Animals Mitigation could be implemented by enhancing portions of Wetland A or C and/or creating new wetland between Wetlands A and B. Provide buffers of at least 75 feet standard width for all emergent th wetlands (except the wetland ditches along South 277 Street), and buffers of 100 feet average for all forested scrub-shrub wetlands. Provide buffers of at least 25 feet for wetland ditches along South th 277 Street if these ditches are retained as surface drainage conveyances. Buffer averaging could be allowed provided that the minimum buffer is no less than 50 percent of the specified buffer width. Provide for planting or enhancement of wetland buffers with native plant species as soon as possible after initial site grading is completed. Minimize the clearing of native vegetation and protect remaining onsite vegetation from damage during construction. Identify the construction boundaries and methods to be employed to avoid encroachment on adjacent habitat areas. Schedule construction within work windows specified by WDFW, the Corps, NOAA Fisheries, and/or the USFWS to avoid critical periods (i.e., wintering, nesting and breeding/spawning, and migration) for species of concern listed as present or potentially present in the planning area. Provide a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that will prevent or minimize sedimentation and potential hazardous spills that could affect both the onsite and offsite water bodies. Minimize night lighting near wetlands during construction. Identify locations and types of night lighting to be used for development that minimizes light impacts on wetland habitats and buffers. Establish a protocol for wetland and hydrologic monitoring to ensure that wetlands and newly planted wetland buffers are thriving after the installation of the plantings is completed. Wetland monitoring should continue annually for 5 years after the project is completed, and should include observations of hydrologic conditions that may be adversely affected by fill adjacent to wetland areas. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 144 Draft EIS Plants and Animals Using innovative designs, protect wetlands and wetland buffers from the intrusion of humans and domestic animals by means of barriers to humans and domestic animals, while still allowing aesthetic enjoyment of these areas. Require modifications to stormwater and/or groundwater management if adverse effects on wetland hydrology are observed before the end of the wetland monitoring period.) Revegetate portions of the project area that are disturbed only for construction purposes (e.g., areas surrounding buildings or construction staging areas) as soon as possible after construction is completed. \\ The construction staging areas should be located on the existing gravel within the drive-in theater so wildlife displacement is delayed. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The loss of wetlands would result in a loss of stormwater and flood control, decreased water quality improvement functions, and lower quality wildlife habitat. The loss of forest habitat in the northeast portion of the Auburn Gateway project area appears unavoidable under all the action alternatives. The loss of forest habitat would result in mortality or permanent displacement of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians that currently use this area. This forest habitat is one of the few forest areas within the surrounding open agricultural landscape. These same impacts are likely to occur under the No-Action Alternative/Existing Zoning; however, the impacts could occur potentially more gradually than those under the action alternatives because development may not occur as rapidly. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 145 Special Area Plan Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Applicable Laws and Regulations Hazardous materials may be classified into a number of different categories based on applicable laws and regulations that define their characteristics and use, including the following: Hazardous waste Dangerous waste Hazardous substances Toxic substances. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology maintain databases to track sites with potential and confirmed releases of chemicals to the environment and monitor facilities that manage hazardous materials as part of their operations. The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) defines what is meant by hazardous waste. In Washington state, the Department of Ecology as been authorized by the U.S. EPA to implement most of the RCRA program. The U.S. EPA tracks hazardous waste management at individual facilities throughout the state based on notification requirements and records that define the magnitude of waste generated (i.e., small or large quantity), defines the type of handling performed (i.e., treatment, storage, or disposal), and identifies whether a release to the environment has occurred. The Department of Ecology tracks facilities based on the required registration of underground storage tanks; it also maintains an inventory of solid waste facilities and landfill sites. Nationally, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, defines hazardous substances. The Department of Ecology operates a parallel program in Washington state under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). Both programs are designed and administered to provide appropriate responses to the release of hazardous substances to the environment. MTCA also addresses releases of petroleum products that are not covered under federal statutes. The U.S. EPA tracks sites based on reported potential or actual releases of hazardous substances to the environment, emergency response notifications, and cleanup progress at major release sites. The Department of Ecology tracks the same types of sites and also tracks petroleum releases, including releases from underground storage tanks. Toxic substances are a subset of hazardous substances that are additionally regulated by the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA was adopted so that all new chemical substances and existing chemicals put to new uses, other than pesticides, could be evaluated for their health and environmental effects. Additional controls governing disposal, beyond CERCLA and RCRA, have been specifically applied to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). TSCA sites are tracked by the U.S. EPA. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 147 Special Area Plan Hazardous Materials Affected Environment Facilities or properties that have released hazardous material or waste to the environment, or that manage hazardous material or waste in significant quantities, are required to report these activities to both federal and state regulatory agencies. The first step in evaluating the potential for an environmental impact due to hazardous materials involves a review of current databases maintained by these agencies. The existing drive-in theater sites and adjacent properties within the planning area have been evaluated and classified according to whether (1) chemical releases to the environment have been previously identified, or (2) hazardous materials have been managed, with no release identified. Regulatory files have been reviewed and compiled for each site with a reported environmental release of a hazardous substance, to determine the magnitude of the impact on the environment, the potential for affecting project construction, and the potential for affecting public health and safety. Hazardous Materials Site Categories Documented Release Sites Documented releases to the environment, as identified in the site files of regulatory agencies, primarily affect soil or ground water. Releases to soil generally are limited in lateral extent and have limited potential for migration beyond the release area. Releases to ground water tend to extend farther away from the area of origin and can potentially result in impacts even when the source is located off outside the boundaries of the site. Potential Release Sites A potential for release of hazardous materials is identified on the basis of the site activity registered with regulatory agencies, the development of site activities evident from historical documentation (e.g., a foundry site that became a service station and then was developed for an office building), or the current activity evident from visual observation (e.g., junk yard). Potential release sites have been identified based on the following categories: Reported current activities (e.g., hazardous waste generator) Reported current features (e.g., registered underground storage tanks) Recorded historical activities (e Recorded historical features (e.g., mapped tank farm) Visually identified activity or feature. The sites with a potential for releases have not been specifically studied and may or may not have soil or ground water contamination. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 148 Draft EIS Hazardous Materials Methodology Facilities that generate hazardous waste and sites identified with actual or potential releases of hazardous materials are registered with either the Department of Ecology or the U.S. EPA. These facilities and sites are tracked on databases available to the public for review. For this project, hazardous materials sites were identified through a review of federal and state regulatory databases; files maintained by the Department of Ecology for facilities and sites on the databases (no federally tracked sites were identified; therefore, no files were reviewed); King County property tax records, Auburn city directories, and historical aerial photographs; and a visual reconnaissance of the Auburn Gateway project area. Some of the information collected for this review was provided in an independent phase I environmental site assessment report (Landau 2003). A more detailed description of these information sources is provided in Appendix F. Historical Site Development Table 15 lists 12 parcels in the Auburn Gateway project area (Figure 11). The sections below summarize the site development based on available historical information, including the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex, the undeveloped land and Stein property in the northeast, the southeast corner residence, Buyrite Motors and undeveloped property in the southwest, and residences east of D Street NE (Figure 2). Table 15. Summary of property tax parcels in the Auburn Gateway project area. Parcel Number Acres Property Owner Site Address th 936060-0340 9.70 Auburn Properties, Inc. 28032 86 Avenue South th 936060-0330 9.20 Auburn Properties, Inc. 28032 86 Avenue South th 936060-0305 21.54 Auburn Properties, Inc. 28032 86 Avenue South Undeveloped land and Stein property nd Street NE 936060-0323 2.05 Auburn Properties, Inc. 9031 52 936060-0320 2.05 Auburn Properties, Inc. Not available 936060-0325 4.31 Ronald B. Stein Not available Southeast corner residence th 936060-0271 0.35 Karl Juergens 4701 Auburn Way North/ 831 45 Street NE Buyrite Motors and undeveloped property 936060-0269 0.58 Auburn Properties, Inc. 4710 Auburn Way North 936060-0270 5.39 Auburn Properties, Inc. 4710 Auburn Way North Residences east of D Street NE 936060-0280 0.68 Auburn Properties, Inc. 4808 D Street NE 936060-0281 0.35 Auburn Properties, Inc. 4818 D Street NE 936060-0300 3.32 Janice McKee 4800 D Street NE Source: King County 2003a. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 149 Special Area Plan Hazardous Materials Existing Valley 6 Drive-in Theater Complex The Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex consists of three tax parcels covering 40.44 acres. The complex makes up approximately 68 percent of the Auburn Gateway project area, divided into the north theater complex and the south theater complex. Available historical information indicates that the land occupied by the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex was occupied by farm houses and farmland from the early 1900s to the late 1960s/early 1970s. According to historical th property tax records, a farm house on the parcel east of D Street NE and north of 49 Street NE within the north theater complex (parcel 936060-0340) was heated by an oil stove, indicating possible use and storage of heating oil. The south theater complex was primarily used as farmland until 1966, when it was first developed for a drive-in movie theater; the north theater complex was constructed in 1972. According to historical property tax records, both concession/projection buildings were heated by electric baseboard heating systems. A mobile home used as an office by theater management is located next to the main entrance, and a wood- framed garage is located near the exit driveway for the south theater complex. The ground surface of both theaters is covered by gravel, with asphalt-paved entrance and exit driveways and aprons around the concession/projection buildings. Undeveloped Land and Stein Property The 8.41-acre undeveloped land and Stein property located in the northeast corner of the project area, east of the north drive-in theater complex, consists of three tax parcels. Available historical information indicates that all three parcels have been primarily used as farmland since the early 1900s. Southeast Corner Residence This 0.35-acre property consists of one triangular-shaped tax lot located in the southeast corner of the Auburn Gateway project area and is currently occupied by a mobile home residence. The property was originally farmland, prior to development of the south drive-in theater complex in the late 1960s. Buyrite Motors and Undeveloped Property This 5.97-acre site consists of two tax parcels, including a 0.58-acre parcel currently occupied by a used car lot (Buyrite Motors) and a 5.39-acre undeveloped grass-covered property that surrounds the used car lot. The property was occupied by a farm house and surrounding farmland from the early 1900s to the late 1960s/early 1970s. A former gasoline service station and convenience store operated on the smaller parcel from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s. The gas station was decommissioned and three underground storage tanks were removed in 1991; Buyrite Motors has operated on this parcel since the mid-1990s. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 151 Special Area Plan Hazardous Materials Residences East of D Street NE th This 4.35-acre property consists of three tax parcels located east of D Street NE, south of 49 Street NE, and west of the south theater complex. The property was occupied by a farm house and surrounding farmland beginning in the early 1900s. The northern 3.32-acre parcel currently is an undeveloped grass-covered field. According to historical property tax records, the house located at 4818 D Street NE was built in 1900 and was heated by an oil burner, indicating the possible use and storage of heating oil. No visual evidence of a vent pipe, fill port, or other indications of an underground heating tank were noted during the site visit. The one-story house located next to the exit driveway of the south theater complex at 4808 D Street NE was built in 1968 and heated by electric baseboard heaters. Environmental Impacts Potential long-term impacts could result from the use of hazardous materials during construction (e.g., lubricants, fuels, and solvents), operation (e.g., retail services), and maintenance (e.g., pesticides), or from onsite areas with existing soil or ground water contamination. The likelihood of impacts (i.e., releases) from operation and maintenance activities is low. The likelihood of impacts from encountering existing onsite contamination would be minimized by identifying the contaminated and potentially contaminated areas prior to construction, then employing appropriate control and/or cleanup measures. A variety of impacts, both beneficial and adverse, could result from encountering existing contamination, including the following: Contamination that otherwise would remain in place and potentially migrate could be discovered and addressed by the project. Cleanup could be accomplished sooner than might otherwise occur to accommodate project construction. Contamination could be prevented by the removal of potential existing sources, such as underground storage tanks, before a release occurs. Contaminated materials could be uncovered, allowing more direct exposure of the public. Contamination could be spread as a result of excavation during construction. Project impacts on soil and ground water contamination cannot be assessed without a detailed evaluation of site-specific conditions. With proper control techniques, contaminated soil can be removed and disposed of or treated at locations designed for hazardous material management; contaminated ground water can be treated on the site. By using licensed carriers and vehicles equipped for the task, risk of public exposure would be limited during removal and transport of wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 152 Draft EIS Hazardous Materials contaminated materials off the site. Ground water would be treated with the use of techniques engineered for the specific contaminants encountered. Potential impacts associated with existing onsite contamination would be mostly short-term (i.e., limited to the construction phase). However, long-term impacts could occur where properties require ongoing cleanup (after construction). Such sites are typically associated with ground water contamination or multiple contaminant sources. Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives Documented Release Sites Records show a historical release of petroleum product from underground storage tanks at a former gas station located in the Auburn Gateway project area occupied by Buyrite Motors (4710 Auburn Way North). Potential Release Sites Records show that the house located at 4818 D Street NE was heated by an oil burner, indicating the possible presence of an underground heating oil tank. Records show that a former house located east of D Street NE and north of th 49 Street NE before the development of the north theater complex was heated by an oil stove, indicating possible use and storage of heating oil. Records show a former gas station located west-southwest of the Auburn Gateway project area at 4725 Auburn Way North on property that is now occupied by the Valley Auto Clinic. Potential environmental hazards identified in the Auburn Gateway project area include impacts on soil and ground water resulting from the underground storage tanks that were removed from the Buyrite Motors property in 1991, from the possible presence of underground heating oil tanks at two residences, and from the use and storage of petroleum products at the former gas station located across Auburn Way North, approximately 100 feet to the west-southwest. Gasoline contamination in soil resulting from overfilling and spillage near a fill port was discovered during the removal of three underground storage tanks associated with the former gas station and convenience store on the Buyrite Motors property in December 1991. Approximately 500 cubic yards of gasoline-contaminated soil was excavated after the tank removal. Ground water was encountered at approximately 10 feet below the ground surface. The contaminated soil was spread on the site on a plastic-lined, covered berm area and periodically tilled (aerated) during the spring and summer of 1992. The soil was spread across the property after sampling results indicated no contamination. It is unlikely that the proposed excavation activities for utilities and building foundations at the southwest corner of the Auburn Gateway project area wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 153 Special Area Plan Hazardous Materials would encounter contamination, based on the reported cleanup results, the natural attenuating properties of gasoline constituents, and the length of time since the remediation took place. Oil heating systems were used to heat two residences located in the Auburn Gateway project area, including the current residence at 4818 D Street NE and the former residence located east th of D Street NE and north of 49 Street NE. No visual evidence of a vent pipe associated with a heating oil tank was observed at 4818 D Street NE from the road and theater exit driveway. Residual petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in soil and ground water as a result of spills or leaks from underground heating oil tanks could potentially affect the quality of soil and ground water. Historical property tax records indicate that a former gas station occupied the property located at 4725 Auburn Way North in the 1920s. Currently, this property is occupied by the Valley Auto Clinic. No visual evidence of vent pipes, fill ports, or other structures associated with underground storage tanks were observed on this property from the road during a hazardous materials reconnaissance in February 2003. There were no reported releases or documented removals of underground tanks from this site in the Department of Ecology files. It is unlikely that contamination from this site would affect construction activities in the Auburn Gateway project area because of the distance between the two properties and the likely attenuation of the contaminants. Asbestos-containing materials and lead-based painted surfaces were identified in samples collected from portions of the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater structures during a site survey in 2002 (Prezant 2002). Based on the ages of the existing houses and mobile home residences in the Auburn Gateway project area, there is a potential for these materials to be present in varying quantities. A site visit revealed 14 electrical transformers mounted on top of utility poles and one pad- mounted transformer located in or adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area. A blue non- PCB label was noted on the sides of four transformers located in the project area and two transformers along Auburn Way North, verifying that the associated mineral oil contains PCBs at a concentration of less than 1 part per million (ppm). No labels other than the identification numbers were noted on the eight other transformers; the PCB concentrations in these transformers could range between 50 and 499 ppm (PSE 2003). Nearly all of the lighting fixtures inside both drive-in concession/projection buildings contained fluorescent lights, as noted during the phase I environmental site assessment (Landau 2003). These older light fixtures and other light fixtures in the existing residences potentially contain PCBs. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, excavation, grading, demolition, and construction activity would be similar to that under the proposed action alternatives. Therefore, impacts under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would be similar to the action alternatives. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 154 Draft EIS Hazardous Materials Cumulative Impacts No cumulative impacts due to hazardous materials are expected to result from any of the alternatives. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures address documented existing contamination, potential existing contamination (i.e., underground storage tanks and asbestos), and potential contamination associated with construction (i.e., fuel and lubricants). Recommended mitigation measures include: Conduct phase II environmental site assessments (sampling and analysis) at locations indicated as potential areas of contamination to provide a basis for planning invasive work and documentation for the Department of Ecology. Incorporate construction specification provisions for abatement, removal, storage, transportation, and disposal or treatment of contaminated media (requiring contractor-generated management plans). Incorporate construction specifications to minimize public exposure to contaminants via both airborne and direct contact routes by means of increased construction-zone setbacks, additional barriers to public access, and expeditious removal of contaminated materials (the most likely encounter with hazardous materials will likely involve petroleum products, to be managed using standard approaches in accordance with the procedures, and requirements) Avoid contaminated areas to minimize potential impacts (i.e., restrict building construction above contaminated ground water). Ensure that any hazardous waste generated as part of this project is transported to permitted facilities (transport of any contaminated material would be conducted by entities licensed by the state Department of Transportation for that purpose). Prepare a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan and a stormwater pollution prevention plan before construction to ensure proper management of hazardous materials brought onto the site, as well as contaminated materials generated as part of the work associated with the project. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 155 Special Area Plan Hazardous Materials Project planning and development are expected to comply with regulatory agency requirements, as well as the requirements of the disposal or treatment facilities. Throughout the construction process, all encounters with hazardous materials would be documented and reported appropriately. Properties left with residual contamination would be clearly identified in documentation provided to the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology may require restrictive covenants as part of the property title to place limits on property transfer and to establish allowable conditions for future invasive work. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The mitigation measures described above would likely prevent all significant adverse impacts that could result from identified hazardous materials. The specific mitigation would not be determined until after the phase II environmental site assessments have been conducted at identified locations across the Auburn Gateway project area. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 156 Draft EIS Cultural and Historic Resources Cultural and Historic Resources Applicable Laws and Regulations Washington state, in Chapter 27.53 of the Revised Code of Washington entitled Archaeological Sites and Resources, prohibits individuals, corporations, and agencies to knowingly remove, alter, dig into, excavate, damage, deface, or destroy any historic or prehistoric archaeological site without a written permit from the Washington State Department of Community Development or its designee. The Washington State Environmental Policy Act requires that environmental documents describe significant historic and cultural resources that will be affected by a proposed action, analyze impacts on significant historic and cultural resources, and discuss reasonable mitigation for these impacts. Affected Environment The Auburn Gateway project area comprises approximately 60 acres within the larger planning area for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, which comprises 90 acres. There is one historic building within the Auburn Gateway project area, the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater. The term building in this context is used to refer to the collection of structures and site improvements on the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater site. Although the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater is less than 50 years old, it retains the parking areas, free-standing screens, central projection booths/snack bars, speaker systems, and the location along a major highway. The Valley 6 Drive-in Theater is one of the largest remaining drive-ins in Washington. Typical drive-in theaters average approximately 10 acres in size (Bishop 2001; Leff 2000), but the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater is approximately 40 acres in size. The Forman family, who founded Pacific Theatres Corporation in the 1950s, controls the theater, while the Auburn Properties, Incorporated, Robertson Properties Group, an affiliate of Pacific Theatres Corporation owns the title (Bishop 2001). The Valley 6 Drive-in Theater retains a high degree of integrity and is among the best surviving exam drive-in theaters (Lentz 1995). However, consultation with the King County Historic Preservation Program and the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation indicated that the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington Heritage Register, or the King County Landmarks List. There are no recorded archaeological sites or traditional cultural places in the Auburn Gateway project area. However, in portions of the project area, there is a high probability of archaeological resources that may be significant. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 157 Special Area Plan Cultural and Historic Resources The Auburn Gateway project area may have significant hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, or historic Indian archaeological resources below the ground surface. Seasonal flooding of the White River at its historic location may have buried significant archaeological deposits beneath alluvial deposits. The Auburn Gateway project area is within what is referred to as the Duwamish Embayment. Prior to approximately 4,000 years ago, this area was not available for hunter-fisher-gatherer occupation. Since that time, tideflats, salt marshes, and the alluvial floodplain of the historic White River provided hunter-fisher-gatherers with a multitude of faunal and floral resources. Historical maps indicate a continuation of ecologically diverse niches in the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project area, including dense stands of timber, prairies, and swamps that also supported a wide variety of plant and animal species. Commercial, industrial, and residential development and river stabilization efforts have since altered the landscape. The Auburn Gateway project area is on the floodplain of the White (now Green) River, in an area between the aboriginal territory of the Stkamish, or the Lower White River people, and the Skopamish, or the Green River people (Ballard Deposition 1951; Lane 1973), ancestors of members of the Duwamish Tribe and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Three winter villages were located in the vicinity of Auburn Gateway project area vicinity: (1) the ethnographic/historic period winter houses at Richarheast of the Auburn Gateway project area (Ballard Deposition 1951) (Figure 12); (2) a probable village at the oxbow of the White (now Green) River, 0.2 miles northwest of the Auburn Gateway project area (Ballard 1929; Waterman ca. 1920) (Figure 12); and (3) the Greater Forks Village, approximately 2.0 miles south of the Auburn Gateway project area (Ballard Deposition 1951). The Stkamish and Skopamish relied on the White (now Green) River and its tributaries for daily meals, trade, and winter storage. Elaborate fish weirs were constructed on land and placed in the river during the salmon fishing season. The fish weir closest to the Auburn Gateway project area was associated with the oxbow of the White (now Green) River on the Thomas Donation Land Claim (Ballard Deposition 1951), about 0.2 miles northwest of the Auburn Gateway project area. me to the Thomas claim to harvest salmon at the fish weir built at the oxbow (Flewelling 1990). In 1854, William A. Cox and his wife, Elizabeth, settled in the historic White River Valley, in the Auburn Gateway project area, purchasing 320.16 acres (Figure 12). William Cox cultivated his claim between October 12, 1854, and October him and his family to abandon their homestead (General Land Office 1854, 1874). Although the intact (Watt 1931). The Cox family returned to their homestead on October 15, 1858, and resumed farming (General Land Office 1854, 1874). William Cox died in Seattle on March 4, 1906 (South King County Genealogical Society 1996). During the late 1800s, agricultural activities dominated the Auburn Gateway project area vicinity. Richard Jeffs, who owned land adjacent (Figure 12), was one of the first farmers to raise hops in the valley (Bagley 1929), and eventually wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 158 Draft EIS T J F 0 2 1 1 . 4 1 4 . 1 1 1 . 5 3 : 2 1 . 2 1 0 u k q . P . D F I 0 c u s 0 4 1 . 2 2 . 3 2 ! Qfcdbmrv )Qsbjsjf0 Wjmmbhf* Gjti!Xfjs Bqqspyjnbuf!Mpdbujpo!pg! Xjoufs!Ipvtft!bu! Sjdibse!Kfggt!Gbsn )V/T/!DPF!2:18* Ijtupsjd Xijuf!Sjwfs uytqbBYbe Njmm!Dsffl dbYf!mp;d.je Nbstift Gjti!Xfjs!Mpdbujpo f x tc!!r #B!Cbmm# Spbe!gspn!Qvzbmmvq!up!Xijuf!Sjwfs )Vojufe!Tubuft!Tvswfzps!Hfofsbm!2978c* Qmboojoh!bsfb Bvcvso!Hbufxbz!Qspkfdu!Bsfb Xjmmjbn!Dpy!Epobujpo!Mboe!Dmbjn 1 1/6 )VTTH!2974c* Sjdibse!Kfggt!Mboeipmejoht!jo!2:18 Njmf O )Boefstpo!Nbq!Dpnqboz!2:18* Cbtf!Nbq!gspn!VTTH!2974b-!2978b-!2978c-!2979b Gjhvsf!23/!Fuiophsbqijd!qmbdf!obnft!boe!ijtupsjd!qfsjpe!mboe!vtf!jo!uif!qmboojoh!bsfb!boe!! !wjdjojuz/ Cultural and Historic Resources hop farming became the main agricultural crop in the 1880s and 1890s. The eastern edge of the Auburn Gateway project area is within property formerly owned by Richard Jeffs (Anderson Map Company 1907) (Figure 12). Mr. Jeffs had extensive landholdings east of the Auburn Gateway project area that extended along a segment of the Green River between Kent and North Auburn that is now demarcated by North Green River Park (Anderson Map Company 1907). with over 300 acres in cultivation (Bagley 1929). Between approximately 1880 and 1920, Richard Jeffs operated a hop farm on the west bank of the Green River, 0.1 miles northeast of the Auburn Gateway project area (Bagley 1929; U.S. COE 1907) (Figure 12). The agricultural history of the Auburn Gateway project area continued as other areas in the White River Valley became more residential. Around 1900, Irving Alvord purchased 280 acres of land, including land formerly occupied by the Northern Pacific train depot in Thomas and land encompassing the Auburn Gateway project area (Anderson Map Company 1907; Flewelling 1990). Alvord cleared land and began a dairy operation; however, in 1906 he sold the property to The Elliott Bay Investment Company of Seattle, which subdivided the land into the White River Valley Home Tracts, 5-acre Around 1920, the Elliott Bay Investment Company of Seattle subdivided the eastern portion of the 280 acres into the Second Addition to the White River Valley Home Tracts, including land in the Auburn Gateway project area (Weedin ca. 1920). Metsker (1936) and Kroll Map Company (1940, 1958) maps show that the Auburn Gateway project area remained residential land; however, aerial maps (Pacific Aerial Survey 1961; Chickering 1965) indicate that much of the Auburn Gateway project area was active farmland. Most of the contemporary residential and commercial development in the Auburn Gateway project area is concentrated along Auburn Way North. There is a high probability of significant hunter-fisher-gatherer archaeological resources in two areas within the Auburn Gateway project area and a high probability of significant ethnographic period, historic Indian, and historic period archaeological resources within the Auburn Gateway project area (Figure 13). Within the planning area, there is also a high probability of hunter- fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period and historic Indian, and historic period archaeological resources (Figure 13). The probability estimates for the Auburn Gateway project area and the planning area are based on the availability of the Duwamish Ri hunter-fisher-gatherer use, soils data that indicate old channels and low terrace deposits, prehistoric and historic period land use in similar environmental settings, and documented ethnographic and historic period land use in these two areas. Environmental Impacts Alternative 1: Retail and Office Archaeological Resources Under Alternative 1, no known archaeological sites would be affected. Unknown, but potentially significant, hunter-fisher-gatherer, ethnographic period, and historic period archaeological resources may be affected by Alternative 1 during excavation and grading for new buildings or utilities. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 160 Draft EIS T J F E 0 2 1 1 . 4 1 4 . 1 1 1 . 5 3 : 2 1 . 2 1 0 u k q . P . D F I 0 c u s 0 4 1 . 2 2 . 3 2 Dpoufnqpsbsz Hsffo!Sjwfs !Qmboojoh!bsfb Bvcvso!Hbufxbz! qspkfdu!bsfb Njmm!Dsffl Bvcvso!Xbz!Opsui Bsfb!xjui!b!ijhi!qspcbcjmjuz!pg ivoufs.gjtifs.hbuifsfs! bsdibfpmphjdbm!sftpvsdft Bsfb!xjui!b!ijhi!qspcbcjmjuz!pg fuiophsbqijd!qfsjpe-!ijtupsjd joejbo-!boe!ijtupsjd!qfsjpe! bsdibfpmphjdbm!sftpvsdft 1 1/6 Njmf O Cbtf!Nbq!gspn!VTHT!Bvcvso-!Xbtijohupo!Rvbesbohmf!2::5 Gjhvsf!24/!Bsfbt!xjui!b!ijhi!qspcbcjmjuz!pg!ivoufs.gjtifs.hbuifsfs-!fuiophsbqijd!qfsjpe!boe!ijtupsjd!! !Joejbo-!boe!ijtupsjd!qfsjpe!bsdibfpmphjdbm!sftpvsdft!jo!uif!qmboojoh!bsfb!boe!wjdjojuz/ Cultural and Historic Resources Historic Buildings and Structures The Valley 6 Drive-in Theater is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the Washington Heritage Register, or the King County Landmarks List. Under Alternative 1, this building would be demolished and the site would be completely regraded, which would adversely affect this resource. The results of the analysis of cultural and historical results indicate that the theater complex does have some historic value, but is not eligible for national, state, or local listing. No impacts on archaeological resources or historic buildings and structures would be expected during operation. Alternative 2: Retail Under Alternative 2, the impacts would be the same as those for Alternative 1 because a similar amount of excavation and grading would occur over the entire site. No impacts on archaeological resources or historic buildings and structures would be expected during operation. Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Under Alternative 3, the impacts would be the same as those for Alternative 1 because a similar amount of excavation and grading would occur over the entire site. No impacts on archaeological resources or historic buildings and structures would be expected during operation. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, the impacts would be the same as those for Alternative 1 because a similar amount of excavation and grading would occur over the entire site in order to accommodate new residential and commercial development above floodplain elevation, and provide required stormwater detention. No impacts on archaeological resources or historic buildings and structures would be expected during operation. Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures would be the same under all the alternatives. The following mitigation measures are recommended: wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 162 Draft EIS Cultural and Historic Resources A professional archaeologist should monitor any ground disturbing construction excavation that penetrates fill deposits into native alluvial soils. If any hunter-fisher-gatherer or historic period archaeological deposits and/or human remains are discovered in any portion of the Auburn Gateway project area, ground-disturbing activities should be halted immediately in an area large enough to maintain the integrity of the deposits. Upon the discovery of any such deposits or remains the City of Auburn, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the Duwamish Tribe, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and a professional archaeologist should be notified immediately. Treatment of the archaeological deposits or human remains would be coordinated and implemented through consultation among these parties. In order to preserve a record of the drive-in theater, archival photo documentation of the most important features of the drive-in theater site and structures should be completed prior to removal or alteration, and should be provided to the White River Museum. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 163 Special Area Plan Land Use Land Use Applicable Policies and Regulations City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan In response to the mandate of the 1990 Washington Growth Management Act, the City of Auburn updated its comprehensive plan. The Growth Management Act requires Washington towns and cities to prepare comprehensive plans and guidelines for managing urban growth for the next 20 years, along with the growth-related issues of land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities, and utilities. Auburn adopted its comprehensive plan update in April 1995; the comprehensive plan is amended annually (Auburn 2003g). The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan is a citywide plan that proposes to concentrate growth within existing city neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan provides policies for protecting and enhancing community character, including the appearance of new development, its context, and surroundings. The Comprehensive Plan policies are intended to maintain the overall quality of life, create jobs and affordable housing, provide public transportation, maintain community centers, and preserve natural, historic, and cultural resources. The Comprehensive Plan also incorporates by reference several functional plans, e.g., the comprehensive water plan and the comprehensive storm drainage plan. The Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area (NASPA) is recognized and described in Chapter 14 of the Comprehensive Plan and is located between Auburn Way North and the Green River, and thndth between South 277 Street (52 Street NE) and 37 Street NE. In the Comprehensive Plan, the land use designations for the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area (NASPA) are heavy commercial along Auburn Way North, undesignated in the area of the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex, and high-density residential or public use in the remainder of the area . The Comprehensive Plan identifies the NASPA as an area with development opportunities and property owners who are interested in developing a master plan to address the following: I Street NE alignment and design Stormwater drainage and utilities Land use and density Financing of infrastructure improvements The Comprehensive Plan includes specific guidance for developing and implementing the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. In order to integrate the plan into the vision for the city, the plan would be adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Once the plan is adopted, it is intended to be subdivision code as well as its development standards and public facilities programs (Auburn 2003g). wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 165 Special Area Plan Land Use City of Auburn Zoning Code The zoning districts (zones) within the Auburn Gateway project area include: unclassified (UNC), multifamily residential (R4), and heavy commercial (C3) (Figure 14). The UNC zone includes the parcels occupied by the north and south theater complexes, th extending southeast from the northwest corner of South 277 Street and D Street NE to th approximately 45 Street NE (Figure 14). This zone constitutes the largest portion of the project area. The land immediately east of the UNC zone and within the Auburn Gateway project area is classified as R4. The land south and west of the UNC zone is classified as C3. The purpose of the UNC zone is to regulate large areas of undeveloped land after annexation. If land in the UNC zone is developed before another zoning designation is established, it may be developed according to the development standards that apply to the R1 zone. The R1 (single- family residential) zone is intended to provide for single-family detached dwellings within a lower-density neighborhood. The development standards for all zones in the planning area and vicinity are summarized in Table 16. In order to redevelop the property for other uses, new zoning must be approved by the city council. The purpose of the R4 zone is to provide housing quality and affordability and to efficiently use land, public services, and energy. In the R4 zone, the primary use is multifamily residential; however, this zone also provides for single-family and duplex units. The R4 zone also allows certain commercial uses through the approval of a conditional use. The C3 zone permits a wide variety of commercial uses, including activities oriented to automobiles (service and transportation), stores, and lodging, as well as schools and health-care facilities. Zoning in the Vicinity of the Auburn Gateway Project Area As shown in Figure 14, properties east of the Auburn Gateway project area are zoned R4 (multifamily residential), R3 (duplex residential), and P1 (public use). The properties southeast th Street NE are of the project area are zoned R2 (single-family residential). Parcels south of 45 zoned R2, R4, and C3. Immediately west of the project area, along Auburn Way North, the zoning is C3, whereas farther west, the zoning is institutional use (I), light industrial (M1) in Auburn, and R4 in unincorporated King County. The R2 zone is intended to provide for low-density single-family detached dwellings that are compatible with the neighborhood character and within the environmental constraints. The R2 zone allows multifamily dwellings as conditional uses. The R3 zone is intended to provide areas to be developed that can support duplexes on a lot, while maintaining a desirable neighborhood wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 166 Draft EIS k : \\ \\ p r o j e c t s \\ 0 1 - 0 1 8 9 6 2 4 t KC h - 0 A 0 KC 0 v A10 \\ p e G r n o A10 r u j e e e c e t n s S \\ z R . o i n v i n e South277thStreet g r . a p r G r e e n ER D x i v S i R4 se t t r r i C3 e n R e g UNCR4 o t I a N S d E t rS e E e t R i 49thStreetNE g R3 h t M1 - o R4 f - W C3 a C3 y C3 P1 UNC I Legend C3HeavyCommercial R2Single-FamilyResidential A u C3 b R3DuplexResidential u P1 r n R4MultifamilyResidential W KC a P1PublicUse y N R4 .UNCUnclassified KC C3 E IInstitutional N M1 t C3 R4 e M1LightIndustrial e r t S KCA10KingCountyAgricultural,1unit/sqacre h t 5 4 KCR4KingCountyResidential,4units/sqacre R4 AuburnGatewayProjectAreaBoundary PlanningAreaBoundary Streets M1 2500250500750Feet R2 C3 42ndStreetNW1inch=500feet Source:Auburn2002e Figure14.ZoningmapoftheplanningareafortheNEAuburn/RobertsonPropertiesSpecialAreaPlan. Land Use Table 16. Development standards for city zoning districts in the planning area and vicinity. Maximum Lot Approximate Allowable Minimum Minimum Lot Side Street Coverage Residential Height Lot Size Width Front SetbackRear SetbackSide SetbackSetback (percentage of Density Zoning District (feet) (square feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) lot area) (units/acre) UNC, unclassified use (follows R1 standards) 30 8,000 75 25 25 5 10 35% 5 R2, one-family residential 30 6,000 60 20 25 5 10 35% 7 R3, one- and two-family residential 30 5,000-7,200 60 20 25 5 10 40% 12 R4, multi-family residential 35 7,200 50 20 25 5 10 55% 18 P1, public use 45 NS NS 20 25 25 25 NS Not allowed I, institutional use 30 6,000 60 20 25 5 10 35% NS C3, heavy commercial 45 NS NS 20 NS NS 15 NS NS M1, light industrial 45 NS NS 20 NS NS 20 NS Not allowed NS = No standard wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 168 Draft EIS Land Use The P1 (public use) zone is intended to provide educational, recreational, and public service needs for local communities. Permitted uses include government and public school facilities, municipal parks and playfields, watersheds, and other public uses deemed appropriate by the planning director. The I (institutional) zone allows uses that are generally not allowed outright in other zones. These uses include educational, recreational, cultural, theological, governmental, and other public uses. The M1 (light industrial) zone is intended to allow for zoning flexibility to include those uses that are associated with light industrial uses, while excluding uses that produce nuisance emissions for air and noise pollution, vibration, glare, or odor. The M1 zone allows some commercial uses such as shopping centers. These uses are allowed as long as they do not disrupt the industrial uses. Affected Environment This section describes existing land uses, zoning regulations, development standards, and applicable City planning policies in the planning area and in the immediate vicinity. Existing Land Uses within the Auburn Gateway Project Area The Auburn Gateway project area has a mixture of land uses (Figure 2). The Valley 6 Drive-in th Theater complex occupies the block south of South 277 Street, between D Street NE and G th Street NE, and extends southeast. The main entrance is on 49 Street NE, on the west side of the project area. The drive-in has six screens and parking for up to 3,000 vehicles. Three private residences with accessory outbuildings are located within the Auburn Gateway project area. One mobile home is located on a small triangular lot in the southeast corner of the project area. Two private residences surrounded by grass fields are located east of D Street NE th and south of 49 Street NE. One commercial property, Buyrite Motors, is located in the southwest corner of the Auburn Gateway project area. Buyrite Motors is a used car lot. The remainder of property within the Auburn Gateway project area is undeveloped pasture and partially wooded land including a parcel surrounding Buyrite Motors in the southwest corner and a parcel in the northeast corner of the project area, respectively. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 169 Special Area Plan Land Use Existing Land Uses within the Planning Area In addition to the land uses described for the Auburn Gateway project area, land uses in the planning area consist of a mixture of farmland, small commercial, residential, and undeveloped land. The northwest corner of the planning area and zoned commercial, west of D Street NE, has recently been used for agricultural production. South of this farmland, both north and south of th 49 Street NE, are small commercial businesses and single-family residences. A medical clinic th is located northeast of the intersection of Auburn Way North and 45 Street NE. The land east of the Stein property and the south theater complex is undeveloped and partially wooded. Adjacent Land Uses and Neighborhoods Current uses of land adjacent to the planning area include farmland, open space, multifamily residential, and commercial. th The area north of South 277 Street is farmland. Land west of Auburn Way North is a mixture th of residential and small-scale commercial use. Property south of 45 Street NE is developed with multifamily residences. Land east of the planning area is currently undeveloped. The northern portion is privately owned and the southern portion is owned by the Port of Seattle. Planned or Expected Land Uses in the Planning Area and Vicinity The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan indicates that the planning area is expected to convert to more urban uses over time. Heavy commercial uses have been planned for the Auburn Way North corridor, and high-density multifamily uses are expected to occupy the areas east of the heavy commercial district, with the exception of the unclassified zoning that applies to the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex. The unclassified zoning, which is the subject of this planning effort, is expected to change. The Port of Seattle plans to convert the land it owns southeast of the planning area to wetlands to compensate for the wetland impacts of the Sea-Tac Airport third runway project. The property is also expected to provide floodplain compensation for development in and near the planning area. The Port of Seattle also owns the land abutting and west of the existing I Street NE right-of-way within the planning area. Aside from using this parcel for construction access to the wetland mitigation site, no specific plans are known at this time. The land north of South 277th Street is expected to remain farmland, because the development rights were purchased by King County to preserve the agricultural use of the property. In 1992 the City of Auburn estimated employment within the city limits to be approximately 25,893 employees and projected that this number would grow to approximately 38,096 by 2012. The population of the City of Auburn is estimated to be 45,355 (OFM 2003). wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 170 Draft EIS Land Use Environmental Impacts Alternative 1: Retail and Office Direct Land Use Impacts Alternative 1 would require the demolition of existing structures, the removal of the drive-in theater complex, and the development of pasture and other undeveloped land within the Auburn Gateway project area. Construction of Alternative 1 would result in impacts on land uses immediately adjacent to the project area. The proposed mix of uses in Alternative 1, which includes 1.6 million square feet of office space and 200,000 square feet of retail space, would increase employment and the demand for services such as restaurants and exercise gyms and sales of office supplies. Under Alternative 1, approximately 4,000 jobs would be supported within the development, and the associated activities would be heaviest in the daytime, because the predominant use would be offices. Under Alternative 1, the land uses within the Auburn Gateway project area would generally be compatible with each other with implementation of the proposed design guidelines. Under this alternative, the uses of adjacent land might be less compatible with the land uses within the project area. The existing multifamily residential units south of the project area could be adversely affected by retail activities. Retail use generally includes early morning noise from loading areas and could also include accessory filling stations. Restaurants could also adversely affect the residential uses, as outdoor dining could result in noise, and ventilation systems could also be a source of noise and odor (such as that from cooking ). Filling stations, which are proposed to be allowed only as an accessory to a larger use, could affect residents as a result of noise, odors, and glare from lighting. Alternative 1 would change the character of the area by increasing the height and bulk of buildings and providing for more intensive land use. Under Alternative 1, the height and bulk of the proposed structures would be greater than the height and bulk of most residential and commercial buildings currently surrounding the Auburn Gateway project area. Current land use within the project area is low intensity in nature and draws little traffic. The increase in the intensity of use would benefit the existing commercial development west of the project area, along Auburn Way North; however, the shift in land use and increase in density would change th the setting of the few single family residences near 49 and D Streets NE and the multifamily residential area to the south from relatively quiet surroundings to busy arterial streets and commercial activities. Indirect Land Use Impacts Because Alternative 1 would draw additional traffic to the area, in particular office workers, it could result in an increase in demand for services along the commercial corridor on Auburn Way North. This increase in demand would not significantly alter the character of the area because wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 171 Special Area Plan Land Use there is a wide variety of businesses already located along Auburn Way North. Furthermore, the retail development included in Alternative 1 would be likely to accommodate at least a portion of the increased demand. Although development resulting from Alternative 1 would stand at the th edge of farmland located north of South 277 Street, the farmland is not likely to experience pressure to develop because the development rights were purchased from the owners by King County (King County 2003f). Alternative 2: Retail Direct Land Use Impacts Alternative 2 would require the demolition of existing structures and the removal of the drive-in theater complex, resulting in a change of land use in the project area. The potential impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, with the following exceptions: Employment would not increase as much as it would under Alternative 1. The employment estimate for Alternative 2 is 1,300 jobs, approximately 2,700 fewer than that estimated for Alternative 1. Demand for new services would be less than that under Alternative 1 because of fewer employees. Business activity in the evenings and on weekends would likely be heavier than that under Alternative 1, creating greater potential for conflicts with residential uses nearby. Indirect Land Use Impacts The retail development under Alternative 2 would compete with a broader range of existing retail areas in Auburn and surrounding areas, which could adversely affect land uses in those areas. Alternative 2 includes sufficient retail space for large-scale businesses such as buying clubs and discount retail businesses (sometimes called big- box retail). Such businesses could draw from a larger market area than the businesses expected under the other alternatives. Large retail businesses could indirectly affect land uses in other areas of the city through competition; however, they could also benefit other businesses in Auburn by increasing local employment and increasing traffic traveling to the area. An analysis of the potential economic impacts of the SuperMall of the Great Northwest (SuperMall) project in Auburn was conducted for the EIS on that project (Auburn 1992). Compared to the Auburn Gateway project, the SuperMall project had a more certain mix of uses and market orientation, and it was generally expected to consist of off-price-oriented wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 172 Draft EIS Land Use retail businesses. The SuperMall project was expected to have overall positive effects on the Auburn central business district over the long term because of increased local expenditure potential and traffic drawn to Auburn by the project. The impacts of the Auburn Gateway project are less certain because less is known about its uses. Because many large retail businesses already exist in the region and the specific businesses that would occupy the Auburn Gateway project area are currently unknown, it would be speculative to estimate the degree to which such businesses would compete with existing Auburn businesses rather than redirecting sales occurring in other locations to Auburn. The scale of the retail development under Alternative 2 is approximately one-third the size of the SuperMall; therefore, it would be expected to have lesser economic impacts, both positive and negative, on other businesses in Auburn. As was the case with the SuperMall, some individual stores could be adversely affected by competition with the businesses in the project area. Depending on whether the Auburn Gateway project is developed with discount-price stores and depending on the types of goods and services those stores provide, some existing smaller businesses could suffer if a large discount retailer located in the Auburn Gateway project area. Because little is known about the exact uses that would make up the Auburn Gateway project, it is also difficult to predict the extent to which the project would draw additional traffic benefiting other businesses in Auburn. Traffic in the immediate vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project would increase substantially, and some of that traffic could be expected to include individuals who would choose to link trips with other stops in Auburn. It would be speculative to project substantial positive effects from the additional traffic, lacking more specific information about the uses that would be present. Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Direct Land Use Impacts Alternative 3 would require the demolition of existing structures and the removal of the drive-in theater complex, resulting in a change of land use in the project area. The potential impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those for Alternative 2, except that commercial activity would be about half of that in Alternative 2. The development under Alternative 3 could result in the employment of approximately 650 people and up to 500 new residences expected to accommodate approximately 1,200 new residents. This alternative could introduce potential conflicts between residential uses and commercial activity. Residents are generally more sensitive to the noise and visual impacts of wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 173 Special Area Plan Land Use commercial uses. Residents would also increase the demand for services such as groceries and entertainment. Indirect Land Use Impacts Alternative 3 could accommodate large-scale retail uses like those discussed for Alternative 2. However, the indirect impacts of this alternative would be considerably less because Alternative 3 includes only approximately one-third of the retail space included in Alternative 2. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative assumes full build-out within the existing zoning. The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would require the demolition of existing structures and the removal of the drive-in theater complex, resulting in a change of land use in the project area. Potential impacts on land use under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would be similar to those for Alternative 3, except that the demand for services such as groceries, recreation, and entertainment would be less because only 130 single-family housing units and 132 multifamily housing units would be built. Commercial development in the Auburn Gateway project area would be on a relatively small scale at 73,200 square feet and would not be expected to significantly increase employment or commercial traffic in the area. Development under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would not be subject to new design guidelines, and uses in the C3 portions of the project area would not be limited as described in the proposed new zoning designation for the action alternatives. Anticipated Development in the Planning Area Three discrete areas within the planning area but outside the Auburn Gateway project area could be developed in a manner similar to that of the immediately surrounding properties. th The northwest corner section, located in the southeast corner of the intersection of South 277 Street and Auburn Way North, is currently a mix of farmland and commercial. This section could be developed for heavy commercial use, similar to other uses of land adjacent to Auburn Way North. th The southern section of the planning area, located north of the intersection of 45 Street NE and Auburn Way North is currently used for medical office purposes, and the land use is not expected to change in the near future. The area east of the Stein property is zoned multifamily residential, and development can be th expected to be similar to that of the multifamily residential property south of 45 Street NE. This property, owned by the Port of Seattle, also encompasses several wetlands, which may limit its development potential. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 174 Draft EIS Land Use Cumulative Impacts All alternatives would result in additional traffic on I Street NE. This street, which is planned to th connect NE Harvey Street to South 277 Street, would also begin carrying traffic resulting from the expected development south and east of the planning area, as well as traffic looking for an th alternative route between Auburn Way North and South 277 Street to the east. Cumulatively, the traffic on I Street NE could affect land use along that street, encouraging a shift to more intensive residential or nonresidential uses, where zoning allows. Relationship between the Proposed Development and Land Use Policies and Plans City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan The implementation of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan project would establish new policies in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan, as described previously City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would be consistent with the goal of the Comprehensive Plan provided that adequate measures are established for compatibility with the adjacent development. These measures, which are being studied as part of this planning process, include consideration of the alignment of I Street NE and other roadways to support traffic circulation through the area, stormwater and floodway management, infrastructure and public service needs and costs, and appropriate densities, land uses, and design standards, as directed by the Comprehensive Plan. The following policy analysis of the City ofAuburn Comprehensive Plan evaluates the proposed development with respect to existing applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and, where appropriate, suggests possible amendments. General Planning Approach Policy 6 (GP-6) public development which place significant service demands on community facilities, amen general quality of life shall be carefully studied under the provisions of SEPA prior to development approval. Siting of any major development (including public facilities such as, but not limited to solid waste processing facilities and landfills) shall be carefully and thoroughly evaluated through provisions of SEPA prior to project approval, conditional approval, or denial. Appropriate mitigating measures to ensure conf (Auburn 2003g) The impacts of the proposed project are being evaluated under the provisions of SEPA through this EIS. In particular, impacts on public services and facilities and to the surrounding community are evaluated in the applicable sections of this EIS. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 175 Special Area Plan Land Use General Planning Approach Policy 7 (GP-7) ed to provide a balance between regional ty of life versus the local benefits derived from such development. The proposed development could provide regional or local services. Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide the greatest potential for development that serves the region. Alternative 3 would provide housing over a substantial portion of the project area but could accommodate either region- or community-serving retail development. Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, the existing commercial zoning within the planning area would allow for the possibility of some region-serving business, but on a smaller scale than that possible under any of the action alternatives. General Planning Approach Policy 8 (GP-8) thth Street NW and 15 Street SW as activity centers as defined in the King County The Auburn Gateway project area is outside of the areas designated as activity centers. Policy GP-8 could be amended to add the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area because the proposed project likely meets the criteria for activity centers in the King County Countywide Planning Policies (i.e., Countywide Planning policies FW-17, LU-63, LU-64, and LU-65) (King County 2002a). General Planning Approach Policy 12 (GP-12) new commercial or industrial uses abut areas designated for residen The proposed mixed-use zone would allow both residential and commercial uses, and the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines (Architects BCRA 2003) include measures to ensure an adequate transition in scale wherever commercial development abuts residential uses, whether they are on or off the site. The design guidelines also propose screening and landscaping of commercial loading areas. Any specific proposal within the Auburn Gateway project area would be reviewed for consistency with these design guidelines. General Planning Approach Policy 18 (GP-18) Policy uding, but not limited to, clustering and planned unit development (PUDs) for the development of residential, commercial, and industrial properties shall be considered to implem The Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is expected to include a new zone and planned action ordinance governing the Auburn Gateway project area. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 176 Draft EIS Land Use The new zone will be a mixed-use commercial zone designed to provide wide flexibility among a range of commercial and residential uses. A planned action is an additional tool allowed under SEPA that would facilitate development by covering necessary SEPA documentation at an early stage of planning through this EIS, thus allowing development consistent with this analysis and the subsequent plan to proceed to obtain grading and building permits more quickly in response to market demands. General Planning Approach Policies 29 and 30 (GP-29 and GP-30) Policy GP-29 priority must be balanced however with the following: nurturing and managing the other roles necessary for both maintaining a healthy community and responding to regional needs. Such roles include ensuring the expansion of employment opportunities, providing a full range of commercial, retail and service opportunities, providing recreation and cultural opportunities, managing traffic and maintaining a balance with the natural environment. fiscal base to support the services required for a growing community of maturing lower and middle income families, while coping with regional problems. needs of the relatively high share of residents who cannot afford, or do not chose to live in traditional singl development the City shall actively promote desired types of development to assure an expanding range of employment The Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is intended to provide potential for additional economic development, a broader fiscal base, and multifamily development. A fiscal analysis is included as Appendix C of this EIS. All the alternatives evaluated would create a net fiscal gain for the City. Alternative 1 would have the largest increase in property tax income, while Alternative 2 would return the most from sales taxes. Overall Alternative 1 would have the most positive fiscal impact on the City. Alternative 3 would provide a mixture of multifamily housing and a smaller amount of retail than the other alternatives. The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would likely produce the least fiscal returns for the City and would provide both single family and multifamily housing. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 177 Special Area Plan Land Use Land Use Policy 15 (LU-15) for multiple family development should not exceed 20 units per acre. Multiple family densities should generally decrease with proximity to single family areas. Multiple family densities may exceed 20 units per acre provided they are within walking distance (1/4 mile) of regional transit facilities or are targeted to populations not requiring outdoor recreation areas and having low private automobile usage (e.g., elderly housing). These targeted developments should be located in close proximity to shopping, medical and public transporta Alternative 3 would conform to policy LU-15. There are no plans at this time for velopment. The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would include lower housing densities on properties with unclassified (UNC) zoning consistent with the provisions for single-family development. Land Use Policy 19 (LU-19) 2003g) The proposed project is partially located within the floodplain of the Green River. Significant quantities of fill would be required for all alternatives. Compensating flood storage would therefore be required prior to development approval (see the Water Resources section for detail). The residential components of Alternative 3 and the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would not be consistent with policy LU-19. Once floodplain capacity is replaced and the grade of the property is raised, the development might not be considered a poorly drained area. Land Use Policies 29, 31, 32, and 35 (LU-29, LU-31, LU-32, and LU-35) ity development should locate, priority shall be given to designated Special Planning Areas (where such use can be balanced and planned with single family areas), the Downtown and areas with high levels (Auburn 2003g) located functionally convenient to the necessary supporting facilities including utilities, arterials, parks, 2003g) developed for multifamily housing to ensure high quality design and compatibility with surroundi should be limited to residential areas where they can be developed as a unit with the necessary supporting facilities. Such development shall provide adequate access by developed arterials wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 178 Draft EIS Land Use with minimal potential to generate traffic through single family areas. Extensive buffering measures shall be required where such areas adjoin single family residential areas. Care should be exercised to avoid creating barriers to pedestrian and bicycle movement. Where feasible, new multiple family development should be planned in conjunction with single family and moderate Alternative 3 would provide multifamily residential development generally consistent with policies LU-29, LU-31, LU-32, and LU-35. The project area is in a special planning area located close to arterials and to planned recreational trails. Utilities and other infrastructure would be developed with the project. No single-family areas abut the project area. Design guidelines have been proposed and are expected to be adopted with the plan to ensure high-quality design and compatibility with other uses. The design guidelines include provisions to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian routes are integrated in site plans and will be consistent with plans for linking to regional trails. The project area is served by transit to a limited degree along Auburn Way North. Land Use Policy 56 (LU-56) connection of lengthy dead-end streets, should be sought at every oppor All the alternatives would include completion of the northern portion of I Street NE consistent with adopted plans to extend I Street as an arterial from Harvey Street NE to South th 277 Street, eliminating a lengthy dead-end street. All the alternatives and access options would include at least one east-west street crossing the planning area and allowing a connection for residentially zoned land east of the planning area with Auburn Way North (see the Transportation section for a discussion of all the access options). Land Use Policy 63 (LU-63) d be considered un refully designed and integrated into the overall area development plan so as to minimize traffic and land use conflicts. Commercial uses should be limited to those having primary market areas approximately the size of the special planning The proposed project is being considered as a special planning area and could be developed as a neighborhood commercial center. However, the planning area under consideration is smaller than the primary market area for any of the alternatives. For development like that proposed under Alternative 3 or the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, the commercial portion could be oriented to a neighborhood market area. Alternatives 1 and 2 would be expected to serve areas much wider than the planning area, and the flexible zoning being contemplated would not restrict uses to those that would limit the primary market area to the planning area. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 179 Special Area Plan Land Use Housing and Social Services Policy (HO-33) centives to develop underutilized parcels (i.e., waiving development fees) into new uses that allow them to function as pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use neighborhoods. Existing uses which are complementary, economical, and physically viable shall integrate into the form and func The proposed project would be developed on underutilized land within the planning area. The planned action component of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is intended to provide an incentive for developing the properties in the planning area within approximately 10 years. Capital Facilities Policies 23, 24, and 38 (CF-23, CF-24, and CF-38) its policy of requiring that sewer system extensions needed to serve new development shall be built prior to or simultaneous with such development, according to the size and configuration identified by the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Plan as necessary to serve future planned development. The location and design of these facilities shall give full consideration to the ease of operation and maintenance of these facilities by the City. The City shall continue to use, to the extent permitted by law, direct participation, LIDs and payback agreements to assist in the financing of such oversized improvements. Wherever any form of City finance is involved in a sewer line extension, lines that promote a compact development pattern will be favored over lines traversing large undeveloped areas where future developm reconstructed or a new street built, the City Engineer shall determine whether sewer facilities in that street right of way shall be constructed or brought up to the size and configuration indicated by the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Comprehens storm drainage improvements needed to serve new development shall be built prior to or simultaneous with such development, according to the size and configuration identified by the Comprehensive Drainage Plan as necessary to serve future planned development. The location and design of these facilities shall give full consideration to the ease of operation and maintenance of these facilities by the City. The City should continue to use direct participation, LIDs and payback agreements to assist in the financing of off-site improvements require The project area is served by sewer and storm drainage. However, extension of sewer and storm drain lines would be required for any alternative prior to construction (see the Public Services and Utilities section). Extension and relocation of such facilities, as well as sizing and configuration of utility lines within the street right-of-way would be addressed as part of the engineering review of a specific development proposal. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 180 Draft EIS Land Use Transportation Policies 21, 23, 30, and 34 (TR-21, TR-23, TR-30, and TR-34) lopers of new developments to construct transportation systems that serve their developments. The City shall also explore ways for new developments to encourage vanpooling, carpooling, public transit use, and other alternatives to development process. All costs will be borne by the development when the development is served by the proposed new streets. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction where improvements serve more than adjacent developments. The City will encourage the use of LIDs, where appropriate and financially feasible, and to facilitate their impacts and the opportunities presented by major development proposals when reviewing development under the State Environmental transit facilities into new development Policies TR-21, and TR-23, and TR-34 would be implemented during the development review of a specific project developed under the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan. Several access options have been studied in this EIS. The plan is expected to specify the final location of streets and the improvements required of developers and indicate which portions, if any, will be developed with City participation, consistent with these policies. Several transportation improvements have been previously planned for the area in order to serve uses beyond those on within the planning area. No transit improvements are anticipated in the planning area at this time. Tenants could be required to implement transportation demand management strategies if office development of the scale proposed in Alternative 1 is constructed. Transportation Policies 35, 37, and 41 (TR-35, TR-37, and TR-41) -motorized facilities that meet City standards, provide connectivity to adjacent communities, public facilities, and major shopping centers, and that are consistent with the Non-motorized Plan 2003g) 2003g) wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 181 Special Area Plan Land Use All three action alternatives are consistent with policies TR-35, TR-37, and TR-41 and would incorporate pedestrian facilities and links to regional recreational trails. No sidewalks currently exist in the Auburn Gateway project area. However, sidewalks would be constructed with all new or improved roadways adjacent to the project. The City has proposed to create a pedestrian/bicycle connection with the pedestrian bridge across the Green River as part of the th South 277 Street widening project. This would link the Green River trail to the trail west of the Auburn Gateway project area. The project proponent may design the trail to meander through the project area instead of constructing it along the street frontage. Under the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, development of individual parcels would continue and street improvements would be required to include sidewalks. Economic Development Policy 5 (ED-5) or obsolete commercial and industrial sites through innovative regulations that redesign the site in accordance with modern design standards and industrial/commercial The planning area encompasses an obsolete drive-in theater complex that would be redeveloped under any of the action alternatives or the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Commercial development would be expected under each of the alternatives; however, it would be most extensive under Alternative 1 or 2. No industrial development would be allowed under any of the action alternatives. Environmental Policies 58, 61, and 64 (EN-58, EN-61, and EN-64) floodway may be developable provided that such development can meet the standards se (Auburn 2003g) ich would reduce the capacity of the of new development on frequently flooded areas (Map 9.4) as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. As part of this review process, flood engineering and impact studies may be required. Within FEMA designated 100 year floodplains and other designated frequently flooded areas, such mitigation may include flood engineering studies, the provision of compensatory flood storage, floodproofing of structures, elevating of structures, and downstream The project area is located within the Green River floodplain. Floodplain impacts would be mitigated by the provision of equivalent flood storage within the project area (see the Water Resources section for detail). wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 182 Draft EIS Land Use Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Policy 2 (PR-2) the development of new parks at a level commensurate with their share of new facility needs as established by the Park and Recreation Plan. If the City determines that the development does not contain an acceptable park site, the City shall require the payment of cash in lieu of land. The funds shall be used to acquire land and/or develop recreational facilities at a location deemed appropriate by the City Criteria for site acceptability and appropriateness shall be environmental limitations, accessibility, maintenance costs, consistency with the Parks and Recreation Plan and the ability to meet more of the Community's recreational needs by the coordinated development (Auburn 2003g) The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines specify a proportion of land to be developed for active recreational use in any residential development in the Auburn Gateway project area, as proposed under Alternative 3. However, these areas would not necessarily be publicly owned parks. The City does not currently have a mechanism for estimating and collecting park impact fees. Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, it is likely that public park property would be required as part of the subdivision process for single-family development. Urban Design Policies 1, 9, and 12 (UD-1, UD-9, and UD-12) ent which maintains and improves the existing aesthetic character of ents should be a priority consideration red to underground on-site utility distribution, service and teleco The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines are expected to form the basis of a design review process for future projects developed in the Auburn Gateway project area. The guidelines include measures that would help to ensure that visual quality is addressed with all new development under each of the action alternatives, thus addressing policies UD-1 and UD-9. Policy UD-12 is not addressed in the draft guidelines. City of Auburn Zoning Code The NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan may create a new or revised zoning district for the Auburn Gateway project area, and possibly for other areas. The uses proposed to be allowed in the C4 mixed use zone (which are listed in Appendix A) are generally consistent with the uses allowed outright in the C3 zone (Auburn City Code, Title 18), although some uses in the C3 zone would not be permitted in the new zone. Development standards would be similar to those of the C3 zone. Building heights are proposed to be regulated in the same wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 183 Special Area Plan Land Use manner as those in the C3 zone, with a 45-foot-height limit that can be exceeded if an additional foot of setback is provided for each additional foot of height. As part of the proposed plan, the City expects to adopt design guidelines and employ a design review process to ensure that the quality of development in the project area is consistent with City goals and with the design measures proposed by RPG. Mitigation Measures The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines provide numerous methods for minimizing conflicts between commercial uses and other adjacent uses, including landscaping, walls and screens, building orientation, and lighting design. These guidelines are expected to form the basis for a design review process that is being developed as part of this planning effort and that would apply to all development in the Auburn Gateway project area. See the Aesthetics section for further discussion of the proposed design guidelines. Some land use conflicts could still occur. To minimize the potential adverse impacts of all the action alternatives, the following measures are recommended: Restrict the location of filling automobile service stations (which may only be allowed as accessory to a larger use) to areas at a distance from residential uses and/or require design measures to limit noise, odor, and glare impacts. Design or locate activity areas such as eating and drinking establishments at a distance from residential areas to limit noise impacts from late evening use. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on land use would result from the implementation of any of the alternatives. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 184 Draft EIS Recreation Recreation Applicable Policies and Regulations The City of Auburn does not have a code requirement for mitigating the impacts of commercial and multifamily development on parks and recreation. ACC 17.12.260 requires the dedication of park land for single-family residential subdivisions and is generally applied only to subdivisions of 50 or more lots. Because the proposed alternatives being considered for the Auburn Gateway project do not include single-family development, this requirement would not apply, but it could apply to single-family development under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. For the purpose of assessing park land needed for new development, the City focuses on recommended standard for parks is 6.03 acres per 1,000 population, including 5.5 acres of community park, 0.76 acres of neighborhood park, and 0.77 acres of linear park (Auburn 1997). The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan includes a Park and Recreation Plan (Auburn 2003g). and open spaces that responds to the recreational, cultural, environmental, and aesthetic needs The Auburn Gateway project area is zoned as unclassified (UNC), multifamily residential (R4), and heavy commercial (C3). The City requires land in the UNC zone to be developed according to single-family (R1) development standards. Municipal parks and playgrounds are permitted uses in all of these zoning districts (Auburn City Code, Title 18, Zoning). Affected Environment This section describes the recreation facilities in and around the planning area. There are 27 parks in Auburn. However, there are no existing parks, playgrounds, trails, or other recreational facilities within the Auburn Gateway project area. There is a pedestrian trail east and west of the planning area that extends along a portion of the th south side of South 277 Street. This trail is expected to be extended across the Auburn th Gateway project area as part of the South 277 Street widening project. A forested wetland in the northeast corner of the Auburn Gateway project area could be used by trail users for recreation, such as bird watching, once the pedestrian trail has been constructed. The Auburn Gateway project area is located approximately 0.75 miles from the Green River, which runs adjacent to the project area and likely provides recreational opportunities for Auburn residents. The Auburn Gateway project area may also be used for some informal recreational uses. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 185 Special Area Plan Recreation 2003-2008 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program identifies two nonmotorized improvements in the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project area: Projects 42 and 44 (Auburn 2002b). Both projects relate to the Green River Trail a Class 1 trail on the west river th bank. Project 42 (Phase 1 of the Green River Trail) includes construction from South 277 Street to Brannan Park and is proposed for completion by 2008. Project 44 (Phase 2 of the Green River Trail) includes construction from Brannan Park to Second Street SE. The design of Project 44 is proposed for completion by 2009. The City of Auburn Parks and Recreation Department operates and maintains a total of 533.2 acres of parks, special use areas, and open space throughout Auburn. Of the total, 43.9 acres are neighborhood parks, 204.2 acres are community parks, 31.8 acres are linear parks, 54.3 acres are special use areas, and 199 acres are open space. Using the current population of 43,355 (OFM 2003), the City exceeds its recommended standard for parks of 6.03 acres per 1,000 population (Auburn 1997) by approximately 6.4 acres. Table 17 summarizes the acreage of parks lands relative to the standard for each type of park land. Table 17 Summary of existing park land and recommended park land standards. Recommended Park Land Recommended Park Standard (acres/1,000 Land for Current Existing Park Park Type population) Population Acreage Neighborhood park 0.76 34.5 43.9 Community park 4.5 204.1 204.2 Linear park 0.77 34.9 31.8 a Total 6.03 273.5 279.9 Sources: Auburn 2003f, 1997. a Total acreage does not include open space and special use lands because no standard has been adopted for these types of park lands. Environmental Impacts The following describes potential impacts on park and recreational facilities as a result of increased use due to the proposed development. The fiscal impact of the alternatives on the City for providing additional park and recreation resources is discussed in the fiscal impact statement included in Appendix C. Alternative 1: Retail and Office Under Alternative 1, construction activities, such as excavation and fill work for the new retail and office support structures, the construction of new access roads, and the connection of the new urban trail segments adjacent to the planning area, could result in short-term impacts on the Auburn Gateway project area. During construction, use of the forested wetland area for recreational activity would be temporarily impaired due to noise, vegetation clearing, and grading. However, it is unlikely that the project area currently provides any unique recreational wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 186 Draft EIS Recreation benefit that could not be obtained in other parks in the city; therefore, the impacts due to Alternative 1 would be minor. Development of new office and retail space would introduce new demands for recreation, for example, from workers who want to take breaks, exercise, or enjoy a quiet place to relax. The demand for recreation areas resulting from office and retail use is not expected to be significant, but some additional use of trails and other recreation opportunities could be expected. Three wetland areas (with ducks and other wildlife that provide opportunities for recreation in the form of bird watching) would be preserved, and according the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines (Architects BCRA 2003), the plantings would be enhanced. Two wetlands are located in the northeast corner of the Auburn Gateway project area, and one wetland is in the southwest corner of the project area. These wetland areas would provide long-term passive recreational enjoyment for all visitors and users of the proposed retail and office facilities. The extension of the existing pedestrian trail that is proposed as part of the widening of South th 277 Street would run through the Auburn Gateway project area. Within the Auburn Gateway project area, the trail would connect to a trail proposed with all Auburn Gateway project alternatives that would tie together the three existing wetland areas discussed above and serve users of the project area for walking, jogging, and bicycling. In order to connect the portion of th Street to the west with the portion of the trail that is the existing trail that runs along South 277 east of the Auburn Gateway project area, two additional segments would be necessary. These th segments are expected to be completed as part of the South 277 Street widening project, which transportation improvement plan (see the Transportation section th of the EIS). The widening of South 277 Street may be accomplished by the City, by adjacent property owners as their property is developed, or by RPG as part of the Auburn Gateway project. Completion of these trail segments would link the Green River Trail along the river with trails to the west, including the Interurban Trail, which would be beneficial to the general public as well as to users of the Auburn Gateway project area. Alternative 2: Retail The potential impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those associated with Alternative 1. Retail development would result in fewer employees but could result in more visitors than the number resulting from office development as proposed in Alternative 1. The recreation demand resulting from retail development is not expected to generate additional demand for parks outside of the planning area. Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Construction impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to those associated with Alternatives 1 and 2. Residential uses in Alternative 3 would introduce greater additional demands for recreational facilities,, sport fields and courts, and areas for exercising pets, and would likely increase the use of existing recreational facilities wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 187 Special Area Plan Recreation elsewhere in the city. The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines (Architects BCRA 2003) include standards for the provision of open space with residential development, including both passive and active recreation areas. These standards, which are modeled on King County development code standards for multifamily development, would provide private and common area recreation areas for residents that would reduce the increase in demand on public parks and recreational facilities. As with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, according to the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, the Auburn Gateway project would also enhance wetlands, wetland buffer areas, and stormwater detention ponds to provide attractive passive open space as well as areas for pedestrian trails. Because the exact amount of open space provided in Alternative 3 would depend on the size and number of units actually developed, it is not possible to calculate precisely the amount of open space that would be provided. As an example, under the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, if the proposed 500 units in Alternative 3 were developed as 125 studio and one-bedroom units, 250 two-bedroom units, and 125 units with three or more bedrooms, the open space provided would be 76,250 square feet (approximately 1.7 acres). Applying the recommended standard for parks (Auburn 1997), the 1200 residents that would be expected under Alternative 3 would generate a need for approximately 7.2 acres of park land, including 5.4 acres of community park. Assuming that the Auburn Gateway project would provide 1.7 acres of active recreation area (primarily in trails and currently proposed for public ownership), this comparison indicates an unmet need of approximately 5.4 acres of park land that would be primarily of the community park type of park land. As shown in Table 17, currently Auburn does not have an excess of this type of park land. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, there would be potential impacts on existing recreational opportunities in the Auburn Gateway project area. The area would be developed with urban uses under existing zoning, and the impacts would be similar to but at a lower density th than those described for the action alternatives. The pedestrian trail along South 277 Street th would be constructed under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative as part of the South 277 Street widening project. The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would include approximately 600 new residents, which corresponds to park land needs of approximately 3.6 acres, using the City of Auburn recommended park standards (Auburn 1997). Approximately half of the new residences would be located in single-family subdivisions, and it is assumed that park land would be dedicated through the subdivision process. Therefore, the unmet need under this alternative would be approximately half of the total need for park land, or about 1.8 acres. No requirement exists for park land based on multi-family development. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 188 Draft EIS Recreation Cumulative Impacts Residential development is planned for parcels east of the Auburn Gateway project area and could contribute to the deficit of new park land if no park land is acquired through the permitting process or other means. The precise number of residential units is unknown at this time because no application has been submitted. The recreational opportunities offered by the existing pedestrian trail would be enhanced by the new trail segments, which would connect the existing portions of the trail east and west of the planning area, cumulatively improving recreation within and adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area. Mitigation Measures All the alternatives would improve recreational opportunities in the Auburn Gateway project area by the creation of a private onsite pedestrian trail connecting three wetlands and the completion of the adjacent portion of the trail along South 277th Street connecting to the Green River trail system. The following additional mitigation measures are recommended: Implement the open space requirements described in the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines through project-level design review. For residential development, this should include child a fenced off-leash area for pets, and/or and open, level-lawn areas for free play or sport activities. Include exercise stations or other recreational equipment along the proposed trail for use by employees and residents of the Auburn Gateway project area. Provide interpretive material such as information on wildlife near wetlands or historical information about the area. Acquire and improve an amount of additional land for community park purposes that is proportional to the level of residential development in the Auburn Gateway project area. Negotiate for public pedestrian trail use on the Port of Seattle wetland mitigation site once that project is completed. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 189 Special Area Plan Recreation Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Aside from the short-term aesthetic impact of construction activities, no significant unavoidable impacts on recreational activities are expected to result from the implementation of any of the alternatives. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 190 Draft EIS Aesthetics Aesthetics Applicable Laws and Regulations The Auburn City Code includes several regulations that apply to aesthetics. As discussed in the Land Use section, the zoning designations within the planning area include unclassified (UNC), multifamily residential (R4), and heavy commercial (C3) (see Figure 14). Zoning in the vicinity also includes duplex residential (R3) and public use (P1) zones to the south and east, and institutional (I) and light industrial (M1) zones across Auburn Way North to the west. The zoning code provides use and development standards for these zones and also includes other regulations that affect aesthetic impacts. The minimum lot sizes, structure heights, and building setbacks for each zone are summarized in the Land Use section. Landscaping and screening on private property is regulated under ACC 18.50, which generally requires a 5-foot landscape buffer along street frontage in the R4 and C3 zones, and a 10-foot landscape buffer in C3 zones where they abut an R4 zone. When parking in a C3 zone abuts an R4 zone, a 10-foot visual screen is required. There are no prescribed landscape requirements in the UNC zone. Off-street parking design in all zones is regulated by ACC 18.52, which specifies the dimensions of parking stalls and other parking lot features. Signs in all zones are regulated by ACC 18.56, which limits the size, location, and types of signs based on the zoning district. The supplemental development standards in ACC 18.48 regulate the height and location of fences, the location and size of structures that are allowed in required setbacks, and standards for wireless communication facilities. The performance standards in ACC 18.58 limit glare from lighting and require screening of certain types of waste storage. The Auburn City Code also includes requirements for the development of streets, which include specifications for street trees and other visual amenities, based on the street classification. Affected Environment This section describes the existing visual resources within and adjacent to the planning area. The th planning area is nearly flat, with the greatest topographic relief along South 277 Street, where the grade has been raised several feet to provide a roadbed above the floodplain. The Green River lies approximately one-half mile east of the planning area. East of the river, the land rises steeply, forming a wooded and largely undeveloped hillside that is roughly parallel to the river. th The planning area is prominent in the view from motor vehicles descending South 277 Street westbound. It is otherwise only partially visible from cars passing by on adjacent streets and homes located in or adjacent to the planning area, due to the flat terrain in the immediate vicinity and the trees and hedges throughout the area. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 191 Special Area Plan Aesthetics The Auburn Gateway project area is located in the central portion of the planning area, and consists of a mixture of low-intensity land uses with few buildings. The Valley 6 Drive-in Theater complex, which includes the tallest structures in the area (six movie screens), is surrounded by a tall hedge that partly obscures the views of the movies screens. The drive-in theater is otherwise developed with a large gravel parking area that holds up to 3,000 cars, two concession stand buildings, and a caive-in theater operates in the summer, and light projected on the screens can be seen from areas outside the boundaries of the theater property. There are no other major sources of night lighting in the Auburn Gateway project area. Two other residences with small outbuildings and a small used car lot are also located within the Auburn Gateway project area. Other property in the Auburn Gateway project area is undeveloped and has small trees and shrubs and open fields of grass. Under the adopted Comprehensive Plan, this area would be converted to more intensive urban uses including commercial and multifamily residential, which would result in a major change in the existing visual character. The commercial corridor along Auburn Way North is dominated by small businesses, parking lots, and commercial signage, and has little vegetation. This area is expected to remain dominated by automobile-oriented uses, although if land prices rise over time, higher intensity uses such as offices may eventually replace existing uses that are associated with large outdoor storage areas. th The area along 45 Street NE includes two office buildings on the north side and a multifamily housing development on the south side. These developments each have wood-framed buildings with pitched roofs and associated surface parking. The office buildings are one story, and the office site includes a landscaped area of grass, trees, and shrubs near Auburn Way North. The multifamily housing development comprises approximately 24 two-story buildings and landscaped open space. The office and the multifamily development were built within the past 14 years (King County 2003c) and these land uses are unlikely to change substantially in the foreseeable future, although larger buildings would be allowed in the C3-zoned area where the office buildings are located. Forty-fifth Street NE is lined with young deciduous trees and has a narrow median that is also planted with deciduous trees. The northwest corner of the planning area, west of D Street NE, includes open fields, a cluster of one-story commercial buildings, surface parking, and three residences immediately north and th south of 49 Street NE. This area is presently zoned for commercial development that in the future would likely include uses similar to those currently found on Auburn Way North, including auto sales and service, rental storage units, retail, and warehousing. Property north, east, and southeast of the Auburn Gateway project area is open and undeveloped. th Property north of South 277 Street is used for agricultural crops and is expected to remain in th crop production for the foreseeable future. Property south of South 277 Street is generally open and grassy, except for a stand of young trees surrounding and within the wetlands in this area. The wetlands in this area are not likely to be developed but could be filled and developed if permits are issued and compensatory wetlands created. Farther southeast, the approximately 70- acre Port of Seattle mitigation site would eventually be regraded to create a large depression wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 192 Draft EIS Aesthetics th filled and surrounded with dense plantings of trees and shrubs. Immediately south of South 277 Street and east of the planning area, the large open field is expected to be developed with a high- density residential development of buildings up to three stories high, in compliance with the R3 and R4 zoning requirements. Environmental Impacts The following analysis is based primarily on the plans proposed by RPG for three action alternatives for developing the Auburn Gateway project area that involve different land uses. At this time, these alternatives are not part of a specific development proposal that includes detailed building designs. Because the proposed alternatives are conceptual in nature; this analysis of aesthetic impacts discusses general possibilities of impacts and design measures that address them. RPG has also proposed a set of guidelines to be implemented with this project. These guidelines, called the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, (Architects BCRA 2003). It is anticipated that any specific development proposal for the Auburn Gateway project area would be evaluated by the City for conformance with these guidelines, as adopted by the city. Development in the proposed new zoning area would be subject to the same development standards as the C3 zone; but it would also require a design review, as described above. Therefore, under any of the action alternatives, there would be no change in the allowable bulk and scale of development in the portions of the Auburn Gateway project area currently zoned C3. In the portions of the Auburn Gateway project area currently zoned R4 and UNC, the new zone would allow increased height, reduced setbacks, increased lot coverage, and commercial building types. Conformance with the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines would provide additional limits on building bulk and location as well as specific measures aimed at limiting adverse visual impacts and creating a unified visual quality within the development. Visual impacts in this analysis are described in terms of the degree of contrast between the existing conditions, the proposed development, and the development anticipated in the vicinity under current regulations. Impacts are also noted where views, such as of loading areas, waste handling areas, outdoor storage yards, or commercial signs might be undesirable from a public road or adjacent property. In addition, potential impacts due to glare from outdoor lighting or other sources are assessed. Alternative 1: Retail and Office Anticipated Development within the Auburn Gateway Project Area Development under Alternative 1, which would consist primarily of offices, would contrast with the existing agricultural and undeveloped land in much of the planning area in terms of scale and character; however, it would be largely in keeping with the scale and character of land uses that are planned for the area. Alternative 1 would involve the removal of existing structures and the wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 193 Special Area Plan Aesthetics conversion of undeveloped land to office and retail buildings with extensive parking lots. The ground level in the Auburn Gateway project area would be raised by an average of approximately 6 feet to ensure that new buildings and parking areas would be above the floodplain level. New streets and public pedestrian paths would be developed to serve the project area, which would also include preserved and enhanced wetlands, stormwater detention ponds, landscaping, and recreational paths. The height and bulk of the proposed structures would be greater than the height and bulk of most residential and commercial buildings currently surrounding the Auburn Gateway project area. Most of the buildings would be set back from the property lines to allow for parking, loading, required setbacks, and/or drainage facilities, but some buildings could be located at or near the property lines. According to the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, the front doors of office buildings would face the interior of the site, pedestrian zones, and parking. The building entries would have architectural features and/or overhangs, and the windows on upper floors would align with and be of similar scale and style as windows on the lower floors. Formal landscape plantings would be placed around the office buildings. The C3 zone requires setbacks from property lines abutting streets, but not necessarily from all other property lines. Buildings developed under Alternative 1 would be separated from the residential buildings to the south of th the Auburn Gateway project area by 45 Street NE and either a 15- or 20-foot setback. Buildings developed under Alternative 1 would similarly be separated from development to the th west by D Street NE and either a 15- or 20-foot setback. On the northern perimeter, South 277 Street would be widened by at least two lanes, and buildings would be separated from the agricultural fields to the north by the street and a minimum 20-foot setback. Because of these separations provided by streets and the required minimum setbacks, the visual impacts on properties across these roads due to the RPG development would be minimal. If buildings as high as 70 to 75 feet are to be built, the Auburn City Code would require additional setbacks of up to 30 feet (one additional foot of setback for each foot of height above 45 feet). Buildings of 70 to 75 feet would still be highly visible in all directions, except where tall-growing trees are planted. The visibility of buildings would also be affected by the exterior materials chosen. Typical office finish materials range from traditional wood, brick, stone, and transparent glass to painted or color-anodized metals, reflective glass, and concrete-block masonry. Bright colors and reflective glass would generally contrast more with the surroundings than neutral colors and nonreflective surfaces would. The use of reflective glass can also result in impacts due to glare in the early morning and late afternoon, when the sun is low on the horizon and can reflect off th building surfaces. Glare impacts could affect traffic on South 277 Street in summer months, when the sun rises in the northeast and sets in the northwest. The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines also include general guidance for materials 10,000 square) feet retail buildings such as those that would be expected to be constructed under Alternative 1. Generally these guidelines call for varying materials from building to building within a compatible range, providing architectural detailing and higher quality materials near entrances, and window articulation (windows that are indented or protrude from the primary wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 194 Draft EIS Aesthetics plane of the wall) and other detailing on facades that face streets. Service areas would be screened with landscaping where possible; otherwise they would be screened with, wood, brick or concrete masonry walls. Chainlink fences would not be used for screening. According to the guidelines, drive-in businesses would include buffer plantings next to streets to limit visual impacts from queuing automobiles. The property east of the project area is zoned for higher density multifamily residential use (R3 and R4), and the development under Alternative 1 could include buildings that are higher and of a different character than the buildings anticipated in those areas. Depending on the selected option for vehicle access to the Auburn Gateway project area (Figure 7), the extension of I Street NE could be located within the project area (under vehicle access option A), at the eastern boundary of the project area (under vehicle access option C), or approximately 500 feet east of the project area (under vehicle access option B). There are several wetlands in the current alignment of the I Street NE right-of-way and the eastern portion of the Auburn Gateway project I Street NE west of the wetlands (option A) and to preserve and enhance the wetland areas as site amenities. Preservation of the wetlands and their buffer areas would also limit the scale and density of development in this portion of the Auburn Gateway project area, while enhanced plantings would reduce the potential for adverse aesthetic impacts on adjacent properties due to the Auburn Gateway project. Under option B or option C, the location of the I Street NE extension would have a greater visual impact on property to the east than the location under option A. Both options B and C would involve the removal of some of the wetlands, resulting in the removal of the potential visual buffer that the wetlands provide between the Auburn Gateway project area and the properties to the east. However, under all the vehicle access options, some wetlands and wetland buffers would remain, and if mitigation for the lost wetlands is provided within the project area, additional visual buffer could be created between the project area and the properties to the east. According to the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, the project would include new signage at entries that would include pylon signs up to 45 feet high, monument signs, and other signage such as directional or informational signs along the perimeter of the project area. Freestanding signs would be limited to one sign (which may have two faces of up to 250 square feet) per street frontage. The tallest signs would be located at the entries to the project area on th South 277 Street at I Street NE and D Street NE, and on Auburn Way North at the proposed Robertson Way intersection. At the time of the writing of this EIS, the City of Auburn is drafting revisions to the sign code that could affect the allowable signage described above. Signage in the Auburn Gateway project area could be similar in character to that currently th located along Auburn Way North. Signs along South 277 Street would be in sharp contrast with the rural character of the north side of that street. Commercial signage can be expected along major arterials, including I Street NE wherever it is located. If I Street NE is located approximately 500 feet east of the Auburn Gateway project area (as shown for vehicle access option B in Figure 7), commercial signage would be adjacent to land zoned for high-density residential development, where it could have greater impacts on wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 195 Special Area Plan Aesthetics the character of the residential area than if I Street NE is located as proposed under the other access options. Landscape standards for a particular property are applied on the basis of the zoning of both the property itself and the adjacent property. In the C3 zone, landscaping is not required between abutting C3 properties. The relevant landscape requirements for property in the C3 zone, which are assumed to apply to property in the new zone, are the following: For street frontage, a 5-foot width of Type III (visual buffer) landscaping is required. Adjacent to an R3 zone, a 10-foot width of Type II (visual screen) landscaping is required, and when parking spaces or driveways are adjacent to an R3 zone, a 10-foot width of Type I (solid screen) landscaping must be provided. Adjacent to an R4 zone, a 10-foot width of Type III (visual buffer) is required, and when parking spaces or driveways are adjacent to an R4 zone, a 10-foot width of Type II (visual screen) landscaping must be provided. At the end of each single row of 10 parking spaces, 100 square feet of landscaping, including a specified number of trees, is required. Loading zones are potentially unsightly areas at the back of buildings, because they often include service doors, outdoor storage of materials, solid waste bins, and exterior lighting. If loading zones are located next to site perimeters, they can have a negative visual effect on motorists traveling on roadways and neighboring properties. Such impacts would be most pronounced if th the loading areas are unscreened, if they face a major arterial street such as South 277 Street or I Street NE, or if they face residential uses, such as those on the eastern or southern boundary of the project area. The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines indicate that their intent is to screen service areas from public view using walls and landscaping. Blank walls (walls with no windows or doors) are common on retail and other commercial buildings because of functional needs inside the building. Blank walls can become targets for graffiti or become otherwise neglected areas that have adverse effects on adjacent uses and reduce the quality of the visual environment. One of the goals of the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines is to avoid blank walls and provide a variety of ways to mitigate the adverse effects of such walls on adjacent uses, such as architectural detailing, or landscape screening. r a more complete list of methods proposed to address the potential visual impacts due to blank walls.) Increased outdoor lighting would be associated with the development of new parking areas throughout the project area. Outdoor lighting can adversely affect residents if the light is direct (causing glare) or if it increases the ambient light level enough to wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 196 Draft EIS Aesthetics ability to sleep. The Auburn City Code includes standards that apply to all zones, which limit the intensity of glare at adjacent property lines to one-half foot-candle (ACC 18.52.050(c) and ACC 18.58.030). Required landscape screening, discussed above, would also limit these impacts eventually as the plantings mature. Anticipated Development outside the Auburn Gateway Project Area but within the Planning Area The northwest corner of the planning area, outside the Auburn Gateway project area, is expected to develop into heavy commercial use, similar to the land uses adjacent to Auburn Way North. Such development would include small- to medium-scaled commercial buildings, commercial signs, and surface parking areas. The existing single-family residences would be expected to remain until market pressure becomes sufficient to convert the land uses to those consistent with the zoning. Commercial development in this area can be expected to follow a pattern of development similar to that in nearby areas along Auburn Way North and to have impacts such as increased light and glare and increased building bulk. This area could see the development of office and retail uses like those in the Auburn Gateway project area under Alternative 1, as well as uses such as warehouses, service stations, or automobiles sales lots. Warehouses often have few windows; therefore, blank walls are common. Automobile sales lots and service stations tend to have bright outdoor lighting. Because of the number of property parcels in this area, there could be a large concentration of signs for businesses as the properties develop, if each property had one or more signs. Commercial development outside the Auburn Gateway project area, while possible differing in character from the Auburn Gateway project area under Alternative 1, would not be incompatible because the uses under Alternative 1 would not be sensitive to the types of impacts expected there. th The southern section of the planning area, located north of the intersection of 45 Street NE and Auburn Way North, is already developed with office uses and is not expected to change use in the near future; therefore no visual impacts due to future development in this area are expected. The Port of Seattle construction access property to the east of the Auburn Gateway project area is zoned for multifamily residences and development. If such development occurs here, it is likely th to be similar to the Mallard Pointe multifamily residential development south of 45 Street NE because of similar zoning. However, this area may also be developed with higher density single family development. The visual impacts due to this development would be similar to those described for residential uses under Alternative 3 (discussed in a subsequent subsection), except that the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines would not apply. Therefore, residential development in this area may not have the degree of architectural design quality or the consistency of character described in the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. The Port of Seattle construction access property also encompasses a number of wetland and wetland buffer areas that may not be developed and, therefore, may limit the overall density of new buildings in the area. As the vegetation in the wetlands grows, individual developments in this area would be screened from each other and from adjacent uses as well, unless the wetlands are filled and the mitigation is provided outside the site boundaries. The degree of screening provided by these wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 197 Special Area Plan Aesthetics wetland areas would also depend on whether I Street NE is extended through them as described above and on the extent of buffers retained around the wetlands. Alternative 2: Retail Anticipated Development within the Auburn Gateway Project Area The potential visual impacts due to development under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, with the following differences: Retail buildings tend to be developed in larger blocks of buildings or have larger footprints and, therefore, could present greater bulk than the office buildings proposed under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would include adequate area for large-pad retail buildings (230,000 to 400,000 square feet of floor area) as described in the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. The Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines also include descriptions of specific features, such as a row of columns and roof overhangs that would be used on principal and side facades to reduce the appearance of bulk and provide human scale and interest to the design of large-pad retail buildings. Blank walls are more common on large retail structures than on office buildings; therefore, there would be a greater potential for the visual impacts due to blank walls discussed previously. Parking areas would likely remain active and, therefore, be illuminated later in the evening in the retail-dominated development under Alternative 2 than in the office-dominated development under Alternative 1. The development under Alternative 2 would likely generate demand for more and larger signs than the development under Alternative 1 because Alternative 2 includes more and larger retail buildings. Anticipated Development outside the Auburn Gateway Project Area but within the Planning Area Under Alternative 2, development outside the Auburn Gateway project area but within the planning area would be similar to that described for Alternative 1. The visual impacts due to commercial development outside the Auburn Gateway project area are not expected to be significant because the anticipated land uses in the Auburn Gateway project area would not be sensitive to them. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 198 Draft EIS Aesthetics Alternative 3: Retail and Residential Anticipated Development within the Auburn Gateway Project Area The potential visual impacts due to development under Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for Alternatives 1 and 2, with the following differences: Residential structures would not be as high as the proposed commercial structures, and the provision of landscaped open space associated with the residential uses would also reduce the apparent bulk and scale of these structures, as compared with office and retail structures. The residential uses developed under this alternative would result in potentially greater sensitivity to the visual impacts of commercial uses, especially light and glare from parking lots, loading areas, and lighted signs. Residential development abutting I Street NE would be adjacent to a major arterial and could be adversely affected by glare from cars and street lighting. There would be less retail development; therefore, there would likely be fewer signs and commercial parking areas. The proposed multifamily residential development in the Auburn Gateway project area would be similar in character and scale to the existing multifamily residential development to the south and the expected multifamily residential development to the east. Therefore Alternative 3 would result in less visual impact on those properties than the commercial development under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. However, because it has not been decided whether residential or commercial uses would be located in the southern and eastern portions of the Auburn Gateway project area, there is no guarantee that this compatibility in scale and character would be realized. Residential uses tend to be associated with smaller buildings and have fewer blank walls than commercial buildings. The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines express uninterrupted roof planes and suggest several measures for achieving this design goal. Anticipated Development outside the Auburn Gateway Project Area but within the Planning Area Under Alternative 3, development outside the Auburn Gateway project area but within the planning area would be similar to that described for Alternative 1. Because the Auburn Gateway wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 199 Special Area Plan Aesthetics project area would be occupied by residential uses under Alternative 3, residents of the Auburn Gateway project area could be subject to adverse visual impacts due to commercial development outside the Auburn Gateway project area in the northwestern potion of the planning area similar to those described for commercial areas within the Auburn Gateway project area under Alternative 1. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative Anticipated Development within the Auburn Gateway Project Area The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative assumes full build-out according to the existing zoning over time; therefore, the character of the Auburn Gateway project area would also change substantially from its existing condition. The existing structures would be removed and the project area would be filled to raise it above the floodplain. The buildings constructed under this alternative would be more numerous and smaller in scale than those constructed under any of the action alternatives because most of the Auburn Gateway project area would be developed as single-family residences, as allowed in the UNC zone. Stormwater detention facilities would be required for each development and might or might not be developed as site amenities as proposed under the action alternatives. The 130 single-family units that could be constructed under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would likely be built on new platted streets developed to City standards; however, the development would require no landscaping other than street trees. The 132 multifamily housing units could be constructed in buildings similar to those anticipated under Alternative 3, but they would be allowed only on properties in the R4 zone in the eastern portion of the project th area. Residential development abutting South 277 Street and I Street NE would be adjacent to major arterials and could be adversely affected by glare from cars and street lighting. Commercial development under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would be on a relatively small scale and would be similar in character to the existing and expected development in the C3 zone along the Auburn Way North corridor. No building setbacks or landscaping are required for development on C3 property adjacent to UNC property; therefore commercial buildings and yards could have adverse visual impacts on single-family residential property in the UNC zone similar to those described for commercial buildings under the action alternatives. These impacts would include contrast between commercial and residential developments in terms of building bulk, scale, and character. Anticipated Development outside the Auburn Gateway Project Area but within the Planning Area Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, the potential visual impacts due to development outside the Auburn Gateway project area but within the planning area would be similar to those anticipated for Alternative 3. As the northwest corner of the planning area is expected to be developed with heavy commercial uses, there could be a higher degree of visual contrast with the adjacent single-family development expected in the UNC zoned areas under the wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 200 Draft EIS Aesthetics No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative than the commercial development under Alternative 3. Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, I Street NE would be expected to be constructed in the existing right-of-way alignment at the eastern perimeter of the planning area, which as noted above, would have some visual impacts on property east of the planning area. Although the development of streets is expected in residential areas, I Street NE would be a major arterial, and light and glare from vehicles on that roadway could have adverse effects on nearby residential uses under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative visual impacts include anticipated changes to the visual character of the area similar to those resulting from the proposed Auburn Gateway project. Because urban development in this part of Auburn has been planned for many years, and regulations are in place to control many visual characteristics of urban development such as building location and size, setbacks from streets, and allowable signage, such impacts may not all be considered adverse. Development outside the planning area will contribute to substantial changes in the visual character of this part of Auburn that have been occurring for many years and are planned to occur as urban development replaces less intensive uses. The largely undeveloped character of th the area would be converted to more intensive urban uses south of South 277 Street under any of the action alternatives, as well as under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. As a result of any of the project alternatives, including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, th South 277 Street would become a more distinct visual boundary between the agricultural landscape on the north side of the street and the urban landscape to the south. Mitigation Measures Compliance with zoning regulations would limit some of the visual impacts due to the development in the Auburn Gateway project area and the surrounding planning area. The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines (Architects BCRA 2003) include a wide range of goals and measures that would mitigate most of the adverse visual impacts described above. The City anticipates that a set of design requirements similar to the proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines will be adopted as part of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan or the planned action for the Auburn Gateway project area. This section provides a summary of the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines that are relevant to the potential visual impacts associated with the Auburn Gateway project and additional measures that could be implemented to ensure that these impacts are mitigated. Summary of Proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines The proposed Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines generally provide appropriate guidance and promote a common understanding for designers and reviewers. The guidelines provide sufficient wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 201 Special Area Plan Aesthetics certainty of the physical character of the expected development at this early planning stage to allow adequate environmental review to occur, and they can be used during the design and review of specific development proposals in the Auburn Gateway project area to ensure that the project is constructed in a manner that addresses potential adverse visual impacts in accordance with City policy. Building Scale and Bulk The height and bulk of office and retail structures would be limited by the same development standards established for the C3 zone. In addition, a series of guidelines address the bulk and general appearance of residential structures and suggest measures that include breaking up building masses, avoiding long flat walls and roof planes, and providing pedestrian-scale open space. The general building guidelines address the need to minimize blank walls, provide screening for unsightly areas, and provide a unified design scheme. Generally the guidelines suggest that front doors and windows be oriented inward toward the center of the Auburn Gateway project area and internal roads, with back-of-house functions like loading and service roads oriented near the perimeter of the project area. Blank walls tend to emphasize the height and bulk of a building and can create an unpleasant pedestrian environment. The guidelines set a goal of avoiding blank walls where possible and discuss a range of possible wall treatments to provide visual interest, including the following: Using transparent glass along sidewalks or walkways for at least 25 percent of the wall area on the first floor. Stepping back the upper stories of buildings that are more than 30 feet high by at least 1 foot for each 10 feet in height. Providing a change in wall plane (modulation) of up to 2 feet for every 24 horizontal feet of continuous wall on large-pad retail uses. Facades that include principal customer entrances would have a 4-foot modulation every 60 feet, or a row of columns would be provided for at least 50 percent of the facade. Providing architectural detailing on at least three sides of a building and at entries. Parking Areas The guidelines suggest measures that mitigate the visual impacts of parking areas, including the following: Providing 10 feet of perimeter planting around parking areas. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 202 Draft EIS Aesthetics Breaking parking areas into small units to reduce expanses of pavement using walkways and hardscaped and landscaped open spaces. Extending wider planters in parking areas that allow for vehicle overhang rather than using separate wheel stops on pavement. For parking structures, using architectural treatments as on other buildings, including modulation, pedestrian amenities, and materials. Any parking on ground level would be screened from the public right-of-way by means of landscaping and/or ornamental screening. Loading and Service Areas The guidelines describe methods to minimize the visual impacts of service areas for most building types, including the following: Locating service areas away from pedestrian areas and principal entrances Clustering loading areas together to reduce the area and number of loading areas and allow more area for landscaping Designing buildings to screen service areas from parking areas Providing screen walls, berms, or landscaping. Landscaping and Screening The guidelines call for several uses of landscaping and screening that would mitigate the visual impacts due to light, glare, and the building bulk between uses, along streets, and on adjacent properties. These measures include the following: Providing landscape buffers between uses Developing trails, berms, street trees, and landscaping along major streets at the perimeter of the project area Screening service functions by means of evergreen trees, screen walls, or fences Screening parking and/or drive-through lanes with 3-foot berms or walls and landscaping when adjacent to main roads Providing plants in adequate sizes to ensure a rapid covering of open ground areas and trees of sufficient size to immediately provide some shade and screening wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 203 Special Area Plan Aesthetics Providing formal landscaping with walls and other structures to frame exterior spaces around buildings. Signage The Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines suggest a coordinated approach to site signage but place no new limits on the number and type of signs to be allowed. The existing sign regulations would apply. The measures proposed in the guidelines to limit the potential adverse impacts of signs include the following: Clustering signs to avoid visual clutter Integrating signs with the visual and architectural character of the surrounding buildings Integrating monument signs with landscaping. Additional Mitigation Measures In addition to the code requirements and measures proposed in the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines, the following mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate the visual impacts due to the proposed project: Establish a design review process to be used as individual projects are developed in the Auburn Gateway project area to ensure that the individual projects in the Auburn Gateway project area are consistent with the adopted Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. Develop a master signage plan at the initial phase of the project to establish locations, sizes, and materials for all types of signage to be used in subsequent phases. The master signage plan should be applied at each phase of development. Subsequent modifications to the master signage plan should be allowed only after a determination by the City that the modifications are consistent with Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. Combine signage where feasible to avoid visual clutter. Orient signs in a manner that minimizes light and glare impacts on residential development. Prepare and implement a master pedestrian circulation plan that specifies the locations and type of paths, the materials and methods to be used to promote safety at street and driveway crossings, and the framework of wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 204 Draft EIS Aesthetics connections and amenities to be developed as described in the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. Avoid the use of highly reflective glass on facades that face major streets. If residential uses are developed along D Street NE or near Auburn Way North, provide landscape screening to limit the visual impacts due to potentially more intensive uses in the adjacent C3 zone. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None of the potentially significant adverse aesthetic impacts that could result from the proposed action is considered unavoidable, because the City will be able to adopt sufficient design controls to mitigate such impacts to a point where they are no longer significant. Although the change in the character of the area would be substantial under any of the alternatives, it has long been recognized in the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan that this area is expected to be converted to more urban uses. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 205 Special Area Plan Utilities and Public Services Utilities and Public Services This section focuses on existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation measures related to utilities and public services. The utilities discussed include natural gas, electricity, water supply, and sanitary sewer. Stormwater utilities are discussed in the Water Resources section of this EIS. The public services discussed include garbage collection, fire and emergency medical services, law enforcement, and schools. Applicable Laws and Regulations Auburn City Code, Title 13 (Water, Sewer, and Public Utilities) establishes local regulations for the operation and maintenance of water, sewer, and public utilities within the city of Auburn. The regulations cover water service, including fire hydrants, sewer service, underground wiring, cable television (CATV) systems, utility extensions, electrical franchises, and the storm drainage utility. In addition to establishing the City-owned and operated water, sewer and storm drainage utilities and granting a franchise to Puget Sound Energy (formerly known as Puget Sound Power and Light), Title 13 sets forth requirements for working within City rights-of-way, building removal for location of utilities, and tree trimming and removal for location of utilities. The City may also require developers to complete utility extensions before building permits are issued, to ensure that adequate water, sewer, and stormwater conveyance are provided. Several policies of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Auburn 2003g) require that extensions of City utilities necessary to serve new development be completed before or concurrently with the site development and be built according to the requirements in the relevant comprehensive utility plan. Affected Environment Sanitary Sewer The City of Auburn maintains the sanitary sewer system in the planning area. This system is entirely separate from the stormwater drainage system discussed in the Water Resources section. The City is responsible for the repair and maintenance of its sanitary sewer mains, whereas property owners are responsible for the lateral pipes (side sewers) leading from buildings to the sewer main (Auburn 2003a). Wastewater collected through this known as the East Treatment Plant) in Renton. The treatment plant handles an average of 115 million gallons of wastewater per day. The effluent pumps have been upgraded to handle a maximum of 325 million gallons of treated wastewater per day. The facility provides primary and secondary treatment and disinfection. Effluent is then pumped through a 12-mile-long pipe and discharged through a deep-water outfall into Puget Sound (King County 2003b). wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 207 Special Area Plan Utilities and Public Services The highest-capacity sanitary sewer main that borders the Auburn Gateway project area is the th 54-inch main under South 277 Street (DBM 2000). This line currently drains to a 72-inch line th at South 277 Street and State Route (SR) 167. Additional 10-inch sewer mains extend north thth along D Street NE and east along 49 Street NE to the intersection of D Street NE and 49 Street ation, located near the intersection of D Street NE and Auburn Way North, is anticipated to be removed with nearby redevelopment. The removal of this pump station will require that wastewater generated in the vicinity of the th planning area drain via gravity flow to the King County sewer main along South 277 Street, north of the Auburn Gateway project area (Roscoe 2003 personal communication). The invert (pipe bottom) of the 54-inch King County sewer main lies at a depth of approximately 15 feet th below the surface of South 277 Street; therefore, gravity flow of wastewater into this sewer main from the project area to the south should be achievable. No public sanitary sewer lines currently extend into the Auburn Gateway project area. Two private sanitary sewer lines extend into the project area: one extends northeast from the corner of th D Street NE and 49 Street NE and the other extends east from the intersection of D Street NE and Auburn Way North (Auburn 2003e). Domestic Water Supply The City of Auburn provides potable water from the Coal Creek Springs and West Hill Springs watersheds and a system of ten ground water wells. Storage facilities are located on the Enumclaw Plateau, at Lakeland Hills and at Lea Hill (Auburn 2003g). The City maintains the water service lines in the streets and to the back side of each service meter at a private property. Property owners are responsible for maintaining the line from the back side of the meter to buildings and any indoor or landscape irrigation plumbing (Auburn 2003b). A 12-inch water main runs along Auburn Way North adjacent to the planning area and the th Auburn Gateway project area. An 8-inch line extends from Auburn Way North along 49 Street th NE as far as the intersection of 49 Street NE and D Street NE. A combination of 8-inch and 6- th inch pipes extends along D Street NE as far as the intersection of 49 Street NE and D Street NE. A 6-inch line runs from this intersection east into the Valley 6 Drive-in property. Finally, an 8-inch line runs a short way east from Auburn Way North, along the southern margin of the project area (Auburn 2001, 2003e). Solid Waste The City of Auburn handles solid waste collection and disposal in the planning area. Garbage collection service is mandatory for all multifamily residences and commercial customers, and City fees are assessed whether or not the service is Management, collects, removes, and disposes of solid waste from multifamily residences and commercial establishments in the city at least once each week. The City also contracts to provide recycling services. Unlike garbage service, recycling is not mandatory and is covered by garbage collection fees unless the volume exceeds certain set levels. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 208 Draft EIS Utilities and Public Services Electricity and Natural Gas Electricity and natural gas are provided by a private company (Puget Sound Energy \[PSE\]) that is granted a franchise to provide service in the city of Auburn. PSE is obligated to provide service to the planning area upon demand. PSE would be consulted during the design phase of the project so that it would have adequate opportunity to extend electricity and natural gas transmission and distribution lines. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Fire protection and emergency medical services in Auburn are provided by the City of Auburn Fire Department. The Fire Department currently has 68 firefighters and emergency medical technicians and 12 response staff. In 2002, the fire department received 7,238 calls for service. The total calls for service increased 8.0 percent between 2000 and 2002, or approximately 2.6 percent per year. Average response times within the City vary depending on the proximity to fire stations. At the project location, the response time is likely to be around 8 to 10 minutes. This would be one of the highest average response times in the entire city. In 2002, the City purchased a 1.59-acre site at 30th and I Street NE for a future fire station, which is expected to improve response times in the planning area. The City of Auburn commissioned a study of fire department needs in 1998. The study, titled City of Auburn Fire Department Station Location Study, was prepared by Emergency Services Consulting Group in January of 1999. The Study evaluates options for station locations as well as staffing levels based on industry standards and comparable data from the surrounding regional jurisdictions. The study conclude to relocate or add fire stations is usually made with existing or projected growth over an extended period of time. In re department staffing and station siting is less than desirable, to the point that we are compelled to recommend that additional resources and Consistency with the Growth Management Act as well as several other plans related to growth management were also analyzed in the study. On page 27 of the Study it refers to the City of Auburn Comprehensive plan and its goals. It su occupancy to areas where current services are available or can reasonably be provided to serve Comprehensive Plan policies as a basis. Law Enforcement The City of Auburn Police Department provides police services, including patrol, crime prevention, community programs, and other services. The police department currently has 82 commissioned officers and 33 support staff. In 2002, there were a total of 65,500 computer- aided dispatch calls for service. The total calls for service increased 4.8 percent between 2000 and 2002, or approximately 1.6 percent per year. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 209 Special Area Plan Utilities and Public Services Schools The planning area is served by the Kent School District. The nearest elementary school is Scenic Hill Elementary, located 3 miles northeast of the planning area. The nearest middle school is Kent Junior High, located 4 miles north of the planning area. Kent Meridian High School is located 3 miles north of the planning area. Environmental Impacts Except for the wastewater production and domestic water consumption, the differences in potential impacts on utilities and public services expected as a result of the various action alternatives for the Auburn Gateway project are not discernible at this preliminary level of site planning. Therefore, this section discusses general impacts but does not single out specific alternatives. Further coordination would occur once more specific site plans have been developed. However, any action that entails a level of site development similar to or less than that of the three action alternatives considered in this EIS should be sufficiently addressed by the discussion in this section. Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives Sanitary Sewer Table 18 shows the estimated wastewater production expected for each of the alternatives. Development within the Auburn Gateway project area would connect to a new King County 54- th inch sewer main that will replace the existing sewer main under South 277 Street at the northern edge of the property. The King County sewer improvements in the project vicinity will be completed by the summer 2004, well before additional generation of wastewater occurs in the planning area. The capacity of this sewer main should be more than sufficient for any configuration of development in the project area (DBM 2000), as well as other developments in th the planning area along South 277 Street. Table 18. Estimated domestic water consumption and wastewater production for the Auburn Gateway project area. Water Consumption Wastewater Production Alternative (gallons/day) (gallons/day) Alternative 1: Retail and Office 50,000 20,000 Alternative 2: Retail 13,000 6,500 Alternative 3: Retail and Residential 82,250 27,250 No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative 40,090 12,830 Sources: Tchobanoglous and Burton 1991; Aquacraft 2000 th Existing sewer lines in the rights-of-way of 49 Street NE and D Street NE might need to be relocated or replaced if these roads are moved or removed during the development of the larger wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 210 Draft EIS Utilities and Public Services planning area (Auburn 2003e). With development of the Auburn Gateway project, existing private sewer links would be abandoned and new lines provided connecting to the north. Domestic Water Supply Table 18 shows the estimated daily domestic water consumption for each of the alternatives. It is likely that the existing domestic water supply system would need to be upgraded to service full build-out conditions either in the Auburn Gateway project area or in the full planning area. A th water main would probably need to be installed along South 277 Street heading east from Auburn Way North, and another water main may be needed along the future I Street corridor. No public water lines should need to be moved to develop the Auburn Gateway project area, th although the 6-inch water line that extends from the intersection of 49 Street NE and D Street NE into the interior of the project area would need to be removed or upgraded. According to city code, all water lines must be minimum of 12 inches in diameter. Also, the existing water lines in th the rights-of-way of 49 Street NE and D Street NE may need to be moved if these roads are moved or during the development of the larger planning area (Auburn 2003e). Solid Waste Solid waste collection service with Waste Management, Incorporated would increase to handle the increased waste generation resulting from the development of either the Auburn Gateway project area or the full planning area. Because Waste Management, Incorporated is under contract to collect solid waste throughout Auburn, and fees are collected by the City to cover the costs of hauling and disposal, no significant impacts are expected. Electricity and Natural Gas As described above, PSE is obligated to provide gas and electrical service under its franchise with the City of Auburn. No significant impacts related to the provision of these utilities are anticipated at the time construction occurs. Minor power and gas disruptions to existing customers in the vicinity are possible during construction of new utility lines. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Development of any of the action alternatives within the Auburn Gateway project area or in the larger planning area would result in increased demand for fire and emergency medical services in this portion of the city. To meet increase demand from this project and other future projects, the Fire Department would likely need to hire additional personnel, purchase new equipment and build a new fire station in the northern portion of the City. As a consequence, service costs would increase. In 2002, the City purchased a 1.59-acre site at 30th and I Street NE for a future fire station, which is expected to improve response times in the planning area. Public costs of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Plan Area are evaluated in a separate fiscal impact analysis in Appendix C. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 211 Special Area Plan Utilities and Public Services Law Enforcement Development under any of the action alternatives within the Auburn Gateway project area or in the larger planning area would result in increased demand for police services as well as other community programs supported by the police department (e.g., Community Watch). To meet this increased demand, the police department would be required to hire additional personnel and purchase new equipment. As a consequence, service costs would increase. Public costs of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan are being evaluated in a separate fiscal impact analysis. Schools Alternatives 1 and 2 would not generate any new demand for schools and would, therefore, not result in impacts on existing schools and related support services. Alternative 3 would include 500 new multifamily residences in the Auburn Gateway project area. On the basis of the average household size for the city of Auburn, this translates into approximately 1,200 residents. On average, 22 percent of the population in Auburn is between the ages of 5 and 19 (Auburn 2003c). If this demographic is repeated with the new residents of the Auburn Gateway project area, it is estimated that the development would result in an increase of 264 school-age children. This increase in school-age population would result in minor additional staffing, facilities, and transportation costs to the district. The costs would be offset by state funding that is provided on a per student basis and by school impact fees collected by the district. See Appendix C for a discussion of the fiscal implications of all the alternatives. No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, it is expected that the planning area would be fully developed at existing zoning levels. Such development would have impacts on public services and utilities that are similar to those of the action alternatives, but somewhat reduced. The upgrades to the sanitary sewer and water supply systems discussed above for the action alternatives would still need to be completed for the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would house approximate 600 residents, with an estimated 132 school-age children. The resulting effects on nearby schools in the Kent School District would be approximately one half of those described above for Alternative 3. Some services like busing would be less efficient under this alternative because of lower density residential development. Impact fees and revenues based on student enrollment would be proportionally less. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 212 Draft EIS Utilities and Public Services Mitigation Measures Taxes and fees applied to development and operation would offset the costs associated with increased demands for public services and utilities for all alternatives including the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Therefore, taxpayers and utility ratepayers in the city of Auburn would not be adversely affected financially, and the existing levels of service would not be reduced. Costs for police services can be minimizede prevention through These include measures that are discussed in the Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines (Architects BCRA 2003), for example, ensuring natural surveillance ability in public spaces such as parking lots, walkways, and building entrances; using appropriate lighting; and avoiding the creation of dead-end alleys. If King County does not finish the sewer system improvements not time the Auburn Gateway development would otherwise occur, either postpone development until the county begins this work or require the developers to complete these improvements prior to occupancy. In order to minimize long-term impacts on the domestic water supply, water conservation measures should be required to be addressed during design. This includes drought-tolerant landscape plantings, as well as water-saving devices in buildings and irrigation systems. Cumulative Impacts The existing water supply in Auburn is allocated growth rates the average daily demand is projected to outpace supply by approximately the year 2020. To the extent that this and any other proposed projects in the area exceed the water demand expected as a result of full build-out to the maximum level allowed under existing zoning, the existing supply will be fully allocated sooner than projected (Osborne 2003 personal communication). The City of Auburn Comprehensive Water Plan (Auburn 2001) identifies ture water system needs through 2020 (the planning period). Although improvements are identified through the end of the planning period, specific needs are evaluated on an ongoing basis. Specific water supply programs and improvements include the following: Water conservation programs Pressure zone improvements Additional water supply Booster pump stations Additional storage reservoirs Water distribution system improvements Additional system interties with adjacent water utilities. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 213 Special Area Plan Utilities and Public Services Any of the alternatives, including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, in combination with other developments in the area coul wastewater treatment plant in Renton. Although ith King County requires the county to accept whatever wastewater flows the City sends to the plant (Roscoe 2003 personal communication), this cumulative increase in flows would cause the existing treatment capacity to be exceeded earlier than would otherwise happen. This would require either the county to expand its treatment capacity earlier than expected, or the City to provide wastewater treatment capacity of its own. King County plans to expand the South Treatment Plant in 2029 to handle increased wastewater flow from the southern and eastern portions of the service area. million gallons per day). Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on utilities and public services as a result of any of the alternatives including the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 214 Draft EIS Transportation Transportation This section summarizes the results of the transportation impact analysis for the proposed Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan, which was performed in coordination with the City of Auburn and Robertson Properties Group (RPG). The transportation impact analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential impacts of the Auburn Gateway project on the local roadway system, intersection operations, traffic safety, transit, and nonmotorized facilities. The analysis also includes an evaluation of options for vehicle access routes and the configuration of roadways through and immediately adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area (Figure 7). Finally, this section describes potential improvement measures that should be considered to mitigate transportation impacts. Affected Environment This section discusses the existing and future conditions if no development occurs within the planning area. The base condition against which the impacts of the proposed action are compared is referred to as the no-build condition. The no-build condition differs from the No- Action/Existing Zoning Alternative in that the no-build condition does not include any new development of the Auburn Gateway project area, but does include expected growth in the background traffic volumes in the study area. (The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative deals specifically with the Auburn Gateway project area and does assume growth would occur in the project area over time, as allowed by current zoning.) All long-range impacts were evaluated for the year 2020, which coincides with the analysis th transportation plan update (scheduled for publication in spring 2004). Transportation Network Existing Transportation Conditions The study area for this analysis extends from State Route (SR) 516 (Willis Street) in Kent to th Main Street in downtown Auburn, and from 144 Avenue SE in Kent to Military Road in Kent. The nine key roadways in the study area are described in Table 19. The study area for the project was determined by the City to include those intersections that would be affected by 100 or more PM peak-hour trips generated by the development alternative with the highest number of trips (described later in the discussion of environmental impacts, tersections have been divided into corridors within the city limits of Auburn. Intersections outside the city limits are listed individually. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 215 Special Area Plan Transportation Table 19. Roadway conditions. Speed Auxiliary Turn Functional LimitNumber of Lanes/Median Road/Location Classification (mph) Lanes Treatment Edge Condition Auburn Way North thth South 277 Street to 15 Street NE Principal 40 5 TWLTL Curb, gutter, sidewalk th 15 Street NE to Park Avenue NE Principal 35 5 TWLTL Curb, gutter, sidewalk I Street NE thth 40 Street NE to 35 Street NE Minor 35 4 None Curb, gutter, sidewalk th 35 Street NE to Harvey Road NE Minor 35 4 None Curb, gutter, sidewalk thnd South 277 Street/South 272 Street West Valley Highway to Frontage Road Principal 35 2 Left-/right-turn Asphalt shoulder pockets Frontage Road to D Street NW Principal 35 4 Left-/right-turn Sidewalk south, pockets asphalt shoulder north D Street NW to Auburn Way North Principal 35 5 TWLTL Sidewalk south, asphalt shoulder north th Military Road to 40 Avenue South Minor 35 4-5 Left-turn pockets Curb, gutter, sidewalk th 40 Avenue South to West Valley Minor 35 5 Left-turn pockets Asphalt shoulder Highway thnd South 277 Street (52 Street NE) Auburn Way North to D Street NE Principal 35 3 TWLTL Asphalt shoulder D Street NE to driveway (1/4 mile east) Principal 50 2-3 TWLTL Asphalt shoulder th Local driveway to 108 Avenue SE Principal 50 5 Jersey barrier Asphalt shoulder th SE 274 Street thth 108 Avenue SE to 114 Avenue SE Principal 40 5 TWLTL Curb, gutter, sidewalk th 116 Avenue SE thth 114 Avenue SE to SE 269 Street Principal 40 4 Jersey barrier Curb, gutter, sidewalk th SE 269 Street to Kent-Kangley Road Principal 40 5 TWLTL Curb, gutter, sidewalk th Kent-Kangley Road to SE 256 Street Minor 40 2 Left-/right-turn Asphalt shoulder pockets th 37 Street NE West Valley Highway to Emerald Minor 40 4 None Curb, gutter, sidewalk Downs Drive Emerald Downs Drive to Auburn Way Minor 40 3 TWLTL Curb, gutter, sidewalk North Auburn Way North to I Street NE Minor 25 Not striped None Curb, gutter, sidewalk 15th Street NE A Street NE to D Street NE Principal 35 4 C-curb with left-Curb, gutter, sidewalk turn pockets D Street NE to Auburn Way North Principal 35 5 TWLTL Curb, gutter, sidewalk Harvey Road NE (M Street NE) Auburn Way North to Eighth Street NE Principal 35 5 TWLTL Curb, gutter, sidewalk Eighth Street NE to East Main Street Principal? 35 2 Left-/right-turn Asphalt shoulder pockets TWLTL = two-way left-turn lane wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 216 Draft EIS Transportation The study area includes the following intersections: Auburn Way North corridor I Street NE corridor th Auburn Way North/South 277Street I Street NE/Robertson Way (proposed east- th Auburn Way North/49 Street NE west road through Auburn Gateway project Auburn Way North/D Street NE area) th th Auburn Way North/South 277Street I Street NE/45 Street NE th th Auburn Way North/49 Street NE I Street NE/37 Street NE th Auburn Way North/D Street NE I Street NE/30 Street NE nd Auburn Way North/proposed east-west road I Street NE/22 Street NE through Auburn Gateway project area I Street NE/Harvey Road NE (Robertson Way) M Street NE/Harvey Road NE corridor th Auburn Way North/45 Street NE Harvey Road NE/EighthStreet NE th Auburn Way North/37 Street NE Harvey Road NE/FourthStreet NE th Auburn Way North/30 Street NE M Street NE/East Main Street nd Auburn Way North/22 Street NE th 37Street NW corridor th Auburn Way North/15 Street NE th 37Street NW/West Valley Highway th Auburn Way North/8 Street NE th 37Street NW/Emerald Downs Drive th Auburn Way North/4 Street NE th 37Street NW/B Street NW st Auburn Way North/1 Street NE Other intersections outside of Auburn Auburn Way North/Main Street th Kent-Kangley Road/116Avenue SE (Kent) th South 277 Street corridor th Kent-Kangley Road/124Avenue SE (Kent) th South 277 Street/West Valley Highway nd Kent-Kangley Road/132 Avenue SE (Kent) (Kent/King County) th th Kent-Kangley Road/144Avenue SE (Kent) South 277 Street/SR 167 southbound ramps Central Avenue/Willis Street (Kent) (King County, Washington State Department th Central Avenue/South 259Street (Kent) of Transportation \[WSDOT\]) th th th 116Avenue SE/SE 256Street (Kent) South 277 Street/SR 167 northbound ramps nd South272 Street/Military Road (Kent/King (King County, WSDOT th County) South 277 Street/Frontage Road th th thth South 277Street/40Avenue South South 277 Street/D Street NW/78 Avenue (Kent/King County) South th th South 277Street/55Avenue South South 277th Street/B Street NW (Kent/King County) South 277thStreet/Auburn Way North th th th SE 304Street/124Avenue SE (King South 277 Street/D Street NE th County) South 277 Street/I Street NE th th SE 304Street/112Avenue SE (King County). Planned Transportation Improvements 2003-2008 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program identifies six major roadway improvements within the project study area (Auburn 2002b), which are summarized in Table 20. This table includes only the major capital projects that would affect roadway capacity in the study area. Other proposed improvement programs, such as sidewalks, pavement preservation, roadway safety infrastructure, or pedestrian crossing programs, are not listed in this table. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 217 Special Area Plan Transportation Table 20. Planned transportation improvements. Estimated Project Construction No. Project Name Project Description Year a City of Auburn Projects ndth 9 52 Street NE (South 277Construct two additional lanes, one in each direction; complete center turn lane, and a Class 1 trail. 2006 Auburn Way North to the Green River Construct a five-lane arterial per the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Auburn 2003g). This will complete a major north-south 2006 thndnd 40 Street NE to 52 Street NE arterial from 52 Street NE to Harvey Road. This project is expected to be largely constructed by developers. 26 M Street NE Widen M Street NE from two to four lanes with curb, gutters, and sidewalks. Modify existing traffic signals. 2008 (East Main Street to Harvey Road) 28 Eighth Street NE at Auburn Way North Construct an east-to-south right-turn lane at this intersection and make signal modifications. 2008 Construct a four-lane arterial per the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. It will complete a major north-south arterial 2008+ ththth 37 Street NW to 44 Street NW (industrial/manufacturing corridor) from Ellingson Road to South 277 Street. nd Construct a four-lane arterial per the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. It will complete a north-south arterial from 52 Street 2003 ndrd 32 Street NE to 33 Street NE NE to Harvey Road NE. This project is dependent on a developer for completion. b City of Kent Projects ndnd 6 132 Avenue SE at Kent-Kangley Road Widen 132 Avenue SE to provide a southbound right-turn lane. Modify existing traffic signal and reconstruct other intersection 2003 features. th th 22 116Avenue SE widening Widen 116Avenue SE to provide a five-lane roadway, including four general-purpose travel lanes, a two-way left-turn lane, and a 2005 bicycle facility. ndnd 24 South 272 Street widening, Phase 1 Widen the intersection of South 272 Street and Military Road South to extend the left-turn pockets and add a 1,100-foot right-turn 2005 lane on the north approach. Widen under I-5 to seven lanes. 30 Willis Street (SR 516) railroad grade Construct grade separations of both the Burlington Northern Sants 2006 separation project at Willis Street. c King County Projects th th 300205 SE 304Street at 124Avenue SE Construct new signal and turn lanes on all four intersection legs. 2005 nd 300604 Military Road South at South 272 Street Construct eastbound and southbound right-turn lanes, optimize signal, and revise channelization on Military Road South to have dual 2005 left-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. th 500298 SE 277Street, SR 167 to West Valley Complete construction of corridor, which includes widening from Frontage Road to West Valley Highway through the SR 167 2004 Highway interchange. a Source: Auburn 2002b. b Source: Kent 2003a. c Source: King County 2003d. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 218 Draft EIS Transportation Improvements planned by the City of Kent and/or King County were also reviewed. Projects from the City of Kent Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program 2003-2008 (Kent 2003a) and the King County MetroCapital Improvement Program (King County 2003d) that would improve study area intersections are also listed in Table 20. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were not collected for this project because a number of factors have substantially changed traffic patterns along South 277th Street and other areas surrounding the Auburn Gateway project area have changed substantially in the past few years. First, a new arterial connection South 277th Street was made between Auburn Way North and the Kent Highlands. Then, new overpasses were constructed on South 277th Street over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) west of Auburn Way North. Data on traffic volumes collected before these projects were complete or during the construction of the latter project likely do not reflect the potential use of this street. Also, because the new South 277th Street overpass was completed only recently, and the final phase of construction near the SR 167 interchange has not been completed yet, full use of this street has not likely been realized. Instead of collecting current traffic volume data, all traffic analysis was performed using forecasted year 2020 volumes from the City of software model was prepared for the City of Auburn by the TModel Corporation for use in the transportation plan update that is being prepared as part of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Key assumptions in this model included the following: Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) year 2020 traffic volume growth assumptions for Auburn and the region at the time of model development in May 2002 Completion of the major roadway impr current improvement programs, including I Street NE from South 277th Street to Harvey Road NE, as well as the widening and railroad grade- separations on South 277th Street from SR 516 to West Valley Highway (Auburn 2002b) No new development in the Auburn Gateway project area (to reflect the no-build condition). The traffic model forecasted that under the no-build condition, the average traffic volume growth rate between the year 2000 and the year 2020 would be about 1.8 percent per year (compounded growth). This growth rate is reasonable for a long-term growth rate in King County. Year 2020 th model volumes were used to analyze intersections within the City of Auburn and on 304 Street were included in its model. For intersections outside the Auburn city limits, existing traffic volumes were forecasted to future volumes using wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 219 Special Area Plan Transportation the annual growth rate derived from the model. Traffic volumes in the year 2020 under the no- build condition are shown in Figure 15. Existing Traffic Generated Within the Auburn Gateway Project Area The Auburn Gateway project area is currently occupied primarily by the Valley 6 Drive-in Theater. Drive-in theaters generate very little traffic during the PM peak hour, since unlike a typical movie theater, all movies begin after dark. Peak attendance occurs when the weather is warmer and daylight lasts until late evening. For the purpose of this analysis, the existing uses of the project area were assumed to generate no PM peak-hour trips. Level of Service Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to characterize traffic operating conditions. best and represents good traffic operations with little or no delay for motorists. LOS F is the worst and indicates poor traffic operations with long delays. The City of Auburn currently evaluates roadway operations using a corridor level of service methodology, which averages the delays calculated for each key intersection in a corridor. The City has established a corridor standard of LOS D, which is considered acceptable and represents intersections and roadways that are approaching capacity. The threshold between LOS E and LOS F is generally considered to represent the capacity of an intersection. For the City of the average delay per vehicle for each intersection in the study area is summed and divided by the total number of intersections to determine the average delay per intersection throughout the study area. The resulting delay and corresponding level of service represents the operational performance of the roadway corridor. For intersections outside the city of Auburn, the level of service is reported for individual rsections is LOS E, and it requires that an applicant fund or provide intersection improvements needed to achieve LOS E or return an intersection to its pre-project condi A complete description of level of service criteria for signalized intersections is included in Appendix G. Level of service for each signalized intersection within the study area is defined in terms of delay. This delay is dependent on a number of variables, including: lane configuration, signal phasing, and traffic volumes for each intersection movement. Level of service for the offsite study area intersections was determined using 5.0) the methodology in Highway Capacity ManualSpecial Report 209 (TRB 1997) and more accurately accounts for features such as right-turn-on-red, progression between coordinated traffic signals, and secondary (additional) delay associated with over-capacity conditions. The information required for the level of service analysis, such as intersection geometries, signal phasing and timings, and other related details, were obtained through field work conducted by wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 220 Draft EIS O 278 Z B 6 X I H J I Z F M M B I W U 7-:11 U 5 T 1 F 2 X 5-611233: 2212 I U 7 2 664 2 5:9 23-111 3196 X J M M J T 9-111 M B 747 S 983 2469 367ui U O F 415 2152 E D S 36:UI Z S 683 L F B O U U J 9 M L J 1 B 25:3 N I 5 O 2148 H U M 26:7 1 F 383OE Z 5 :18 2632 2451 3163 TFF 2744 388UI I 3317 U 3124 22-111 9 E I I JOTFU 1 OU U 2 35 I 5 45 8-411 3 U 22 2 6 6 :87 8:2 4:9 898 539 541 48UI 555 769 559 884 851 415UI 3:7UI 59: 2121 I 2867655 U 29 693 U U T 3 841 T 2 2 E C U 2277 933 F F S 2295 U 611 6 U T 57: T J CMFBIJMM423UI 2313 26UI 731 8-211 26:3 9UI N B J P EO E SE 494 6-511 22:2 L D B :71 M N BJC O O 6-211 S V C V 5-211 B 831 E 29 S 2769 Z F W S 24:8 2392 B B V C I V S O X 35:4 B 2955 Z 2481 2:43 7-211 4-211 U F F JOTFU S U T 26:7 B 278 :18 2:58 268: T388UITUSFFU B 3163 3779 V C V S O X B Z 56UITUSFFU 2773 794 2136 2477 Gjhvsf26/Zfbs3131op.cvjmeQNqfbl.ipvsusbggjdwpmvnft/ Transportation Heffron Transportation and information from the City of Auburn, King County, the City of Kent, and WSDOT. The signal cycle lengths and signal phasing were optimized for the entire th network. Traffic signals along South 277 Street between West Valley Highway and I Street NE were assumed to be coordinated, as were the traffic signals along Auburn Way North between th Main Street and South 277 Street. Several major changes to the roadway network have 6-year transportation improvement programs. The following changes were assumed to be completed by the year 2020 as part of the no-build condition: th Extension of I Street NE from South 277 Street to Harvey Road NE with ththnd traffic signals installed at 37 Street NE, 30 Street NE, and 22 Street thth NE. The section from South 277 Street to 40 Avenue NE would be five th lanes wide; the section south of 40 Street NE would be four lanes wide to match the existing roadway th Widening of South 277 Street to five lanes between Auburn Way North and the Green River th Widening of South 277 Street between West Valley Highway and SR 167 th Widening of 116 Avenue SE to five lanes north of Kent-Kangley Road th (proposed by the City of Kent). The intersection configuration at 116 Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road was assumed to match this five-lane configuration. th th Addition of turn lanes on all approaches of the SE 304Street/124Street SE intersection and installation of a traffic signal. Addition of eastbound and southbound right-turn lanes, dual left-turn lanes for both the northbound and southbound approaches, extension of the eastbound and southbound left-turn lanes, and signal modifications were nd assumed to be completed at the South 272 Street/Military Road intersection. Widening of M Street NE between East Main Street and Harvey Road from two to four lanes. The intersections of EighthStreet NE/Harvey Road NE, FourthStreet NE/M Street NE, and East Main Street/M Street NE were assumed to match this lane configuration. ththth Extension of D Street NW from 37 Street NW to 44 Street NW. At 37 th Street NW, this roadway will become the north leg of the existing 37 Street NW/Emerald Downs Drive intersection. The intersection configuration was assumed to reflect this improvement. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 222 Draft EIS Transportation These planned improvements in the area will affect the levels of service at intersections along the th South 277 Street corridor. Year 2020 levels of service analyses for this corridor were thth performed assuming that only I Street NE is connected between 40 Street NE and South 277 Street, and that no further capacity improvements are made. To document the effects of other planned projects on overall traffic operations, the analysis was then performed assuming the improvements listed in Table 21 are made. The changes in the level of service for the South th 277 Street corridor are presented in Table 21. ar 2020 no-build volumes and the effect of planned improvements. 2020 No-Build 2020 No-Build Condition with Condition with Existing Intersection Planned Geometry Improvement aa Signalized Intersection Planned Transportation Improvement LOS Delay LOS Delay th South 277 Street Corridor thth South 277 Street/Auburn Way F 141.2 City of Auburn TIP: widen South 277 F 80.1 North Street to five lanes from Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge City of Auburn transportation plan update, in progress) th South 277 Street/West Valley F 196.2 F 140.6 King County project planned for Highway th construction in 2003: widen South 277 th South 277 Street/SR 167 F 134.7 C 20.5 Street and intersections between SR 167 southbound ramps and West Valley Highway (King th South 277 Street/SR 167 F 178.0 C 29.5 County 2002b). northbound ramps thth South 277 Street/I Street NE F 142.7 City of Auburn TIP: widen South 277 D 40.0 Street to five lanes from Auburn Way North to Green River Bridge. At its intersection with I Street NE, a dual left- turn lane will be needed in the westbound direction, and a dual right- turn lane will be needed in the northbound direction (City of Auburn transportation plan update, in progress) LOS = level of service TIP = transportation improvement program a Average seconds of delay per vehicle. Table 22 summarizes the PM peak-hour levels of service in the year 2020 under the no-build condition for all the offsite intersections in the study area that are within the Auburn city limits. Table 23 summarizes the PM peak-hour levels of service in the year 2020 under the no-build condition for all the intersections in the study area that are outside the Auburn city limits. The average corridor level of service is also presented. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 223 Special Area Plan Transportation Table 22. PM peak-hour levels of service for intersections in Auburn under year 2020 conditions with programmed improvements. 2020 No-Build Condition a Signalized Intersection LOS Delay Auburn Way North Corridor th Auburn Way North/South 277 Street F 80.1 th Auburn Way North/37 Street NE E 68.4 th Street NE B 15.1 Auburn Way North/30 nd Auburn Way North/22 Street NE C 23.0 th Auburn Way North/15 Street NE E 62.6 th Auburn Way North/8 Street NE F 115.7 th Auburn Way North/4 Street NE D 46.5 st Street NE B 19.4 Auburn Way North/1 Auburn Way North/Main Street B 11.1 Corridor Average D 49.1 th South 277 Street Corridor th South 277 Street/Auburn Way North F 80.1 th South 277 Street/West Valley Highway F 140.6 th Street/SR 167 southbound ramps C 20.5 South 277 th South 277 Street/SR 167 northbound ramps C 29.5 th South 277 Street/Frontage Road C 21.4 thth South 277 Street/D Street NW/78 Avenue S E 68.8 th South 277 Street/B Street NW A 7.2 th South 277 Street/I Street NE D 40.0 Corridor Average D 51.0 37th Street NW Corridor th I Street NE/37 Street NE B 14.0 th Auburn Way North/37 Street NE E 68.4 th 37Street NW/B Street NW D 41.9 th 37Street NW/Emerald Downs Drive D 46.5 th Street NW/West Valley Highway D 36.4 37 Corridor Average D 41.4 I Street NE Corridor th I Street NE/South 277 Street D 40.0 th I Street NE/37 Street NE B 14.0 th I Street NE/30 Street NE A 4.2 nd Street NE A 6.8 I Street NE/22 I Street NE/Harvey Road NE C 30.3 Corridor Average B 19.1 M Street NE Corridor I Street NE/Harvey Road NE C 30.3 Harvey Road NE/Eighth Street NEF 86.5 M Street NE/Fourth Street NE A 10.0 M Street NE/East Main Street E 60.6 Corridor Average D 46.9 LOS = level of service a Average seconds of delay per vehicle. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 224 Draft EIS Transportation Table 23. PM peak-hour levels of service for intersections outside Auburn under year 2020 conditions with planned improvements. 2020 No-Build Condition a Signalized Intersection LOS Delay Central Avenue/Willis Street F 108.3 th Central Avenue/South 259Street E 75.5 th 116 Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road F 154.0 th 124Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road E 57.8 nd 132 Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road F 100.5 th 144Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road B 10.5 th th Street/55Avenue South D 51.0 South 277 ndth South 272 Street/40Avenue South A 6.7 nd South 272 Street/Military Road D 53.2 th th SE 304Street/124Avenue SE D 43.5 th th b SE 304Street/112Avenue SEF >120.0 th th SE 256Street/116Avenue SE C 33.4 LOS = level of service a Average seconds of delay per vehicle. b Unsignalized intersection. Vehicular delay listed for most congested side-street movement. s corridor averaging criteria, all the corridors within the city limits would operate at LOS D or better under the no-build condition. LOS D is Outside the Auburn city limits, several intersections would operate at LOS E or F conditions. This includes three study area intersections along the Kent-Kangley corridor, and two intersections in Kent along Central Avenue north of the project area. The unsignalized th th Street/112Avenue SE in King County would also operate at LOS F. intersection at SE 304 These levels of service would be below the adopted levels of service standard for these jurisdictions. Traffic Safety Detailed traffic accident data were obtained from the City of Auburn, City of Kent, and King County for the most recent 3-year period. These data have been compiled to determine accident trends at intersections in the study area. Table 24 summarizes the number and type of collisions at each intersection, as well as the yearly average for the 3-year period. The accident data show that the largest number of collisions occurred at the Auburn Way th North/15 Avenue NE intersection. There was a total of 77 collisions during the 3-year study currently changing the signal to provide protected left-turn phasing at this intersection, which should reduce the number of approach turn collisions. The second highest number of accidents for the intersections in Auburn occurred at Auburn Way North/ Eighth Street NE, which experienced 48 accidents in the 3-year period. About 50 percent of these accidents were approach-turn collisions, and about 30 percent were rear-end collisions. It should be noted that the high number of accidents at these intersections reflect the high traffic volumes. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 225 Special Area Plan Transportation Number of Collisions by Type (Total for 3-Year Period) a Average b Number of Accidents Intersection per Year Head-On Rear End Side Swipe Approach Turn Right Angle Other Pedestrian/ Bicycle Total Collisions in 3 Years City of Auburn thc Auburn Way North/15 Street NE 1 6 10 45 9 1 5 77 25.7 c Auburn Way North/EighthStreet NE thc Auburn Way North/South 277 Street th West Valley Highway/37 c Auburn Way North/FourthStreet NE c, d Auburn Way North/First Street NE thc Auburn Way North/37 Street NE ndc Auburn Way North/22 Street NE thc Auburn Way North/28 Street NE c Auburn Way North/Main Street thc Auburn Way North/30 Street NE th Auburn Way North/49 nd 22 th Auburn Way North/45 th B Street NW/37 th 37 th Emerald Downs Drive/37 City of Kent nd 132 th 124 th South 259 th 144 thth SE 256 Street/116 Unincorporated King County thth South 277 Street/55 nd South 272 thth SE 304 Street/124 ndth South 272 Street/40 thth SE 304 Street/112 Sources: City of Auburn data from Auburn2003d; City of Kent data from City of Kent 2003b and WSDOT 2003; unincorporated King County data from King County 2003e. Accident data were collected from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002. a Approach-turn collisions include right-turn and left-turn accidents. In general the majority of these accidents involve left turns. b Other accidents include collisions with fixed objects, backing up, and intersection-related driveway accidents. c Accident data were collected from March 1, 2000, through February 28, 2003. d Two fatalities occurred at this intersection in the year 2000; these were not listed in the detailed accident reports. were reported at the intersection during the 3-year period. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 226 Draft EIS Transportation Outside the Auburn city limits, the highest number of accidents occurred along Kent-Kangley ndthth Road (SR 516) at the 132 Avenue NE and 124 Avenue NE, and 116 Avenue SE intersections, respectively. Rear-end collisions constituted a high proportion of the total accidents at both locations. th Because the South 277 Street corridor has been under construction for the past several years, historical accident data cannot be used to evaluate current conditions. Therefore, recent accident data were not compiled for this analysis. Furthermore, this year, construction should begin on th the major improvements proposed by King County at the South 277 Street/SR 167 interchange. th Improvements to South 277 Street will be built according to a higher design standard than the current roadway, and will also reduce congestion in the corridor. Thus, safety is expected to improve in this corridor. Transit There are three bus routes operated by King County Metro Transit within the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project area: Routes 150, 181, and 185 (King County 2003g). Route 150 provides bus service from south Auburn to downtown Seattle. In the vicinity of the Auburn th Gateway project area, it provides service along 15 Street NE, between A Street NE and Auburn thth Way North; and along Auburn Way North, between 15 Street NE and South 277 Street. This route operates on weekdays from approximately 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., with approximately 15- minute headways (time between consecutive buses) during peak periods and up to 1-hour headways during off-peak periods. On Saturday and Sunday, this route operates from to 2:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., respectively, with headways of approximately 7:30 a.m. between 30 minutes and one hour. Route 181 provides service from Federal Way to Green River Community College. In the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project area, it provides service along EighthStreet NE, between Harvey Road NE and Lea Hill Road SE. On weekdays, the route operates from approximately with 30-minute headways during peak periods and 1-hour headways 6:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., during off-peak periods. On Saturday, the route operates between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. with 30-minute headways during most of the day and 1-hour headways during the last trips. On Sunday, the route operates between 8:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. with 1-hour headways. Route 185 circulates within Auburn. The route begins and ends at the Auburn Transit Station and takes approximately 30 minutes total travel time. In the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway th project area, the route travels northbound on I Street NE, westbound on 30 Street NE, and then proceeds southbound on Auburn Way North. It operates between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on weekdays, with 70-minute headways. On Saturday, it operates from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with 70-minute headways. Based on information in Appendix A of the King County Metro Transit Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002-2007, several planned changes will affect the study area (King County 2002b). Route 150 will be truncated to provide service between Seattle and Kent only wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 227 Special Area Plan Transportation and will no longer serve the Auburn area directly. Route 151 will be extended north from the Auburn Commuter Rail Station to Kent, with daily service from 4:00 a.m. until 1:00 a.m. at 30- minute intervals. Route 181 will be streamlined, with service hours extended until 11:00 p.m. and Saturday frequency increased to every 30 minutes. Route 185 is not earmarked for changes in service. Nonmotorized Facilities th There are no sidewalks along most of South 277 Street east of Auburn Way North in the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project area. The exception is a short segment of sidewalk on the south side of the street just east of Auburn Way North that was recently constructed as part of th the South 277 Street improvement project. This new sidewalk is set back from the existing roadway to accommodate future widening of this street to five lanes. A recently completed segment of this road improvement also included the construction of a sidewalk along the south th side of South 277 Street from Auburn Way North to Frontage Road. There are sidewalks along th both sides of Auburn Way North south of South 277 Street. Crosswalks are striped on all four th legs of the intersection of Auburn Way North and South 277 Street, and there are pedestrian actuation buttons for the pedestrian crossing signals. 2003-2008 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program identifies two nonmotorized improvements in the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project area: Projects 42 and 44 (Auburn 2002b). Both projects relate to the Green River Trail, a class I trail proposed for the west riverbank. Project 42 (Phase 1 of the Green River Trail) includes construction from South th Street to Brannan Park and is proposed for completion by 2008. Project 44 (Phase 2 of the 277 Green River Trail) includes construction from Brannan Park to Second Street SE. The design of Project 44 is proposed for completion by 2009. Environmental Impacts This section describes the conditions that would exist if the proposed Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan is implemented. The range of potential impacts due to the implementation of the alternatives described in Part 2 of the EIS were evaluated. Impacts to offsite traffic operations were then estimated using the highest number of trips that could be generated by any of the alternatives. This is considered the worst-case impact condition. In addition, the effect of the proposed project on safety, transit, and nonmotorized facilities was evaluated. Finally, extensive analysis was performed of the site access needs, including the sizing of internal and adjacent streets and arterials. Potential Land Uses The transportation analysis for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan evaluated the impacts associated with three action alternatives and the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. These alternatives were designed to represent the potential maximum build- wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 228 Draft EIS Transportation out associated with various types of land uses. The mix of land uses ultimately constructed may be a combination of uses that varies from those described for the alternatives; however, it is the intent of this analysis to consider the maximum level of impact that could occur with any of the proposed land uses, in order to establish the level of mitigation necessary to allow the construction of any combination of uses within the range covered by the alternatives. The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative reflects full build-out of the Auburn Gateway project area under existing zoning. Comparisons to the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative are provided to disclose the impact associated with rezoning the Auburn Gateway project area. However, most of the analysis in this section uses the no-build condition for comparison, which assumes that the existing uses (drive-in theater) would remain in the Auburn Gateway project area. The comparison to the no-build condition is appropriate since it is consistent with other City of Auburn policies related to traffic impact fees and mitigation. Trip Generation This section describes the number of trips that the proposed action alternatives would generate. Trip generation is the basis for determining all traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The following subsections detail the trip rates used in the analysis, trip characteristics, internal trips between uses in the Auburn Gateway project area, and finally, the total trip generation for each alternative. Trip Rates and Equations Trip generation for the various alternatives was estimated using information in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (ITE 1997). This reference manual includes trip generation rates and equations determined from studies of existing sites throughout the United States. For office, retail, and residential uses, the database includes hundreds of studied sites. were used. It is recognized that many different types of retail uses could be developed in the Auburn Gateway project area, including a supermarket, large home-improvement, warehouse, or big-box retail stores, and smaller retail businesses. To evaluate the appropriateness of using the trip generation rates for shopping centers, these per-square-foot rates derived from the trip equations and size of use were compared to trip rates for other types of retail uses. Table 25 shows this comparison. The comparison does not show a large variation in the trip generation rates for the various types of retail uses. In fact, for shopping centers smaller than 360,000 square feet (Alternatives 1 and 3), the rates for shopping centers would be higher than those for any of the other uses. Higher amounts of retail are expected to result in lower trip generation rates on a per-square-foot basis, since larger shopping centers offer more shopping opportunities and many customers will visit multiple stores in a single shopping trip (shared or internal trips). Based on this analysis, the shopping-center trip equations are appropriate for all of the action alternatives and would cover impacts associated with any type of retail use, including big-box retail. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 229 Special Area Plan Transportation Table 25. Trip generation rates for various retail uses. ITE Land Use Daily PM Peak-Hour Category Description Trip Rate Trip Rate Shopping center An integrated group of commercial establishments that 33.7 trips/1,000 sf 3.04 trips/1,000 sf (for 720,000 sf) is planned, developed, owned, and managed as a unit. The trip rates include community centers, regional centers, and super-regional centers. Some of these include uses such as office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, post offices, banks, health clubs, and recreational facilities. Shopping center Same as above. 43.1 trips/1,000 sf 4.06 trips/1,000 sf (for 360,000 sf) Shopping center Same as above. 53.2 trips/1,000 sf 4.96 trips/1,000 sf (for 200,000 sf) Discount club store A discount store or warehouse where shoppers pay a 41.8 trips/1,000 sf 3.80 trips/1,000 sf membership fee in order to take advantage of discounted prices on a wide variety of items such as footwear, clothing, tires, and appliances. Many items are sold in large quantities or bulk. Home improvement Free-standing warehouse-type facilities that sell a 35.1 trips/1,000 sf 2.87 trips/1,000 sf superstore variety of home improvement merchandise, including lumber, tools, paint, lighting, wallpaper, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, lawn equipment, and garden plants and accessories. Source: ITE 1997. ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers sf = square feet Trip Characteristics The trip generation rates described above were used to determine the total number of driveway trips that the proposed project would generate. For the retail uses, however, some of these driveway trips are expected to be drawn from traffic that is already using streets in the vicinity. For the retail uses, the total number of trips has been divided into three trip types (pass-by trips, diverted-linked trips, and primary trips), which are described further below. Pass-by trips are trips that are already on a roadway immediately adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area en route to another destination. For th example, a motorist who would normally drive along South 277 Street adjacent to the project area on a trip home from work, and stops to shop at the new retail center, would be considered a pass-by trip. Pass-by trips do not require a diversion from another roadway. Diverted-linked trips are trips that are drawn from the traffic on roadways within the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project area, but that require a diversion from those roadways to another roadway to gain access to the project area. For example, a motorist who drives further north on Auburn Way North to shop at the new center would be a diverted-linked trip. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 230 Draft EIS Transportation New (primary) trips are single-purpose trips generated by a new development. New trips are generally assumed to begin and end at home, although some primary trips could originate at work or other locations. The percentages of driveway trips that are attributed to each of the above types depend on the size, type, and location of the proposed Trip Generation Handbook (ITE 1998) was used to derive the at the pass-by rate tends to be higher for smaller-size retail projects, which suggests a higher amount of convenience shopping at small centers. Table 26 summarizes the trip percentages used for the retail components of the various alternatives. Table 26. Assumed retail trip characteristics. Size of Retail Use Pass-by Trips Diverted-Linked Trips Primary Trips Alternative (square feet) (percent) (percent) (percent) Trip Generation Handbook (ITE 1998). Internal Trips Another trip characteristic that only affects traffic on the onsite roadways is the internal trip. Most of the trip generation information included in Trip Generation was collected at single-use, free-standing sites. Mixed-use developments have the potential for interaction between the uses, which would reduce the total number of trips entering and exiting the site to less than the sum of the individual-discrete trips generated by each land use. Because the amount of interaction will vary depending upon the land uses within the mixed-use development and the size of each land use, ITE developed a methodology to estimate the number of internal trips that can be expected at specific sites. Using the ITE methodology, the internal capture rates for the various alternatives were estimated and are shown in Table 27. See Appendix H for capture rate calculations. Although information in the Trip Generation Handbook (ITE 1998) supports a 20 percent internalization rate for retail- to-retail trips, it was assumed that no additional internalization would occur for Alternative 2 (Retail). This is because the trip generation for shopping center, and this rate already accounts for some retail-to-retail internalization (ITE 1997). The internal capture rates used for the three alternatives range from 0 to 13 percent. These percentages reflect the trips that would occur internally in the Auburn Gateway project area during the PM peak hour. The remaining trips would travel outside the boundaries of the Auburn Gateway project area and would use the proposed driveways. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 231 Special Area Plan Transportation Table 27. Internal capture summary. Size of Office Size of Retail Size of Residential Internal Capture Alternative (square feet) (square feet) (units) (percent) a Trip Generation Handbook (ITE 1998). a Information in the Trip Generation Handbook supports a 20 percent internalization for retail-to-retail trips. However, no additional internalization was assumed for Alternative 2 because rate for a shopping center, which already accounts for some retail-to-retail internalization. Trips for Each Alternative The trip assumptions described above were used to estimate trips associated with each action alternative. Table 28 represents the maximum number of trips that each action alternative could generate. The number of trips were de Trip Generation and the size of each use. Details related to the number of internal trips, driveway trips, and the driveway trip types for each alternative are provided. Table 29 summarizes the trip generation for comparison, showing the total trips, total driveway trips, and total primary trips to the roadway network. This shows that Alternative 1, the alternative with a large office component, would generate the most total driveway trips as well as the most primary trips to the roadway network. For this reason, Alternative 1 represents the worst-case condition. Trip Generation for the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative As discussed above, the trip generation described in the previous section represents the net change in trips compared to the no-build condition. The no-build condition assumes no change from existing land uses in the Auburn Gateway project area, which generates no AM or PM peak-hour trips at present. The No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative assumes that the Auburn Gateway project area could be built out under existing zoning. Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, the Auburn Gateway project area could accommodate approximately 73,200 square feet of retail space, 130 single-family residential units, and 132 multifamily residential units. Trip generation for this alternative was determined to assess how the proposed rezoning could increase traffic. All of the trip characteristic and internal capture rate assumptions described in the previous section were applied for this analysis. The results are summarized in Table 30. Trip Distribution The trip distribution pattern for each of the three major land use categories (office, retail, and residential) was determined using the results of the Travel Demand Forecasting Model, which was run for the City of Auburn in April 2003 (TModel Corporation 2003). The various trip distribution patterns for each land use type are shown in Appendix I. These patterns were used to derive the overall trip distribution patterns for each action alternative. The overall trip distribution patterns for each of the alternatives are shown in Figures 16 through 18. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 232 Draft EIS Transportation ernal trips and trip components. Size of Use and AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Daily Percentage of Land Use Trips Trips In Out Total In Out Total General office 1,600,000 sf 100% 11,160 1,495 204 1,699 318 1,555 1,873 Total general office trips a Internal trips 5% 890 0 0 0 47 47 94 Driveway trips 95% 10,270 1,495 204 1,699 271 1,508 1,779 Retail 200,000 sf 10,640 147 94 241 476 516 992 100% Total retail trips a Internal trips 5% 850 0 0 0 25 25 50 Driveway trips 95% 9,790 147 94 241 451 491 942 Driveway trip types Pass-by trips 32% 3,130 39 39 78 151 151 302 Diverted-linked trips 24% 2,350 29 29 58 113 113 226 Primary trips 44% 4,310 79 26 105 187 227 414 Multifamily residential 0 units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General office 0 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 720,000 sf b 24,260 316 202 518 1,109 1,202 2,311 Total driveway trips Pass-by trips 22% 5,340 57 57 114 254 254 508 Diverted-linked trips 16% 3,880 41 41 82 185 185 370 Primary trips 62% 15,040 218 104 322 670 763 1,433 Multifamily residential 0 units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 General office 0 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 360,000 sf 100% 15,530 209 134 343 702 760 1,462 Total retail trips c Internal trips 13% 2,020 0 0 0 95 95 190 Driveway trips 87% 13,510 209 134 343 607 665 1,272 Driveway trip types Pass-by trips 27% 3,650 46 46 92 172 172 344 Diverted-linked trips 20% 2,700 34 34 68 127 127 254 Primary trips 53% 7,160 129 54 183 308 366 674 Multifamily residential 500 units 100% 3,320 125 135 260 177 133 310 Total residential trips c Internal trips 13% 430 17 17 34 20 20 40 Driveway trips 87% 2,890 108 118 226 157 113 270 sf = square feet a Daily internal trips are 8 percent of total trips, PM peak-hour internal trips are 5 percent, and AM peak-hour internal trips are 0 percent because retail centers are typically closed during the AM peak hour. This provides a conservative offsite analysis. b No internal trips were assumed for Alternative 2 because retail-to-retail trips are inherent in the trip generation rates. c Daily and PM peak-hour internal trips are 13 percent of total trips; AM peak-hour internal trips are 0 percent because retail centers are typically closed during the AM peak hour. This provides a conservative offsite analysis. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 233 Special Area Plan Transportation Table 29. Trip generation summary. AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Daily Land Use Trips In Out Total In Out Total Total internal trips 1,740 0 0 0 72 72 144 Total driveway trips 20,060 1,642 298 1,940 722 1,999 2,721 Total primary trips to roadway 14,580 1,574 230 1,804 458 1,735 2,193 a Total driveway trips 24,260 316 202 518 1,109 1,202 2,311 Total primary trips to roadway 15,040 218 104 322 670 763 1,433 Total internal trips 2,450 17 17 34 115 115 230 Total driveway trips 16,400 317 252 569 764 778 1,542 Total primary trips to roadway 10,050 237 172 409 465 479 944 a No internal trips were assumed for Alternative 2 because retail-to-retail trips are inherent in the trip generation rates. Table 30. Trip generation for the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Size of Use and AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Daily Percentage of Land Use Trips Trips In Out Total In Out Total General office 0 sf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 73,200 sf 100% 5,580 81 52 133 245 266 511 Total retail trips a Internal trips 15% 840 0 0 0 38 38 76 Driveway trips 85% 4,740 81 52 133 207 228 435 Driveway trip types Pass-by trips 27% 1,280 18 18 36 59 59 118 Diverted-linked trips 20% 950 13 13 26 43 43 86 Primary trips 53% 2,510 50 21 71 104 126 230 Multifamily residential 132 units 100% 880 34 36 70 46 34 80 Total residential trips a Internal trips 15% 130 5 5 10 6 6 12 Driveway trips 85% 750 29 31 60 40 28 68 Single-family residential 130 units 100% 1,245 25 73 98 84 47 131 Total residential trips a Internal trips 15% 185 7 7 14 10 10 20 Driveway trips 85% 1,060 18 66 84 74 37 111 Total internal trips 1,155 12 12 24 54 54 108 Total driveway trips 6,550 128 149 277 321 293 614 Total primary trips to roadway 4,320 97 118 215 218 191 409 sf = square feet a Daily and PM peak-hour internal trips are 15 percent of total trips; AM peak-hour internal trips are 0 percent because retail centers are typically closed during the AM peak hour. This provides a conservative offsite analysis. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 234 Draft EIS O 278 Z B 5&5& 6 X I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 5 T 1 F 2 X 4& I U 7 2 2 3& 3& 3& X J M M 5& J T M 5& B S 367ui U 2& O F E D S 36:UI 5& 2& Z S L F B O U U J 4& M L J B N I O H U M 1 F 383OE 5& Z 5 2:& 23& 388UI I U 9 E I I 1 2& OU U 3& 2 35 I 5 41& 2& 45 3 U 22 2 29& 6 6 48UI 2& 3& 32& 415UI 3:7UI I U 29 U U T 3 T 2 2 E C U F F S 5& U 2& 6 U T T J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 9UI N B J P EO E SE 2& L D B M N BJC O 5& O S V 3& 5& C V B E 29 S Z F W S B B V C I V S O X B Z U F 2& F S U 4& T B 278 3& SPVUFEJTUSJCVUJPO Y& QFSDFOUBHFPG Y& USJQTPOSPBEXBZ Gjhvsf27/UsjqejtusjcvujpoqbuufsogpsBmufsobujwf2)SfubjmboePggjdf*/ O 278 Z B 5&5& 6 X I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 5 T 1 F 2 X 4& I U 7 2 2 3& 4& 3& X J M M 5& J T M 5& B S 367ui U O F 2& E D S 36:UI 4& 2& Z S L F B O U U J M L J B N I O H U 4& M 1 F 383OE 6& Z 5 29& 23& 388UI I U 9 E I I 1 2& OU U 3& 2 35 I 5 42& 2& 45 3 U 22 2 2:& 6 6 48UI 2& 3& 31& 415UI 3:7UI I U 29 U U T 3 T 2 2 E C U F F S 4& U 2& 6 U T T J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 9UI N B J P EO E SE 2& L D B M N BJC O 4& O S V 3& 5& C V B E 29 S Z F W S B B V C I V S O X B Z U F 2& F S U 4& T B 278 3& SPVUFEJTUSJCVUJPO Y& QFSDFOUBHFPG Y& USJQTPOSPBEXBZ Gjhvsf28/UsjqejtusjcvujpoqbuufsogpsBmufsobujwf3)Sfubjm*/ O 278 Z B 5&5& 6 X I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 5 T 1 F 2 X 4& I U 7 2 2 3& 2& 2& X J M M 9& J T M 4& B S 367ui U O F E D S 36:UI 4& Z S L F B O U U J M L J B N I O H U M 4& 1 F 383OE 3& Z 5 29& 24& 388UI I U 9 E I I 1 OU U 3& 2 35 I 5 37& 45 3 U 22 2 34& 6 6 48UI 2& 3& 31& 415UI 3:7UI I U 29 U U T 3 T 2 2 E C U F F S 4& U 6 U T T J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 9UI N B J P EO E SE 2& L D B M N BJC O 3& O S V 2& C V B E 29 S Z F 4& W S B B V C I V S O X B Z U F 2& F S U 3& T B 278 3& SPVUFEJTUSJCVUJPO Y& QFSDFOUBHFPG Y& USJQTPOSPBEXBZ Gjhvsf29/UsjqejtusjcvujpoqbuufsogpsBmufsobujwf4)SfubjmboeSftjefoujbm*/ Transportation Trip Assignments The trips associated with each action alternative were assigned to the roadway network according to the trip distribution patterns described previously. The pass-by and diverted-linked trips associated with the retail components were assigned according to forecasted traffic volumes. Internal trips were also assigned to the internal roadway network, which includes Robertson Way and I Street NE. Internal trips were assumed to drive from one part of the development to another and would affect site driveways and intersections that are internal to the Auburn Gateway project area. Figures 19 through 21 show the trip assignments for each action alternative (Alternatives 1 through 3). Detailed assignments for the internal street network are available at the City of Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development. The trip assignments were used to determine the percentage of the total 2020 traffic volumes that each alternative would represent (Figure 22). The project would have the highest percentage impact on roadways close to the site. The percentage would diminish further away from the site. In addition, the percentage impact at each study area intersection compared to the 2020 no-build conditions was determined. These percentages are listed in Table 31. Level of Service A level of service analysis was conducted for all of the study intersections under each of the alternatives in 2020. The results of the calculations are shown in Tables 32 and 33 and include the planned improvements listed in Table 20. The level of service results for the no-build condition in 2020 are also shown for comparison. Within Auburn, development of the Auburn Gateway project area would result in an increased delay along each of the corridors in the study area compared to that of the no-build condition. dor averaging criteria, the results show that all the corridors th except the South 277Street and Auburn Way North corridors would operate at LOS D or better. th The South 277Street corridor would operate at LOS E for development Alternatives 1 and 2, and at LOS D for the no-build condition and Alternative 3. The Auburn Way North corridor would operate at LOS E for development Alternative 1 and at LOS D for the other alternatives. d that the level of service along the corridors is not expected to drop below the LOS D threshold until about the year 2017 under the worst-case development alternative. Outside Auburn, development of the Auburn Gateway project area would also result in increased delay at individual intersections. The worst-case development alternative would cause the level th th th of service to degrade one level at the Central Avenue/South 259Street, South 277Street/55 ndth th Avenue South, South 272 Street/Military Road, and SE 256Street/116Avenue SE intersections. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 238 Draft EIS O 278 Z B 6 X I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 32 5 T 1 F 2 X 73 21 73 I U 7 2 2 48 8 9 43 X J M M J T 56 M B 2: 6 S 2: 367ui U O F 46 88 E D S 36:UI Z S L 24 F B O U U J 82 M L J : B N I O 82 H U 6: M 1 F 383OE Z 5 2:2 36 4 243 TFF 388UI 386 83 I U 45 3 9 E I I JOTFU 1 OU U 2 35 I 5 1 45 3 U 22 2 6 6 43 28 238 21 46 1 48UI 238 47 465 44 415UI 3:7UI 37 8 64 53 22:6 I 24561 U 29 U U 2: T 3 T 2 2 E C U 57 71 F F S :1 U 6 21 U T : T J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 4 217 52 27 9UI N B J P EO E SE 29 6 218 L D B 2: M N BJC O O 81 S V C V 8 B E 29 6 S 94 Z F W S 42 24 B B V C I V S O X 63 B Z 6 6 35 72 9 U F F JOTFU S U T 6: B 278 2:2 439 258 T388UITUSFFU B 98 631 V C V S O X B Z 3 56UITUSFFU 3 3:6 4:: 78 :7 Gjhvsf2:/UsjqbttjhonfougpsBmufsobujwf2)SfubjmboePggjdf*/ O 278 Z B 6 X I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 41 5 T 1 F 2 X 36 3:35 I U 7 2 25 2 21 24 X 25 J M M J T M 32 B 39 9 S 38 367ui U O F 28 E 42 D S 36:UI Z S L 31 F B O U U J M 3: L J B 5 N I O 217 H U M 98 1 F 383OE Z 5 95 51 5 6: TFF 388UI 225 49 I U 5: 2 9 E I I JOTFU 1 OU U 2 35 I 5 2 45 3 U 22 2 6 6 26 9 73 68 25 681 48UI 28 262 5: 415UI 3:7UI 54 23 36 5732 27 I 66 84 U 29 U U 42 T 3 T 2 2 E C U 7: 37 F F S 48 U 26 6 U T T 25 J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 5 54 27 8 9UI N B J P EO E SE 37 7 53 L D B 35 M N BJC O O 41 S V C V 22 : B E 29 S 42 Z F W S 32 25 B B V C I V S O X B 31 8 Z 9 21 24 35 U F F JOTFU S U T 98 B 278 95 325 248 T388UITUSFFU B 238 33: V C V S O X B Z 8 56UITUSFFU 9 241 286 :5 252 Gjhvsf31/UsjqbttjhonfougpsBmufsobujwf3)Sfubjm*/ O 278 Z B 6 X I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 31 5 T 1 F 2 X 25 28 27 I U 7 2 9 2 6 9 X 9 J M M J T 22 M B 31 7 S 26 367ui U O F 22 27 E D S 36:UI Z S L 24 F B O U U J 28 M L J B 3 N I O 68 H U M 81 1 F 383OE Z 5 69 31 4 43 TFF 388UI 6: 2: I U 3: 1 9 E I I JOTFU 1 OU U 2 1 35 I 5 45 3 U 22 2 6 9 6 5 42 39 : 51 1 48UI : :6 51 32 415UI 3:7UI 1 342421 : I 57 63 U 29 U U T 3 26 T 2 2 E C U 68 25 F F S 33 U 6 22 U T 24 T J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 3 36 21 5 9UI N B J P EO E 6 SE 31 33 L D B M 29 N BJC O O 27 S V C V 8 B E 29 5 S 27 Z F W S 8 24 B B V C I V S O X 22 B Z 5 6 6 24 21 U F F JOTFU S U T 81 B 278 69 232 93 T388UITUSFFU B :1 233 V C V S O X B Z 4 56UITUSFFU 5 224 211 22578 Gjhvsf32/UsjqbttjhonfougpsBmufsobujwf4)SfubjmboeSftjefoujbm*/ O 278 Z B 6 X I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 5 T 1 F 2 X 3/9& 3/2& I 2/6& U 7/2& 7 2 2 5/3& 3/4& X J M M J T M B S 367ui U O F E D S 36:UI Z 5/6& S L F B 3/6& O U U J 3/9& :/2& M L J 3/1& B N I O 2/7& 7/2& H U M 2/1& 1 F 383OE Z 5 5/9& 388UI I U 9 E I I 1 21/4& OU U 2 23/7& 35 I 5 45 3 7/4& U 22 2 9/9& 6 2/5& 6 5/6& 8/5& 1/7& 48UI 1/4& 415UI 3:7UI I 5/8& U 29 24/8& U U :/9& T 3 T 4/2& 2 8/4& 2 E C 6/5& U 8/6& 3/3& F 5/:& F 3/7& 4/9& S U 6 U T 2/7& T J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 9UI N B J P EO E SE 5/:& L D B M 3/8& N BJC O O 2/6& S V C V B E 29 S Z F W S B B V C I V S O X B Z U F F S U T B 278 QfsdfoupgUpubm3131Wpmvnft BMUFSOBUJWF2 BMUFSOBUJWF3 BMUFSOBUJWF4 Gjhvsf33/Qfsdfoubhftpgzfbs3131QNqfbl.ipvsusbggjdwpmvnftgpsfbdipguifbdujpobmufsobujwft/ Transportation Table 31. PM peak-hour total entering traffic volumes for intersections in Auburn under year 2020 conditions. 2020 No-Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 BuildTrips and Trips and Trips and VolumePercent Increase Percent Increase Percent Increase Percent Percent Percent a aa Signalized Intersection TEV TEV IncreaseTEVIncrease TEV Increase th Auburn Way North/South 277 Street 5,725 665 11.6 % 435 7.6 % 300 5.2 % th Auburn Way North/37 Street NE 3,890 336 8.6 % 221 5.7 % 179 4.6 % th Street NE 3,544 247 7.0 % 144 4.1 % 108 3.0 % Auburn Way North/30 nd Auburn Way North/22 Street NE 3,357 164 4.9 % 94 2.8 % 76 2.3 % th Auburn Way North/15 Street NE 5,048 149 3.0 % 94 1.9 % 66 1.3 % Auburn Way North/Main Street 1,830 39 2.1 % 22 1.2 % 13 0.7 % th South 277 Street/West Valley Highway 5,917 178 3.0 % 122 2.1 % 69 1.2 % th South 277 Street/SR 167 southbound ramps 4,755 288 6.1 % 186 3.9 % 110 2.3 % th Street/SR 167 northbound ramps 4,546 386 8.5 % 237 5.2 % 147 3.2 % South 277 th South 277 Street/I Street NE 4,616 1,064 23.1 % 713 15.4 % 411 8.9 % th 37Street NW/B Street NW 2,334 129 5.5 % 86 3.7 % 58 2.5 % th 37Street NW/Emerald Downs Drive 2,764 129 4.7 % 86 3.1 % 54 2.0 % th 37Street NW/West Valley Highway 3,044 120 3.9 % 65 2.1 % 38 1.2 % th I Street NE/37 Street NE 1,521 397 26.1 % 226 14.9 % 151 9.9 % th Street NE 1,624 325 20.0 % 169 10.4 % 115 7.1 % I Street NE/30 nd I Street NE/22 Street NE 1,766 192 10.9 % 95 5.4 % 62 3.5 % I Street NE/Harvey Road NE 3,893 183 4.7 % 108 2.8 % 59 1.5 % Harvey Road NE/EighthStreet NE 5,036 181 3.6 % 101 2.0 % 55 1.1 % M Street NE/FourthStreet NE 2,740 125 4.6 % 72 2.6 % 40 1.4 % M Street NE/East Main Street 3,593 125 3.5 % 72 2.0 % 38 1.1 % Central Avenue/Willis Street 4,764 173 3.6 % 107 2.2 % 79 1.7 % th Central Avenue/South 259 Street 4,279 248 5.8 % 163 3.8 % 125 2.9 % th 116Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road 6,379 349 5.5 % 222 3.5 % 115 1.8 % th 124Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road 4,919 177 3.6 % 121 2.5 % 61 1.2 % nd 132 Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road 5,307 155 2.9 % 107 2.0 % 53 1.0 % th 144Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road 3,838 96 2.5 % 78 2.0 % 39 1.0 % th th Street/55Avenue South 2,895 154 5.3 % 100 3.5 % 57 2.0 % South 277 ndth South 272 Street/40Avenue South 2,434 105 4.3 % 65 2.7 % 36 1.5 % nd South 272 Street/Military Road 4,028 83 2.1 % 51 1.3 % 29 0.7 % th th SE 304Street/124Avenue SE 2,551 140 5.2 % 97 3.7 % 48 1.9 % th th SE 304Street/112Avenue SE1,559 162 9.4 % 119 7.1 % 59 3.7 % th th SE 256Street/116Avenue SE 2,522 132 5.2 % 86 3.4 % 47 1.9 % TEV = Total entering volumes at the intersection. a Percent increase from 2020 no-build condition. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 243 Special Area Plan Transportation Table 32. PM peak-hour levels of service for intersections in Auburn under year 2020 a conditions with programmed improvements . Alternative 1 Alternative 3 2020 No-Build(Retail and Alternative 2 (Retail and Condition Office) (Retail) Residential) a a a a Signalized Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Auburn Way North Corridor th Auburn Way North/South 277 Street F 80.1 F 111.5 F 98.5 F 88.6 th Auburn Way North/37 Street NE E 68.4 F 90.0 F 87.9 E 78.8 th Auburn Way North/30 Street NE B 15.1 B 14.8 B 17.4 B 17.0 nd Auburn Way North/22 Street NE C 23.0 C 24.1 B 15.9 B 17.9 th Auburn Way North/15 Street NE E 62.6 E 62.9 E 60.8 E 57.3 th Auburn Way North/8 Street NE F 115.7 F 123.3 F 122.1 F 122.6 th Auburn Way North/4 Street NE D 46.5 E 56.6 E 56.2 D 53.1 st Auburn Way North/1 Street NE B 19.4 B 21.2 B 21.1 B 17.7 Auburn Way North/Main Street B 11.1 B 11.4 B 11.2 B 11.2 Corridor Average D 49.1 E 57.3 D 54.6 D 51.6 th South 277 Street Corridor th South 277 Street/Auburn Way North F 80.1 F 111.5 F 98.5 F 88.6 th South 277 Street/West Valley Highway F 140.6 F 149.8 F 152.2 F 146.6 th South 277 Street/SR 167 southbound ramps C 20.5 C 24.7 C 23.0 C 21.4 th South 277 Street/SR 167 northbound ramps C 29.5 C 22.8 C 24.0 C 21.1 th South 277 Street/Frontage Road C 21.4 C 29.0 C 34.6 C 33.4 thth South 277 Street/D Street NW/78 Avenue S E 68.8 E 78.9 F 85.5 E 75.2 th South 277 Street/B Street NW A 7.2 A 9.8 B 10.8 B 10.0 th South 277 Street/I Street NE D 40.0 E 76.2 D 53.7 D 38.5 Corridor Average D 51 E 62.8 E 60.3 D 54.4 th 37Street NW Corridor th I Street NE/37 Street NE B 14.0 A 9.3 B 13.5 A 8.8 th Auburn Way North/37 Street NE E 68.4 F 90.0 F 87.9 E 78.8 th 37Street NW/B Street NW D 41.9 D 48.8 D 46.4 D 44.0 th 37Street NW/Emerald Downs Drive D 46.5D 45.4 D 50.8 D 48.4 th 37Street NW/West Valley Highway D 36.4 D 44.5 D 39.9 D 38.4 Corridor Average D 41.4 D 47.6 D 47.7 D 43.7 I Street NE Corridor th I Street NE/South 277 Street D 40.0 E 76.2 D 53.7 D 38.5 th I Street NE/37 Street NE B 14.0 A 9.3 B 13.5 A 8.8 th I Street NE/30 Street NE A 4.2 A 5.7 A 5.7 A 7.5 nd I Street NE/22 Street NE A 6.8 B 14.5 B 15.7 A 14.2 I Street NE/Harvey Road NE C 30.3 D 47.4 D 40.3 C 34.7 Corridor Average B 19.1 C 30.6 C 25.8 C 20.7 M Street NE (Harvey Road NE) Corridor I Street NE/Harvey Road NE C 30.3 D 47.4 D 40.3 C 34.7 Harvey Road NE/EighthStreet NE F 86.5 F 95.7 F 97.4 F 86.7 M Street NE/FourthStreet NE A 10.0 A 8.4 B 11.1 A 8.5 M Street NE/East Main Street E 60.6 E 62.8 E 61.7 E 59.9 Corridor Average D 46.9 D 53.6 D 52.6 D 47.5 LOS = level of service a Assumes the completion of improvements proposed in 6-year capital improvement programs. b Average seconds of delay per vehicle. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 244 Draft EIS Transportation Table 33. PM peak-hour levels of service for intersections outside Auburn under year a 2020 conditions with programmed improvements Alternative 1 Alternative 3 2020 No-Build(Retail and Alternative 2 (Retail and Condition Office) (Retail) Residential) b b b b Signalized Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Central Avenue/Willis Street F 108.3 F 115.8 F 113.1 F 111.9 th Central Avenue/South 259 Street E 75.5 F 89.6 F 83.9 F 81.3 th 116 Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road F 154.0 F 166.6 F 162.1 F 158.1 th 124Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road E 57.8 E 56.2 E 62.3 E 60.1 nd 132 Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road F 100.5 F 97.3 F 103.1 F 101.1 th Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road B 10.5 B 11.8 B 11.0 B 10.7 144 th th South 277Street/55Avenue South D 51.0 E 56.9 E 55.3 D 53.4 ndth South 272 Street/40Avenue South A 6.7 A 7.9 A 7.2 A 7.1 nd South 272 Street/Military Road D 53.2 E 58.4 D 54.5 D 54.2 th th SE 304Street/124Avenue SE D 44.0 E 57.2 D 52.5 D 47.7 th th c SE 304Street/112Avenue SEF >120.0 F >120.0 F >120.0 F >120.0 th th Street/116Avenue SE C 33.4 D 35.0 C 34.9 C 34.7 SE 256 LOS = level of service a Assumes the completion of improvements proposed in 6-year capital improvement programs. b Average seconds of delay per vehicle. c Unsignalized intersection. Vehicular delay listed for most congested side-street movement. Vehicle Access to and Circulation within the Auburn Gateway Project Area Seven options for vehicle access to the Auburn Gateway project area are under consideration. An operational evaluation was conducted for six of these options (Figure 23). The seventh option (vehicle access option B-1) did not require a separate operational evaluation because it consists of a variation of vehicle access option B. These vehicle access options represent a range of options that could be considered for the Auburn Gateway project area. This evaluation will help the City and the developer determine the preferred access plan, which could include various elements from each of the options. For any of the options, the location of I Street NE could vary from the existing right-of-way. For example, I Street NE as shown in option A could be combined with east-west streets as shown in option B or C. Key features of each access option are summarized in Table 34. An eighth vehicle access option for the location of I Street NE was considered, but rejected and is not shown. This option consisted of locating I Street NE east of its current right-of-way. It th was rejected because of the limited spacing along South 277 Street between this alignment for I th Street NE and the new Green River bridge. The traffic volumes at the South 277 Street/I Street NE intersection would require a dual left-turn lane to serve westbound-to-southbound movements. It would not be possible to create the dual left-turn lane and the appropriate roadway taper within the limited distance to the bridge, which requires approximately 1,420 feet. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 245 Special Area Plan O PQUJPOB PQUJPOB.2 T388uiTusffu T388uiTusffu 5:uiTusffu 5:uiTusffu Fyufoeup Fyufoeup QspqfsujftFbtu QspqfsujftFbtu Opuf;BddfttPqujpoC.2jtuiftbnf PQUJPOC PQUJPOC.3 btPqujpoCxjuibopo.mjofbs5:uiTusffu/ T388uiTusffu T388uiTusffu 5:uiTusffu 5:uiTusffu Fyufoeup Fyufoeup QspqfsujftFbtu QspqfsujftFbtu SpcfsutpoXbz PQUJPOD PQUJPOD.2 T388uiTusffu T388uiTusffu 5:uiTusffu Fyufoeup 5:uiTusffu Fyufoeup QspqfsujftFbtu QspqfsujftFbtu >UsbggjdTjhobm Tdifnbujd;OpuupTdbmf Opuf;FbdipguifbddfttpqujpotdpvmejodmvefbozpguifJTusffuOFbmjhonfout<uiffyjtujohsjhiu.pg.xbzboeuifuxpbmjhonfoutupuifxftu/ Gjhvsf34/Wfijdmfbddfttpqujpot/ Transportation Table 34. Features of vehicle access options. Feature Access Option A Access Option A-1 Access Option B Access Option B-2 Access Option C Access Option C-1 a Location of I Street NE Located west of existing Same as access option A. Located within existing Same as access option B. Located east of existing Same as access City right-of-way, City right-of-way for City right-of-way in a option C. internal to Auburn I Street NE, which would straight north-south Gateway project area, be about 2,050 feet east alignment , which is approximately 1,000 feet of D Street NE. approximately 1,500 feet east of D Street NE. east of D Street NE. Connections to D Street Properties along D Street Same as access option A. Properties along D Street Same as access option B. Properties along D Street Same as access NE NE would be isolated NE would connect NE could connect to option C. from the rest of the directly to I Street NE via Robertson Way and I Street th development and would extension of 49 Street NE. have no connection to I NE. Street NE. Connections to properties East-west access to Same as access option A. East-west access to Same as access option B. East-west access to I Street Same as access east of Auburn Gateway I Street NE via extension I Street NE via extension NE via extension of option C. th project area of Robertson Way. of 49 Street NE. Robertson Way. Signals on Auburn Way One additional traffic Same as access option A Two additional traffic Same as access option B One additional traffic There would be North signal on Auburn Way with an additional traffic signals on Auburn Way with an additional signal on signal on Auburn Way signals on Auburn ththth North at Robertson Way. signal on Auburn Way North at 49 and 45 Auburn Way North at North at Robertson Way. Way North at 49 thth North at 49 Street NE. Streets. Robertson Way. Street NE and at 45 Street NE, but not at Robertson Way as stated in access option C. Signals on I Street NE Signals evaluated for Same as access option A. Signals evaluated for Same as access option B. Signals evaluated for three Same as access three intersections on I three intersections on I intersections on I Street option C. ththth Street NE: South 277 Street NE: South 277 NE: South 277 Street, th Street, Robertson Way Street, Robertson Way Robertson Way and 45 thth and 45 Street NE. and 45 Street NE. Street NE. a Each of the access options could include any of the I Street NE alignments; the existing right-of-way and the two alignments located to the west. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 247 Special Area Plan Transportation Design Requirements for Roadways in the Auburn Gateway Project Area Unless a deviation is approved by the City, all new roadways would be designed in accordance Roadway Design Standards in effect at the time the roadway plans are Roadway Design Standards (Auburn 2002a) are summarized in Table 35. For this analysis, it has been assumed that Robertson Way would be designe Table 35. Street design parameters. th Design Parameter South 277 Street Auburn Way North I Street NE Robertson Way Street classification Principal Principal Minor Collector Speed limit 50 mph 40 mph 35 mph 30 mph Design speed 60 mph 50 mph 45 mph 40 mph a Number of lanes 5 lanes As is 5 lanes 2 to 3 lanes Through-lane width 12 feet 11 feet 11 feet 17 feet for 2 lanes, 12 feet for 3 lanes Curb-lane width 16 feet 12 feet 12 feet n/a Center turn-lane width 12 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum intersection radius 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Sidewalk width (minimum) 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Landscape strip width 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Illumination Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: Auburn 2002a. Exact roadway cross-sections for I Street NE and Robertson Way will be determined at a later date. Roadway cross-section may need to include features such as pedestrian/bicycle trails, left-turn lane(s), right-turn lanes, and median islands. a Determined based on traffic operations analysis. The Synchro 5.0 traffic operations model was used to determine the geometric and traffic control requirements for the proposed roadways that would be internal or adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area. The roadway geometrics were determined by the functional class of the roadway, access needs for adjacent land uses, and capacity. Key features that would apply to all vehicle access options are listed in Table 36. These design parameters would accommodate the development alternative with highest volume (Alternative 1). Minor revisions to these parameters may be appropriate once the preferred alternative is determined. Levels of Service for Vehicle Access Options Level of service was determined for six vehicle access options. To show how traffic operations would compare among the options, levels of service were calculated assuming the worst-case traffic volumes associated with Alternative 1 (Retail and Office). The traffic operations analysis showed that all intersections proposed for signalization would operate at acceptable levels of service. For all of the access options, unsignalized left turns onto Auburn Way North (from thth either 49 Street NE or 45 Street NE) would operate at LOS F. This would be the case under all the development alternatives since the operation is related primarily to the high volume of wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 248 Draft EIS Transportation traffic on Auburn Way North, rather than the volume of traffic on side streets. As previously discussed, a preferred access alternative will be prepared and evaluation in the Final EIS. Further details regarding local access will be determined once t he preferred alternative is identified. Table 36. Design parameters at key intersections for all access options. Intersection Design Parameter thth D Street NE/South 277 Street Prohibit left turns from northbound D Street NE to westbound South 277 Street. Left turns would operate poorly, and the intersection is too close to Auburn Way North to th signalize. Left turns from westbound South 277 Street to southbound D Street NE could be allowed. th Auburn Way North/49 Street NE If this intersection is not signalized, through movements across Auburn Way North th should be prohibited, and left turns from eastbound and westbound 49 Street NE may need to be prohibited in the future. thth I Street NE/South 277 Street Provide dual left-turn lane from westbound South 277 Street to southbound I Street NE. I Street NE/Robertson Way or I Street Install traffic signal when warranted. th Street NE NE/49 th I Street NE/45 Street NE Install traffic signal when and if warranted. a The need for a traffic signal varies depending on the access option and development alternative selected. Signals at these intersections should be installed once traffic volumes exceed the thresholds established in at least one warrant per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Comparison of Vehicle Access Options In addition to traffic operation, there are several functional differences among the six vehicle access options: th Option A provides no connection between 49 Street NE and either I Street NE or Robertson Way. Therefore, access to properties west of th Street NE is D Street NE would be more limited than other options. If 49 th unsignalized, left turns from 49 Street NE onto Auburn Way North would operate at a poor level of service and pose a safety concern. Both access option B and access option C would provide connections to other arterials. th A traffic signal at the Auburn Way North/49 Street NE intersection was evaluated as part of access options A-1, B, B-1, B-2, and C-1. A signal at th this location and connection of 49 Street NE through to I Street NE could provide citywide benefits by creating an east-west link between B Street NE and I Street NE. A signal at this location would also provide the best access for properties along D Street NE. One disadvantage of a signal at th this location is that it could attract short-cut traffic between South 277 Street and Auburn Way North. If a signal at this location is pursued, further analysis should be performed to determine the left-turn queuing wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 249 Special Area Plan Transportation th needs between the new signal at 49 Street NE and the adjacent signals at Auburn Way North and potential signal at Robertson Way. th The traffic model predicted that 45 Street NE would be used as a high- volume short-cut route between Auburn Way North and I Street NE, with th traffic originating from or heading to South 277 Street east of I Street NE. This traffic would not be related to the proposed development. Options A, A-1, C and C-1 include the construction of Robertson Way, th which could reduce cut-through traffic on 45 Street NE. Because of the high volume of cut-through traffic, a traffic signal may be warranted in the th future at the I Street NE/45 Street NE intersection for access option B, B- 1, or B-2. However, it may also be possible to redirect this traffic to th Robertson Way or 49 Street NE if those roadways are designed to accommodate the potential increase in traffic under any of the B options. Robertson Properties Group initially proposed a roundabout for the intersection of I Street NE/Robertson Way. With full implementation of Alternative 1, a roundabout at this intersection would operate at LOS F, although it is possible that less intensive development could be accommodated with a roundabout. To keep the option for a roundabout open, sufficient right-of-way could be set aside in the initial stage of implementation. The location of I Street NE could affect traffic operations on this street. As previously discussed, there will need to be a dual left-turn lane on th westbound South 277 Street at the intersection with I Street NE. The storage length in this lane should be set to accommodate the 95th percentile queue, which is a queue length that is exceeded only 5 percent of the time during the PM peak hour. Regardless of the development alternative, the 95th percentile queue would be about 700 feet. In addition, the roadway would need to taper between the section without a turn lane on the bridge and the dual left-turn lane. At the design speed of 60 mph, the taper length for two 12-foot center lanes would be about 720 feet. Thus, I Street NE would need to be located about 1,420 feet from the bridge over the Green River. The existing City-owned right-of-way for I Street NE is only about 950 feet west of the existing crash attenuator on the west side of the Green River bridge. Thus, access option B would have insufficient space to provide the desirable left-turn storage and taper for the I Street NE intersection. Access option A, which would locate I Street NE in the Auburn Gateway project area, would have about 2,000 feet of distance to the bridge, while access option C would have about 1,475 feet of distance to the bridge. Both of these options could provide adequate storage and taper for the westbound left-turn lanes. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 250 Draft EIS Transportation All of the access options would have excess capacity available at the key signalized accesses along Auburn Way North to accommodate additional growth due to development east of the Auburn Gateway project area. A th connection to these properties could be made at either 49Street SE or Robertson Way and will depend on the preferred access option. Properties located to the east of the Auburn Gateway project area may th desire access to South 277Street. For the reasons described above, it may not be possible to signalize an access located east of the current right- of-way for I Street NE due to the proximity of the Green River Bridge. However, an unsignalized access is possible and could provide right- th in/right-out access. Left-turn movements to and from South 277Street should be prohibited; vehicles would be able to access westbound South th 277Street via internal connections to I Street NE and/or Auburn Way North. The access alternatives were rated against several transportation network planning principles from Comprehensive Plan policies to determine those attributes that provide the best transportation network for the overall area. These ratings are shown on Table 37. This summary shows that access options C-1 and B/B-1 satisfy the most attributes, assuming that I Street NE were relocated far enough west for option B/B-1 to provide a dual left turn and appropriate roadway taper to serve the westbound-to-southbound movements. Table 37. Comparison of network planning principles and vehicle access options Access Access Access Options Access Option Access Access Network Principles Option A Option A-1 B/B1* B-2* Option C Option C-1 Improves City of Auburn -- street network Provides access choices -- -- Promotes safety -- -- -- Intersection treatments appropriate to handle -- -- expected demand Preserves arterial -- -- capacity and speed Minimizes impacts on adjacent development * With I Street alignment moved west from that shown Best Better -- No Change/Average Worse Poor wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 251 Special Area Plan Transportation Interim I Street NE Options The Northeast Auburn Special Area Plan is proposed to be implemented in phases between 2006 th and about 2014. Ultimately, the missing segment of I Street NE between South 277 Street and th 40 Street NE will be constructed. However, it is possible that only the northernmost part of this missing I Street NE segment will be constructed when the first phase of the development of the Auburn Gateway project area is completed. An interim analysis was performed for the year 2008 to test the conditions that would exist if the new section of I Street NE does not connect to th the existing northern terminus of I Street NE near 40Street NE. The two interim conditions are th th 1) to construct the new I Street NE arterial from South 277Street to 45Street NE or 2) to th construct the new I Street NE arterial from South 277Street to Robertson Way. Traffic patterns would change slightly if either of the incomplete I Street NE options are used. More traffic would have to use Auburn Way North, if I Street NE is not completed, between th South 277Street, the Auburn Gateway project area, and the area to the south. The traffic volumes used for this evaluation represent the 2008 PM peak-hour volumes under conditions resulting from the implementation of Alternative 1 and access option A. As mentioned, the 2020 offsite traffic volumes were developed using th Model (TModel Corporation 2003). These volumes were developed using land use growth that coincides with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) assumptions. The model determined that traffic volumes would grow at a compounded 1.8 percent annual rate until the year 2020. This growth rate was used to derive the interim year 2008 traffic volumes. For the purpose of this analysis, a consistent growth rate was assumed for all roadways and intersection turning movements in the network to evaluate the interim 2008 conditions. Trips for the first phase of this development alternative were derived from the proponent-provided phasing sequence described in Appendix B. The number of trips generated for this phase was estimated to be about 980 PM peak-hour trips, which represents 35 percent of the total trip generation for this development alternative. A level of service analysis was performed for selected onsite and site frontage intersections to evaluate the differences between the two interim I Street NE conditions. The level of service was analyzed using the same methodology as described previously. The results are shown below in Table 38. th As shown above, constructing the longer segment of I Street NE (between South 277Street and th 45Street NE) would provide the best scenario for the interim traffic operations in and around the planning area. This interim configuration would provide two access routes to Auburn Way, which would split the traffic load and improve operations. For this interim condition, it is th recommended that both connections to Auburn Way (at 45Street NE and Robertson Way or th th 49Street) be signalized. In addition, the intersection at I Street NE/Robertson Way (or 49 th Street) should also be signalized. It may be possible, in the interim, to operate I Street NE/45 Street NE as an unsignalized intersection where the arterial (or main flow of traffic) turns and any opposing movements are controlled by stop signs. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 252 Draft EIS Transportation Table 38. Levels of service for selected intersections with Interim I Street NE conditions. I Street NE I Street NE th Connected South to 45Connected South to Avenue NE Robertson Way aa LOS Delay LOS Delay Signalized Intersections Auburn Way North/Robertson Way A 7.2 D 39.4 th Street NE C 33.6 Unsignalized Auburn Way North/45 I Street NE/Robertson Way A 5.2 A 5.1 b Unsignalized Intersections thc I Street NE/45 Street NE th Auburn Way North/45 Street NE Signalized E 38.3 West site access driveway/Robertson Way B 11.1 F >120.0 South site access driveway/I Street NE B 14.7 NA LOS = level of service NA = not applicable (intersection would not exist with this access option) a Average seconds of delay per vehicle. b LOS reported for the side street movements. cth Assumes major turns between I Street NE and 45Street flow free and conflicting moves stop. Delay cannot be calculated. Traffic Safety th Historical accident data (Table 24) indicate that the intersections of Auburn Way North/15 Street NE and Auburn Way North/Eighth Street NE are ranked number one and number two, generated by the project at full build-out would increase the year 2020 traffic volumes at these intersections by between 2 and 4 percent depending on the development alternative. Statistically, increases in traffic can result in an increase in the accident rate. At these intersections, the vast majority of accidents involved vehicles turning left from Auburn Way North. The proposed project is not likely to increase these northbound or southbound left-turn movements. Therefore, the potential traffic safety impacts of the project would be very small. nd Avenue Other intersections with a high number of accidents are on Kent-Kangley Road at 132 th SE and 124 Avenue SE. The increase at these locations would range from 1 to 5 percent nd depending on the development alternative. Improvements are proposed at 132 Avenue SE to alleviate congestion; the improvements are also likely to improve safety. Transit There is little existing transit service in the vicinity of the Auburn Gateway project area. Alternative 1 (Retail and Office) and Alternative 3 (Retail and Residential) could generate increases in transit demand. The current transit routes primarily serve home-to-work trips that take commuters who reside in the area either to major employment centers (e.g., Seattle) or to the transit center in downtown Auburn. These routes could serve residents of the proposed wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 253 Special Area Plan Transportation development. If, however, a major office center is constructed (Alternative 1), some additional transit service, or changes to the existing transit service, may be required to bring commuters to the Auburn Gateway project area from other residential areas. Nonmotorized Facilities New sidewalks would be constructed along all public streets adjacent to the Auburn Gateway th project area. The City of Auburn may construct some of these improvements (e.g., South 277 Street, which is already planned to be widened to five lanes), and the project proponent may construct some of the improvements (e.g., Robertson Way). Regardless of which entity th constructs the street improvements, sidewalks would exist in the future along South 277 Street, Robertson Way, I Street NE, and the east side of D Street NE adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area. Internal connections would also be constructed between these public sidewalks and the development within the Auburn Gateway project area. Pedestrians using these sidewalks could connect with future developments and the Green River Trail located to the east of the Auburn Gateway project area. The development is intended to be pedestrian oriented and as a result will be an attraction to pedestrian/non-motorized travel both on-site and from future off-site development. The project will create impediments to non-motorized travel from construction of roadways and increased vehicle traffic. As an example, residential development off-site to the east of the RPG project area will be separated by the construction of the new I Street NE. Likewise, residential uses to the south would be separated from the RPG project area by internal roadways. th As part of the South 277 Street widening project, the City of Auburn has proposed to create a pedestrian/bicycle connection to the pedestrian bridge across the Green River, which would link the Green River Trail to a trail west of the Auburn Gateway project area. Instead of placing the trail along the street frontage, the project proponent could secure a deviation from the City of Auburn to design and construct a pedestrian way that meanders through the Auburn Gateway project area. Final design of this trail would occur later in the process. Concurrency Evaluation The results of the level of service analysis indicated that only two study area corridors within th Street and Auburn Way North) would Auburn (South 277 th threshold LOS D condition. The South 277 Street corridor would operate at LOS E in the year 2020 with Alternatives 1 or 2. This corridor level of service includes intersections from I Street NE to West Valley Highway. Even though the three eastern intersections, at SR 167 and at West Valley Highway, are outside the Citywere included in the corridor analysis because they function as part of the system. The below-standard level of service would be primarily related to poor operations at the Auburn Way North and West Valley Highway intersections. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 254 Draft EIS Transportation Further analysis was performed to determine when this corridor might surpass the LOS D concurrency threshold. The Growth Management Act requires that infrastructure needed for urban development be provided concurrently with development. The concurrency threshold for transportation infrastructure is a measure of the ability of the street system to handle traffic volumes, expressed as the level of service for key corridors. If traffic volumes combined with project-related traffic would cause a degradation in level of service for a corridor such that the corridor exceeds the concurrency threshold, then the project cannot be permitted unless additional capacity is provided before the project is completed. This analysis was based on the development phasing schedule provided by the project proponent th (see Appendix B). Figure 24 illustrates how the South 277 Street corridor delay would increase over time for all the action alternatives. It shows that the delay is not expected to exceed the LOS D threshold until after about 2017 for development Alternatives 1 and 2. This threshold would not be exceeded until after 2020 for development Alternative 3. Regardless of which alternative is constructed, the proposed development is expected to be complete before the threshold is exceeded. Therefore, the proposed project would not fail concurrency on the South th 277 Street corridor. The Auburn Way North corridor would only exceed the LOS D standard for development Alternative 1. For this alternative the delay would exceed the threshold by 2.3 seconds. As discussed later in the mitigation section of this report, one improvement is recommended for the th South 277 Street/Auburn Way North intersection (install a westbound right turn lane). The delay reduction associated with this improvement could bring the entire Auburn Way North corridor back to LOS D for development Alternative 1. In addition, this analysis does not include the potential for new signalized intersections on new arterials that could link Auburn Way North to I Street NE. (These were omitted because there are many potential options.) If these new signals operate at or below LOS D, they would also bring the corridor into compliance with the concurrency standard. Cumulative Impacts The traffic analysis for the year 2020 under the no build condition and all the development alternatives included growth associated with new development in Auburn and the region. Traffic volume forecasts were based on Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) information related to increases in population and employment through the year 2020. Thus, cumulative impacts have been evaluated. Additional development could occur on properties immediately adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area. This could include properties located east of the existing I Street NE right-of-way, located west of D Street NE, or to the southeast. However, no specific development proposals for any of these properties have been made. The internal roadway system to the Auburn th Gateway project area (including Robertson Way, 49 Street NE, D Street NE, and I Street NE) wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 255 Special Area Plan Transportation 80 75 Alternative 1 70 Alternative 2 65 Alternative 3 60 Maximum Delay for LOS D Conditions 55 50 45 No-build 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Year th Figure 24. Level of service for South 277Street corridor. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 256 Draft EIS Transportation would have excess capacity available to accommodate future growth of these properties. th Roadways such as 49Street NE or Robertson Way could be extended east to provide access between these properties and the new I Street NE arterial. Mitigation Measures This section describes potential improvements that should be considered to accommodate maximum build-out of the proposed project. If the project size and scope decrease, the need for these improvements may also decrease. These improvement measures include onsite roadways, offsite improvements, and payment of the City of development alternative is selected, the improvement measures will be refined to establish the mitigation program for the project. The discussion below uses the term signal warrants which are minimum volumes of traffic or pedestrians that must be present before a traffic signal is installed. Signal warrant thresholds are established by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). At least one of the MUTCD warrants should be met before a traffic signal is installed at an intersection, pursuant to City policy. Transportation Improvements in Immediate Site Vicinity The project would result in the construction of new roadways through the Auburn Gateway project area. These roadways would accommodate site-generated traffic as well as a high volume of through traffic generated by other land uses in Auburn and Kent. Details of various ehicle Access to and Circulation within the s of the site roadways and recommended improvements are summarized below: thth Construct I Street NE from South 277 Street to 45 Street NE. This andard and would include five lanes (two lanes in each direction plus a center left-turn lane). Auxiliary right-turn lanes may also be desired at major intersections and driveways. th Signalize the intersection of South 277 Street and I Street NE. Also construct a dual left-turn lane on the westbound approach. If access option A, A-1, C, or C-1 is chosen, construct Robertson Way between Auburn Way North and the eastern property line. This street should be designed as a collector arterial with three lanes (one lane in each direction plus a center left-turn lane). The intersection of Robertson Way and I Street NE should be signalized and should also be designed to accommodate a future easterly extension of this roadway. The traffic signal at this intersection could be replaced with a roundabout, if it can be wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 257 Special Area Plan Transportation designed to safely accommodate both the vehicular and pedestrian traffic demand. Under either of these access options, the intersection of Auburn Way North and Robertson Way should also be signalized. th If access option B, B-1, or B-2 is chosen, improve and widen 45 Street NE to three lanes (one lane in each direction and a center left-turn lane). If and when traffic signal warrants are met, signalize the intersection of thth 45 Street NE and I Street NE and the intersection of 45 Street NE and Auburn Way North. th If access option B, B-1, or B-2 is chosen, construct 49Street NE between Auburn Way North and the eastern property line. If access option C or C- th 1 is chosen, construct 49 Street between Auburn Way North and Robertson Way. This street should be three lanes (one lane in each direction plus a center left-turn lane). th For access option B, B-1, or B-2, signalize the intersection of 49 Street and I Street NE and design the intersection to accommodate a future easterly extension of the roadway. The traffic signal at this intersection could be replaced with a roundabout, if it can be designed to safely accommodate both the vehicular and pedestrian traffic demand. th Signalize the intersection of Auburn Way North and 49 Street for any of the access options if and when signal warrants are met. Improve the eastern half of D Street NE adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area. This roadway should be widened to accommodate three lanes (one lane in each direction plus a center left-turn lane). Sidewalks should also be added to the east side of the street along the frontage of the th Auburn Gateway project area. The intersection of D Street NE and 49 Street should be located far enough from Robertson Way to accommodate left turn movements to and from D Street NE. Prior to subdivision or development approvals, provide a pedestrian/non- motorized circulation plan for City review and approval. The plan, prepared for the area shall provide an efficient and safe pedestrian circulation system that provides appropriate crossing of I Street NE, D th Street NE, 49 Street NE, and Robertson Way at places where pedestrian/non-motorized crossing are likely to occur and where crossings can be safely accommodated with necessary improvements to minimize travel distance. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 258 Draft EIS Transportation Offsite Transportation Improvements Development of the Auburn Gateway project area could degrade traffic operations at several intersections in the study area. For the locations that would operate at LOS E or F in the year 2020 with or without the development associated with the proposed project, it is recommended that the project proponent contribute a proportional share to the intersection improvement. For the locations that the project causes to degrade to LOS E or F, it is recommended that the project proponent construct the improvement. Recommended offsite mitigation measures are presented in Table 39. Table 39. Recommended mitigation measures for offsite intersections. Location Recommended Mitigation Measure Proponent Responsibility th Auburn Way North/South 277 Add westbound right-turn lane Include in plans for widening South Street (City of Auburn) 277th Street between Auburn Way North and Green River. th Auburn Way North/37 Street NE Add southbound right-turn lane orConstruct improvement for action (City of Auburn) eastbound right-turn lane Alternatives 1 or 2, contribute proportional share for Alternative 3. Harvey Road NE/Eighth Street NE Widen southeast-bound Harvey Road (City of Auburn) NE to two lanes. widening Harvey Road NE. th Street Add northbound right-turn lane Contribute proportional share for all Central Avenue/South 259 (City of Kent) action alternatives. thth South 277 Street/55 Street NE Change lane configuration on westbound Contribute proportional share for action (City of Kent/King County) South 277th Street to provide a dual left-Alternatives 1 and 2. No improvement turn lane and one through lane. Widen needed for Alternative 3. th 55 Street to accommodate dual left turns. nd South 272 Street/Military Road Change from split signal phasing on None. Change should be included in (City of Kent/King County) north-south approaches to conventional King County and City of Kent plans for signal phasing. intersection improvements. th th SE 304Street/112 Avenue SE Signalize and widen intersection to Contribute proportional share for all (King County) provide left-turn lanes action alternatives. No mitigation has been identified for three intersections that would operate at LOS F in the year th 2020, with or without the development associated with the proposed project: South 277 th Street/West Valley Highway, Central Avenue/Willis Street, and 116 Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road. Major capacity projects would be required to improve operations at these intersections, and the potential increase in delay associated with even the worst-case action alternative would not warrant major capacity improvements If the City of Kent or King County have required mitigation for these locations from other developers, the City of Auburn would consider reasonable mitigation request for these locations. Transportation Demand Management If significant office development is included in the Auburn Gateway project, tenants should be required to evaluate strategies for managing transportation demand that reduce the use of single- occupant vehicles for commuting to the project area. Such strategies could include increased reverse-commute bus service, custom bus service, vanpool, van-share (where a commuter van is wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 259 Special Area Plan Transportation located at a major transit hub such as the Auburn or Kent Commuter Rail Stations), and carpool options. Traffic Impact Fee The City of Auburn has adopted a traffic impact fee ordinance (ACC 19.04), which sets the guidelines and requirements for calculating a traffic impact fee. The ordinance states that the amount of impact fees shall be determined at the time an applicant submits a complete application for a building permit, using the impact fee schedules then in effect, or pursuant to an independent fee calculation accepted by the director and adjusted for any credits. Pursuant to ACC 19.04.060, the project proponent chould be eligible for a credit against the transportation impact fees for construction of transportation facilities or improvements that are identified as capacity improvements in the capital facilities plan, or if the director, at his/her discretion, makes the finding that such land, improvements, and/or facilities would serve the transportation goals and objectives of the capital facilities plan. Thus, any construction that the th project proponent completes on South 277 Street, I Street NE, or the streets that connect th Auburn Way North and I Street NE (either Robertson Way or 49 Street NE) that are not improvements could receive a full or partial credit against the traffic impact fee. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts All of the development alternatives would result in additional traffic at several intersections that would operate at LOS F in the future. This DEIS does not identify mitigation for three th intersections at which the project would cause an increase in delay: South 277 Street/West th Valley Highway, Central Avenue/Willis Street, and 116 Avenue SE/Kent-Kangley Road. These three intersections would operate at LOS F regardless of whether or not the proposed project is developed. Also, the incremental contribution of trips generated by Alternative 1 (the office alternative), which would generated the greatest number of peak hour trips, is marginal in relation to the overall total 2020 projected trip volumes at these intersections. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 260 Draft EIS PART 4 Consultation Agency Consultation Agency Consultation The following agencies have been consulted regarding the proposed project: City of Kent Transportation Department Kent School District Port of Seattle U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) King County Department of Transportation (King County DOT) King County Historic Preservation Program (King County HPP) Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 261 Special Area Plan PART 5 References and Distribution List References References AESI. 1998. Geotechnical Report Regarding Reuse of Soil from the Port of Seattle Property, North Auburn LID project, Auburn, Washington. Prepared for Landmark, Inc, Bellevue, Washington, by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. March 6, 1998. Anderson Map Company. 1907. Atlas of King County, Washington. Anderson Map Company, Seattle, Washington. Aquacraft. 2000. Results from the Seattle Home Water Conservation Study, 2000. Obtained November 25, 2003, from Aquacraft, Inc., website: www.aquacraft.com/Publications/seattlr.htm. Architects BCRA. 2003. Auburn Gateway Design Guidelines. November 11, 2003. Auburn, City of. 1992. SuperMall of the Great Northwest Draft Supplemental EIS. City of Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development. June 18, 1992. Auburn, City of. 1997. Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Ordinance 5051. December 1997. Auburn, City of. 1998a. Ordinance No. 5029. Published January 23, 1998. Auburn, City of. 1998b. Design and Construction Standards. October 1998. Auburn, City of. 2001. Comprehensive Water Plan. Department of Public Works. Auburn, City of. 2002a. Roadway Design Standards. City of Auburn, Engineering Division. June 2002. Auburn, City of. 2002 Transportation Improvement Program. Adopted September 19, 2002. Auburn, City of. 2002c. Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Produced by Tetra Tech/KCM, Seattle, Washington. August 2002. Auburn, City of. 2002e. Geographic information system data. Provided to Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, on May 14, 2002, by Ed Knight, City of Auburn. Hazard area maps provided by City of Auburn, Planning Department. Data include city limits; street centerlines; Comprehensive Plan designations; zoning designations; FEMA zones; digital orthophotos; water , storm, and sewer utility systems; buildings; topography; wetlands; and Auburn, City of. 2003a. Sanitary sewer information obtained March 3, 2003, from website: <http://auburn.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B169C1C7-0E5D-4C0A-BED6- D0B71BAF0303}>. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 263 Special Area Plan References Auburn, City of. 2003b. Water supply information obtained March 5, 2003, from website: <http://www.ci.auburn.wa.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={FDAE7045-E59E-4EDA-BAC2- 68BC4D6A48AB}>. Auburn, City of. 2003c. Population information obtained June 30, 2003, from website: <http://www.ci.auburn.wa.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={4519E3FE-1CF4-4C9B-B0FF- 1E1519A4956E}>. Auburn, City of. 2003d. Accident Data (Report Period Ja Partial Intersection List. Unpublished data provided on request by the Auburn Department of Public Works. Auburn, City of. 2003e. GIS files of storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water supply utility layout for Auburn grids 108, 109, 208, and 209. Emailed by Ed Knight of the City of Auburn to Erich Hester, Environmental, Inc., Seattle, Washington. April 29, 2003. Auburn, City of. 2003f. City of Auburn Capital Facilities Plan. Auburn, City of. 2003g. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Originally adopted in August 1986; amended in April 1995 to comply with the Growth Management Act. Revised December 2003. Bagley, Clarence B. 1929. History of King County, Washington. S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Ballard Deposition. 1951. Deposition of Oral Examination of Arthur Condict Ballard in Muckleshoot Tribe of Indians on Relation of Napoleon Ross, Chairman of the General Council, Claimant v. The United States of America, Defendant. 2 vols. Heard before the Indian Claims Commission of the United States, 26-28 November, Seattle, Washington. Carolyn T. Taylor, Court Reporter, Seattle, Washington. Ballard, Arthur C. 1929. Village Sites. Erna Gunther Papers, Accession No. 614-70-20, Box 2-17. Unpublished field notes and papers on file at Manuscripts and University Archives. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Bats Northwest. 2003. Information obtained May 6, 2003, from website: <http://www.batsnorthwest.org/>. Berg, Ken. 2003. Personal communication (letter to Diane Hennessey, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding occurrence of endangered and threatened species within the vicinity of the planning area for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 4, 2003. Bishop, Todd. 2001. Drive-in on Its Way Out: Big Commercial Complex May Replace the Valley 6. Puget Sound Business Journal, July 13, 2001. Obtained from website: <http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/ stories/2001/07/16/story3.html>. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 264 Draft EIS References Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture. 2003. Reptiles of Washington. Information obtained May 5, 2003, from website: <http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/herp/reptwash.htm. Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. Mammals. Peterson Field Guides. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. Carlaw, Tim. 2003. Personal communication (Telephone conversations with Erich Hester, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding modeling of city drainage in the Northeast Auburn Special Plan Area, Green River floodplain characteristics, and City requirements for stormwater management). City of Auburn). May 19, May 29, June 18, June 19, and September 15, 2003. Chickering, G.H., Jr. 1965. Aerial photo of Thomas vicinity. Photo. No. K-SN-65 FL. !5A-14, flown 30 June. Prepared by the Office of G.H. Chickering, Jr., Eugene, Oregon, for the Puget Sound Regional Transportation Study. ndth Coot. 1995. Wetlands Inventory for the Proposed 272/277 Street North Corridor Project. Prepared for City of Kent by The Coot Company, Olympia, Washington. Corkran, C.D. and C. Thomas. 1996. Amphibians of OR, WA, and BC. Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington. David Evans. 1998a. Wetland Delineation on the Stein Property, Auburn, Washington. Prepared for Landmark, Inc., by David Evans and Associates, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. David Evans. 1998b. Wetland Delineation on the Auburn Properties, Auburn, Washington. Prepared for Landmark, Inc., by David Evans and Associates, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. DBM. 2000. Memorandum regarding sanitary sewer and water connection and capacity issues for the Pacific Theatres Site in Auburn, Washington. Prepared for Mark Miller of Pacific Theatres Realty Corp by DBM Consulting Engineering, Auburn, Washington. September 7, 2000. DBM. 2003a. Draft Environmental Checklist. Prepared for Robertson Properties Group by DBM Consulting Engineers, Auburn, Washington. January 22, 2003. DBM. 2003b. Valley 6 Drive-in Wetland Delineation. Prepared for Robertson Properties Group by DBM Consulting Engineers, Auburn, Washington. September 18, 2003. Dixon, Jeff. 2003b. Personal communication (email to Bruce Carpenter, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Seattle, Washington). City of Auburn, Planning Department. February 6, 2003. Ecology. 1992. Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Washington State Department of Ecology. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 265 Special Area Plan References Ecology. 1995. 1994 Washington State Water Quality Assessment \[305 (b)\] Report Companion Document. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Division, Water Quality Program. Ecology. 1997. 1995-1996 Air Quality Annual Report. Publication No. 96-217. Washington State Department of Ecology, Air Quality Program, Lacey, Washington. Ecology. 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for West 11 through 99-15. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. August 2001. Ecology. 2003. 1998 303(d) List for Duwamish/Green Water Resource Inventory Area #9. Obtained June 20, 2003, from Washington Department of Ecology website: <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/303d/w9a-303d.pdf>. Eder, T. 2002. Mammals of Washington and Oregon. Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington. EDR. 2002. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck for Auburn Valley 6 Drive-In. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. January 4, 2002. FEMA. 1995. National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas. Panels 1251 and 1252 . Map Nos. 53033C1251F and 53033C1252F. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Revised May 16, 1995. Fielding, Joe. 2003. Personal communication (telephone conversation Diane Hennessey, Herrera ndth Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding the 272/277 Street improvement project EIS and mitigation plan). Engineer, City of Kent. April 30, 2003. Flewelling, Stan. 1990. Farmlands: The Story of Thomas, a Small Agricultural Community in King County, Washington. Erick Sanders Historical Society, Auburn, Washington. General Land Office. 1854. Donation Land Claim for William A. Cox and Elizabeth Cox. General Land Office. 1874. Certificate No. 632, Notification No. 815. Manuscripts on file at the Tacoma Public Library, Tacoma, Washington. Hayes, Casey. 2003. Personal communication (letter to Erich Hester, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding drainage issues and estimated fill in the Green River floodplain for the Valley 6 Drive-in project). DBM Consulting Engineers, Auburn, Washington. May 28, 2003. Herrera. 2003. Hydraulic Model Evaluation of Potential Drainage System Impacts Associated with the Auburn Gateway Project. Draft report. Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, for City of Auburn. December 18, 2003. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 266 Draft EIS References Hitchcock, L.C. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Horner, R.R., J.J. Skupien, E.H. Livingston, and H.E. Shaver. 1994. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues. Prepared by the Terrene Institute, Washington, D.C., in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ICBO. 1997. Uniform Building Code, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Vol. 2. International Conference of Building Officials. Ingles, L.G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. ITE. 1997. Trip Generation. 6th Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE. 1998. Trip Generation Handbook, A Recommended Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers. October 1998. Johnson, D.H. and T.A. -Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. First Edition. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Johnson, S.Y., S.V. Dadisman, J.R. Childs, and W.D. Stanley. 1999. Active Tectonics of the Seattle Fault and Central Puget for Earthquake Hazards. GSA Bulletin 111 (7):.1042-1053. Kent, City of. 2003a. Six Year Transportation Improvement Program Kent, City of. 2003b. Accident Data (Report Period January , 2002). Partial Intersection List. Unpublished data provided on request by the Kent Department of Public Works. King County. 1987. King County Wildlife Habitat Profile, King County Open Space Program. King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department. King County. 1990. Sensitive Areas Map Folio. December 1990. King County. 1993. Flood Hazard Reduction Plan. Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division. King County. 1998. King County, Washington, Surface Water Design Manual King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington. King County. 2002a. King County Countywide Planning Policies. Department of Development and Environmental Services. Updated November 2002. King County. 2002b. Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 20 Transit. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 267 Special Area Plan References King County. 2003a. Tax parcel information obtained from Department of Development and Environmental Services. Obtained February 18, 2003, from website: <http://apps01.metrokc.gov/assessor/erealproperty/parcel.asp>. King County. 2003b. Information from Wastewater Treatment Division, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, obtained March 5, 2003, from website: <http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/>. King County. 2003c. Assessor Real Property Records. Obtained August 25, 2003, from King County website: <http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/iMAP_main.htm>. King County. 2003d. Roads Capital Improvement Program Summary. King County Department of Transportation. Obtained October 16, 2003, from King County website: <http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/rods/cip>. King County. 2003e. Accident Data (Report Period Ja 31, 2002). Partial Intersection List. Unpublished data provided on request by the King County Roads Division. King County. 2003f. Parcel information. Department of Development and Environmental Services. Obtained November 18, 2003, from website: <http://apps01.metrokc.gov/assessor/erealproperty/parcel.asp>. King County. 2003g. Metro route schedules. King County Metro Transit. Obtained in February 2003 from King County website: <http//tripplanner.metrokc.gov>. King County. 2003h. Information on implementation of the King County Regional Wastewater Services Plan. Obtained November 24, 2003, from website: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/rwsp/approved.htm. Kroll Map Company. 1940. KrKroll Map Company, Seattle, Washington. Kroll Map Company. 1958. KrKroll Map Company, Seattle, Washington. Landau. 2003. Phase I Environmental Site Asse Washington. Prepared for Robertson Properties Group (agent for Auburn Properties, Inc.) of Los Angeles, California, by Landau Associates, Edmonds, Washington. February 5, 2003. Lane, Barbara. 1973. Anthropological Report on the Identity and Treaty Status of the Muckleshoot Indians. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Muckleshoot Tribe. Manuscript on file at Special Collections, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 268 Draft EIS References Larkin, R.P. 1995. Human Noise and Wildlife. Illinois Natural History Survey Report. January/February 1995. Survey Document #2115. Obtained from website: <http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/surveyreports/jan-feb95/page1.html>. Leff, Marni. 2000. At the Valley 6 Drive-in Theatre, You Night. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 30, 2000. Obtained from website: <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ lifestyle/hood 30.shtml>. Lentz, Florence. 1995. An Inventory and Evaluation of Historic Properties Associated with Transportation in Washington State. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History 100-90. Submitted to the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Tones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. Levesque, Andy. 2003. Personal communication (email to Erich Hester, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding flood flows in the Green River and regulating effects of Howard Hanson Dam). King County Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington. September 17, 2003. Louther, Marti. 2003. Personal communication (telephone conversation with Diane Hennessey, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding wildlife on Portland RPG properties). Biologist, Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. May 9, 2003. Luzier, J.E. 1969. Geology and Ground Water Resources of Southwestern King County, Washington. Water Supply Bulletin No. 28. Washington Department of Water Resources, Olympia, Washington. McCrumb, D.R., R.W. Galster, R.S. Crossdon, R.S. Ludwin, D.O. West, W.E. Hancock, and L.V. Mann. 1989. Tectonics, Seismicity, and Engineering Seismology in Washington. Bulletin 78, Engineering Geology in Washington, Vol. I. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington. Metsker, Charles. 1936. Me County. Metsker Map Company, Seattle, Washington. Nagorsen, D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. NOAA Fisheries. 2003. Endangered and threatened species database search. Obtained May 9, 2003, from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website: <http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/mapswitc.htm>. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 269 Special Area Plan References Noson, L.L., A. Quamar, and G.W. Thorsen. 1988. Washington State Earthquake Hazards. Information Circular 85. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington. OFM. 2003. Official April 1, 2003 Population Estimates: April 1 Population of Cities, Towns, and Counties. State of Washington Office of Financial Management. Last modified July 10, 2003. Osborne, Tim. 2003. Personal communication (email to Erich Hester, Environmental, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding the existing and future capacity of the City of Auburn water supply. City of Auburn water utility. June 10, 2003. Pacific Aerial Surveys, Incorporated. 1961. Aerial photo of Thomas vicinity. Photo No. A-98-16- 13, Flown 7 August. On file at Maps Collection, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Pacific Biodiversity Institute. 2003. Information obtained May 5, 2003, from Endangered Species Information Network Web page: <http://www.pacificbio.org/ESIN/Infopages/Washingtonlist.html>. Palmer, S.E., T.J. Walsh, R.L. Logan, and W.J. Gerstel. 1995. Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Auburn and Poverty Bay 7.5-Minute Quadrangles, Washington. Geologic Map GM-43. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Olympia, Washington. Parametrix. 2001a. Natural Resource Mitigation Plan Seattle-Tacoma International Master Plan Update Improvements, Auburn, Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle by Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. Parametrix. 2001b. Draft Biological Assessment for Seattle-Tacoma International Master Plan Update Improvements, Auburn, Washington. Prepared for Port of Seattle by Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. Parametrix. 2003. Port of Seattle Master Plan Improvements Wetland Delineation Report for the Construction Access and Staging Site, Auburn Wetland Mitigation Project. Prepared for Port of Seattle by Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. ndth Pentec. 2000. City of Kent South 272/277 Street Corridor, Green River Enhancement, and Ramstead Creek Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects Biological Assessment. Prepared for City of Kent by Pentec Environmental, Inc., Edmonds, Washington. February 25, 2000. Prezant. 2002. Asbestos and Lead Survey Report, Auburn Valley Drive In Theater, Auburn Way th and 277, Auburn, Washington. Prepared by Prezant Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 13, 2002. As cited in Landau 2003. PSCAA. 2003. 1999-2001 Air Quality Data Summary. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. May 2003. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 270 Draft EIS References PSE. 2003. Personal communication (telephone conversation with Diana Phelan, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding information on PCB content of electrical transformers located on and adjacent to the planning area for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan). Puget Sound Energy, Bellevue, Washington. March 6, 2003. PSRC. 2003. Tier II Adjusted Mobile5b CO Emission Factors. Provided to MFG, Inc., by Kelly McGourty, Puget Sound Regional Council. Radle, A.L. No date. The Effect of Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. World Forum for Acoustic Ecology. University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Obtained from website: <http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/wfae/readings/radle.html>. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 2001. Fecal Coliform TMDL Development for Hunt River, Rhode Island, Final Report, issued February 2001. Obtained November 2, 2003, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website: <http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/examples/pathogens/ri_hunt.pdf>. Rodrick, E and R Milner, eds. 1991. Management Recommendatio Habitats and Species. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. As cited in Pentec 2000. Roscoe, Jeff. 2003. Personal communication (emails to Erich Hester, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding the existing condition of and future plans for the City of Auburn sanitary sewer system in the vicinity of the planning area. City of Auburn sanitary sewer utility April 8 and June 11, 2003. Sibley, D.A. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of the Western North America. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington State Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. South King County Genealogical Society. 1996. King County, Washington, Deat. Heritage Books, Incorporated, Bowie, Maryland. St. John, A. 2002. Reptiles of the Northwest. Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington. Tchobanoglous, George, and Franklin L. Burton. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York. . Thomas Bros. Maps. 2000. The Thomas Guide: Pacific Northwest, Washington and Oregon. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 271 Special Area Plan References Thomas, D.W. and S.P. West. 1986. Forest Age Association of Bats in the Southern Cascades, Oregon Coast Range. Unpublished report on Cooperative Agreement PNW-84-234. Pacific Northwest Forest Range Experimental Station, Portland, Oregon. As cited in Pentec 2000. TModel Corporation. 2003. Travel Demand Forecasting Model. Output from model run April 2003. TRB. 1997. Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board. Updated 1997. TRB. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board. U.S. COE, King County, City of Kent, and City of Auburn. 2000. Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), King County, Washington. Prepared for Mill Creek SAMP Interagency Committee. Obtained from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website: <http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/MILL_SAMP_master8.doc>. U.S. COE. 1907. Duwamish-Puyallup Surveys, Sheet 12, Christopher. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. U.S. COE. 2001. Corps of Engineers Memorandum for Record for the Port of Seattle, Regarding Alternative Access Route to the Auburn Mitigation Site. Corps File No. 1996-4-02325. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. COE. 2003. Corps of Engineers letter from Thomas Mueller to Elizabeth Leavitt, Port of th Seattle, Regarding wetland verification of the 35-acre Port property located south of 277 Street dated June 5, 2003. Corps File No. 199602325. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. EPA. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Technical Report NTID300.1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guide to CAL3QHC Version 2.0: A Modeling Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations near Roadway Intersections. EPA-454/R-92-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 1992. U.S. EPA. 1992b. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections. EPA- 454/R-92-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 1992. U.S. EPA. 1996. MobiS. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, National Motor Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory. Ann Arbor, Michigan. September 1996. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 272 Draft EIS References U.S. EPA. 2002. Coastlines newsletter, August 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Obtained November 3, 2003, from website: <http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/aug00/sources.html>. U.S. EPA. 2003. Air quality data. Obtained October 15, 2003, from the AIRData web page on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website: <http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html>. Ulman, Joe. 2003. Personal communication (email to Ralph Wessels, Port of Seattle, regarding flood studies). Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, Washington. March 12, 2003. USGS. 1983. Auburn, Washington 7.5 by 15 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. USGS. 1996. Assessing Earthquake Hazards and Reducing Risk in the Pacific Northwest. Professional Paper 1560, Vol. 1. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. USSG. 1863a. General Land Office Survey Map, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. United States Surveyor General. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. USSG. 1863b. General Land Office Survey Map, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. United States Surveyor General. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. USSG. 1867a. General Land Office Survey Map, Township 21 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. United States Surveyor General. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. USSG. 1867b. General Land Office Survey Map, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. United States Surveyor General. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. USSG. 1868a. General Land Office Survey Notes, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. United States Surveyor General. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. UW. 1990. Aerial photographs from the University of Washington map database. Photographs dated 1990; source unknown. Obtained April 4, 2003, from website: <http://duff.geology.Washington.edu/data/raster/doqs>. Walker & Associates. 1phs of the planning area for the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan and the surrounding area. Taken in 1936, 1960, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1999, and 2000 by Walker & Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 273 Special Area Plan References Washington State Archives. 2003. Historical property tax records obtained from the Washington State Archives, Puget Sound Branch, Bellevue, Washington. Information reviewed by Herrera representative on February 27, 2003. Waterman, T.T. ca. 1920. Puget Sound Geography. Unpublished manuscript on file in Pacific Northwest Collection, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Watt, Roberta Frye. 1931. Four Wagons West, the Story of Seattle. Binfords and Mort, Publishers, Portland, Oregon. WDFW. 1998. Washington State 1997 Salmonid Stock Inventory: Bull trout/Dolly Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Management. WDFW. 1999. Priority habitats and species. Database, habitat, and species map for Auburn quad, 4712232. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. As cited in Pentec 2000. WDFW. 2003. Priority Habitats and Species Map. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Atlas of King County. Map on file at the White River Valley Museum, Auburn, Washington. Wessels, Ralph. 2003a. Personal communication (letter to Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn, regarding flood control zone permit applind development project). Third Runway Project Manager, Port of Seattle. October 30, 2003 Wessels, Ralph. 2003b. Personal communications (telephone conversations with Erich Hester, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington, regarding timing and other parameters of a wetland mitigation project in the floodplain of the Green River.) Third Runway Project Manager). Port of Seattle. April 1 and 8, 2003. Williams, P., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization: Vol. 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Woodward, D.G., F.A. Packard, N.P. Dion, and S.S. Sumioka. 1995. Occurrence and Quality of Ground Water in Southwestern King County, Washington. Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4098. U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, Washington. WSDOT. 2003. Accident Data (Report Period January 1, 2000 Intersection List. Unpublished data provided on request by the Washington State Department of Transportation. wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan 274 Draft EIS Distribution List Distribution List City of Auburn 25 West Main St Duane Husky Auburn WA 98001-4998 Public Works, Assistant City Engineer/Utilities Pete Lewis Mayor Dennis Selle Public Works City Council Members (8) City Engineer/ Assistant PW Director Planning Commission Members (7) Laura Philpot Public Works -Transportation Engineer Dan Heid David Osaki City Attorney Community Development Administrator Planning Daryl Faber Director Al Hicks Parks and Recreation Economic Development Coordinator Planning Dennis Dowdy Director Public Works Local and Regional Agencies Kurt Horton, Senior Planner Jim Kelly City of Kent Police Chief th Ave S 220 4 Paul Krauss Kent WA 98032-5895 Director Matthew Gilbert, Planner Planning and Community Development City of Kent th Russ Vandver 220 4 Ave S Fire Chief Kent WA 98032-5895 Gwen Derdowski Shelley Coleman Director Kent School District th Finance 12033 SE 256 St Ste A600 Kent WA 98030 Joe Welsh Fred Satterstrom Planning Director City of Kent th 220 4 Ave S Kent WA 98032-5895 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 275 Special Area Plan Distribution List Local and Regional Agencies (continued) Mike Newman, Assoc Superintendent Auburn School District #408 Jeff Gaisford Section Mgr th 915 4 St NE Recycling and Environ Serv Section Auburn WA 98002 King County Solid Waste Division 201 S Jackson St Ste 701 Shirley Marroquin Seattle WA 98104 Environmental Planning Supervisor King County Wastewater Treatment Div Rhonda Strauch 201 S Jackson St, MS Ksc-Nr-0505 King County Roads Division Seattle WA 98104-3855 201 S Jackson St Ksc-Tr-0231 Seattle WA 98104-3855 Charlie Sundberg King County Historic Presrv Prgrm Greg Borba - Current Planning Off Business Relations / Eco Dev KC Dept Of Development & Envir Services rd 516 3 Avenue Room 550 900 Oaksdale Ave SW Ste 100 Seattle WA 98104-2307 Renton WA 98055-1219 Dave Clark, Rivers Section Mgr Paul Reitenbach, Sr Policy Analyst KC DNRP / Wtr and Land Res KC Dept of Development & Envir Services th 700 5 Ave Ste 2200 900 Oaksdale Ave SW, MS Oak-De-0100 Seattle WA 98104-3855 Renton WA 98055-1219 Andrea Myntti Gale Yuen, RS KC DNRP/ Wtr and Land Resources Div Seattle/King Co Dept of Public Health 201 S Jackson 1404 Central Ave S Ste 101 Ste 600 Kent WA 98032 Seattle WA 98104 Clark Townsend Daryl Grigsby, Manager Green River Community College KC DNRP/ Wtr and Land Resources Div 201 S Jackson St Ste 600 th 12401 SE 320 St Seattle WA 98104 Auburn WA 98092-3699 Joe Scholz, Mayor Kathy McClung City of Algona Community Development Services Dir 402 Warde St City of Federal Way Algona WA 98001 P O Box 9718 st 33530 1 Way S Isabel Tinoco, Director Federal Way WA 98063-9718 Environmental Dept Fisheries Office Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Gary Kriedt, Sr Environmental Planner nd 39015 172 Ave SE Metro Transit Auburn WA 98002 201 Jackson St, MS Ksc-Tr-0431 Seattle WA 98104-3856 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc Herrera Environmental Consultants 276 January 30, 2004 Distribution List Local and Regional Agencies (continued) SEPA/GMA Coordinator Department of Ecology Gerry Pade P O Box 47600 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Olympia WA 98504-7600 110 Union St Ste 500 Seattle WA 98101-3423 John Aden Dept of Health Div of Drinking Water Perry Weinberg, SEPA Responsible Ofcl P O Box 47822 Sound Transit Olympia WA 98504-7822 1100 Second Ave Ste 500 Seattle WA 98101-3423 SEPA Responsible Official Dept of Natural Resources SEPA Center Harriet Beale P O Box 47015 Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Olympia WA 98504-7015 P O Box 40900 Elizabeth Mcnagny Olympia WA 98504-0900 Dept of Social and Health Services Melissa Calvert, Wildlife/ Cultural Dir P O Box 45848 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cultural Program Olympia WA 98504-5848 nd 39015 172 Ave SE Washington State Office of Archaeology & Auburn WA 98092-9763 Historic Preservation 1063 S Capital Wy Ste 106 Steve Taylor, Planning Director P O Box 48343 Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Program nd Olympia WA 98504-8343 Ave SE 39015 172 Auburn WA 98092-9763 Terry Michalson Facilities/Org Spvsr Superintendent of Public Instruction Ralph Wessels, Project Mgr State of Washington Port of Seattle P O Box 47200 P O Box 68727 Olympia WA 98504-7200 Seattle WA 98168 Ike Nwankwo Norman Abbot SEPA Responsible Official Wa State Office of Commerce Dev Puget Sound Regional Council P O Box 42525 1011 Western Ave Olympia WA 98504-2525 Suite 500 Seattle WA 98104 Ramin Pazooki King County Area Developer Services WSDOT NW Region State Agencies P O Box 330310 Ms 240 Nancy Winters Seattle, WA 98155 Department of Corrections Environmental Review Section P O Box 41112 Department of Ecology Olympia WA 98504-1112 P O Box 47703 Olympia WA 98504-7703 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 277 Special Area Plan Distribution List State Agencies (continued) SEPA Responsible Official US Soil Conservation Service Anne Sharar 935 Powell Department of Natural Resources Renton WA 98055 P O Box 47001 Olympia WA 98504-7001 Krista-Rave Perkins Wetlands Specialist US Environmental Protection Agency Lorinda Anderson th 1200 6 Ave Interagency Comm Outdoor Recreation Seattle WA 98101 P O Box 40917 Olympia WA 98504-0917 Jeanette Mullin Federal Emergency Mgmt Agency Bill Wiebe th 130 228 St SW Department of Transportation Bothell WA 98177 P O Box 47300 Olympia WA 98504-7370 Market Analysis Staff Oasm US Dept of Housing and Urban Dev Rex Derr 909 First Ave Ste 200 Parks and Recreation Commission Seattle WA 98104-1000 P O Box 42653 Olympia WA 98504-2653 US Dept of Interior - Fish and Wildlife 510 Desmond Dr SE Ste 102 Office of Urban Mobility Lacey WA 98503-1263 State of Washington 401 Second Ave S NOAA Fisheries Suite 300 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle WA 98104-2862 Seattle WA 98115 Steve Penland Department of Fish and Wildlife Non-Governmental Agencies P O Box 43155 Rainier Audubon Society Olympia WA 98504-0315 P O Box 778 Auburn WA 98071 Larry Fisher WDFW C/O Doe Friends of the Green River 3190 160th Ave SE 10510 11th Avenue NE Bellevue WA 98008 Seattle WA 98125 Mike Morrisette Federal Agencies Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce US Army Corps of Engineers 108 S Division Ste B Seattle District Regulatory Div Auburn WA 98001 4735 E Marginal Way S P O Box 3755 Seattle WA 98124-3755 wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc Herrera Environmental Consultants 278 January 30, 2004 Distribution List Non-Governmental Agencies (continued) Kent Regional Library nd 212 2 Ave N SEPA Responsible Official Kent, WA 98032 Puget Sound Energy 3130 S 38th St Tac-Anx Tacoma, WA 98409 Parties of Interest Brien Stafford Nancy Krause, Executive Director Auburn Downtown Association Kate Collins 16 S Division St Auburn WA, 98001 Jay Lorenz Terra Associates Media Brad Hughes Auburn Reporter P O Box 130 John Yorke Kent WA 98035-0130 AYSA King County Journal Mike Carpinito P O Box 130 Pat Wolfson Kent WA 98032 Buck & Gordon LLP Seattle Times South Bureau rd Terrence Danysh, Partner 11620 23 Ave S #312 Dorsey & Whitney LLP Federal Way WA 98003 Linda Cowan, Superintendent Southend News Auburn School District #408 Seattle Post-Intelligencer P O Box 1909 Patrick Mullaney Seattle WA 98111 Foster Pepper & Shefelman Lisa Lannigan Arthur Hrin Daily Journal of Commerce P O Box 11050 Dana Mower Seattle WA 98111-9051 DBM Consulting Engineers The News Tribune Jim Gordon 32050 23 Ave S WPM South Federal Way WA 98003 Robert Betts Robert Betts Inc Libraries Auburn Regional Library Wes Giesbrecht 1102 Auburn Way S President Auburn WA 98002 Atlin Investments Inc wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS 279 Special Area Plan Distribution List Parties of Interest (continued) Cheryl Henry & Associates Laurie Humphreys Cathy Garland Childrens Home Society Anil Butail P.E. President Colleen Thersen Terra Associates Inc Les & Doris Williams John Manavian, AIA Robertson Properties Group Al Yamada Brian McCabe Angela Black Dennis Delahunt Granville Horn John Faulkner Anna Nelson Aviation Business Development Office Port Of Seattle Buck and Gordon John Corrado Ronald Stein Mark Tullis Peter Dituri Tullis Investments Mark & Wendy Belchoff wp1 /01-01924-000 eis no subdocuments.doc Herrera Environmental Consultants 280 January 30, 2004 APPENDIX A Proposed Allowable Uses for the Auburn Gateway Project Area Proposed Allowable Uses for the Auburn Gateway Project Area A. Arcades, if accessory to a permitted use B. Art, music, and photography studios C. Automobile parking facilities D. Automobile service station, if accessory to a permitted use E. Bakery and pastry shops, products made must be sold at retail on the premises F. Banking and related financial institutions G. Brew pubs H. Civic, social, and fraternal associations I. Daycare, including home-based, mini-daycare, daycare centers, preschool, or nursery schools J. Delicatessens and coffee houses K. Discount club retailer L. Dry cleaning and laundry services M. Grocery stores N. Health and physical fitness clubs O. Hobby shops P. Hospitals, to include small animal, but not allowing outside runs or kennels Q. Hotels, including reception and meeting rooms as an accessory use R. Liquor store S. Massage parlor T. Multifamily residential (limited to specific number of units and percentage of the planning area) U. Newsstands V. Personal service shops wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix a.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS A-1 Special Area Plan List of Allowable Uses for the Auburn Gateway Project Area W. Pharmacies X. Small-scale reproduction and printing services Y. Professional offices Z. Post offices, accessory or branch locations only AA. Radio and television broadcasting studios BB. Restaurants CC. Retail stores and shops, including department and variety stores that offer for sale the following and similar related goods: 1. Antiques 2. Art supplies 3. Automobile parts and accessories 4. Baked goods 5. Beverages 6. Bicycles 7. Books and magazines 8. Candy, nuts, and confectionery 9. Clothing 10. Computers 11. Dairy products 12. Dry goods 13. Flowers and house plants 14. Fruits and vegetables 15. Furniture and home furnishings 16. Hardware, including electrical, heating, plumbing, glass, paint, wallpaper, and related goods 17. Home garden supplies 18. Household appliances wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix a.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan A-2 Draft EIS List of Allowable Uses for the Auburn Gateway Project Area 19. Household pets and supplies 20. Housewares 21. Jewelry and clocks 22. Meat, fish, and poultry (preprocessed) 23. Notions 24. Nursery and horticultural products 25. Office supplies and equipment 26. Photographic equipment, including finishing 27. Radio, television, stereos, and household electronics 28. Recorded music and movies 29. Shoes 30. Sporting goods 31. Stationery 32. Toys. DD. Schools, including art, business, barber, beauty, dancing, driving, martial arts, and music EE. Secretarial services FF. Taverns GG. Theaters, walk up HH. Other uses may be permitted by the planning director if the use is determined to be consistent with the intent of the zone and is of the same general character as the uses permitted in this zone. wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix a.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS A-3 Special Area Plan APPENDIX B Proposed Construction Phasing for the Auburn Gateway Project Auburn Gateway Proposed Construction Phasing 2005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6Year 7Year 8Year 9Year 10Year 11Year 12Year 13Year 14Year 15Year 16 Retail Alt Infrastructure* Retail SF Phase 1175,000 Phase 246,25046,25046,25046,250 Phase 345,00045,00045,00045,000 Phase 445,00045,00045,00045,000 Total SF175,00091,25091,25091,25091,25045,00045,00045,00045,000 Retail/Office Alt Infrastructure* Retail SF Phase 140,000 Phase 232,00032,00032,00032,00032,000 Office SF114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286 Total SF40,000146,286146,286146,286146,286146,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286114,286 Retail/Residential Alt Infrastructure* Retail SF Phase 1175,000 Phase 246,25046,25046,25046,250 Residential (du's)125125125125 Northeast Auburn/Robertson Special Area Plan 01-01924-000 Appendix B.xls B-1 Draft EIS 2005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020 Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6Year 7Year 8Year 9Year 10Year 11Year 12Year 13Year 14Year 15Year 16 Assessed Value (2003)6,144,300 Retail Alt Infrastructure* Retail SF Phase 1175,000 Phase 246,25046,25046,25046,250 Phase 345,00045,00045,00045,000 Phase 445,00045,00045,00045,000 Total SF175,00091,25091,25091,25091,25045,00045,00045,00045,000 Northeast Auburn/Robertson Special Area Plan 01-01924-000 Appendix B.xls B-2 Draft EIS APPENDIX C Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Auburn Gateway Project Prepared for the City of Auburn by Economic and Environmental Consulting Services December 2003 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE AUBURN GATEWAY PROJECT The following section presents a comparison of the estimated fiscal impacts of construction and operation of the Auburn Gateway land use alternatives as analyzed in the EIS. A. Overview The objective of the fiscal analysis is to identify the direct incremental revenues and costs that would accrue to the City of Auburn from construction and operation of the proposed land use alternatives. Jurisdictions included in the analysis are the City of Auburn and Kent School District No. 415. 1. Data Sources and Methodology The fiscal analysis relies largely on information provided by the applicant, City of Auburn and the Kent School District. All revenue and cost estimates are presented in constant 2003 dollars. The analysis generally uses the per capita multiplier method, case study analysis, and discussions with service providers regarding facility and/or personnel costs to estimate direct fiscal impacts. The per capita multiplier method uses average costs per person generated by a project to estimate future municipal costs. The per capita multiplier method assumes that recent historical, local cost and revenue characteristics will be maintained in the future. This method presents a "best" average estimate of the long-term fiscal effects of growth associated with new development. It should be noted that for population based standards (e.g., police service calls per 1,000 population), per capita expenditures will not necessarily remain constant and may overestimate or underestimate actual impacts. For example, the use of per capita multipliers implicitly assumes that the cost of serving each person is the same and that no efficiencies exist in serving a larger population. In many instances, cost efficiencies are achieved when larger populations are served. On the other hand, large investments in capital facilities may be required to serve a given population which are not reflected in per capita costs. Future decisions regarding the mix or level of services to be provided to City residents could increase or decrease per capita costs. Per capita cost estimates are based on the most current information available from affected jurisdictions and the applicant. Cost estimates could change with future market conditions (e.g., inflation) and as costs related to development of the various land use alternatives are refined. As more information regarding the proposed development becomes available (i.e., preliminary plat, housing unit size, specific utility needs), these estimates could be refined. A number of assumptions were made regarding the timing of development, occupancy rates, and design characteristics in order to estimate revenues and costs accruing to the City of Auburn as a result of the land use alternatives. All development assumptions used in this analysis are presented in the Appendix D of the EIS. It should be noted that the actual timing and mix of development will depend on the local real estate market, as well as overall economic conditions. Overall, the fiscal analysis presents conservative revenue estimates generated by construction and operation of the land use alternatives. That is, specific assumptions have been made to reflect relatively lower revenue generating potential for proposed alternatives. For example, the analysis assumes that the growth in project assessed value each year is attributable only to the increase in value associated with new construction. As market conditions change within the Auburn area, and within the region, it is likely that the value of land and existing improvements would also increase. As a result, total assessed value would increase. Consequently, property tax revenues based on existing levy rates are likely understated. In addition, property tax revenues were lagged one-year to reflect the delay between assessment and collection. NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 1 The analysis assumes the project proponent retains ownership of the entire property and that all commercial, office and residential development would proceed through ground leases. In general, under the terms of a long-term ground lease, the property owner receives rental payments for the use of the land. Renters can occupy the land themselves, lease it out for ground rent, sell their interest in the lease or improve the property and collect building rent. For this analysis, the latter is assumed. As such, no real estate excise tax (REET) would be collected. The City of Auburn is authorized to levy REET up to ½% (0.005) on all real property sales within the City. Funds are targeted for financing capital facilities specified through the City Capital Facility Plan. Any change in real property ownership would generate additional tax revenues. Therefore, the amount of total tax revenues is likely understated. 2. Analysis Years Results of the fiscal analysis are presented for Year 1, Year 5, Year 10 and Year 11 (the first full year of project buildout), and cumulatively for the entire project development period (Years 1 through 10). Full- development of the alternatives is expected by Year 11. At that time, the net fiscal balance would represent the costs and revenues that would be generated by the land use alternatives on an annual basis. The exception is the Retail/Office Alternative. Given trends in office market development, it is anticipated that build out of the office component of this alternative would be phased over a 15-year period. Results for the fiscal analysis are presented for year 17 when full development would be expected. 3. Revenues and Costs Public revenues and costs considered in the fiscal analysis include the following: Public Revenues Public Costs City of Auburn Development Permit Fees Development Review and Inspection Transportation Impact Fees Police & Fire/EMS Services Sales Taxes Public Works Department Services Property Taxes Parks and Recreation Department Services Utility Revenues General Government Services Shared Revenues Kent School District Property Taxes Schools & Educational Services Impact Fees In general, certain categories of revenues and costs are expected to be generated once, while others would occur during each year of operation. Costs associated with construction of infrastructure improvements (e.g., water and sewer facilities) represent one-time costs. However, operation and maintenance of such facilities would be expected to generate a stream of costs over the life of the development. Expected one-time and recurring revenues and costs are presented below. NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 2 One-Time Revenues Recurring Revenues Development Permit Fees Sales Taxes on Retail Goods Sales Taxes on Construction Property Taxes Utility Connection Charges Utility Fees & Taxes School and Transportation Impact Fees Shared Revenues One-Time Costs Recurring Costs Infrastructure Improvements Operation & Maintenance Development Review & Inspection Police, Fire/EMS & Public Works Services General Government Services Other jurisdictions and/or special service districts would incur costs and receive revenues from development of the land use alternatives. These include, for example, King County, the Port and Library District. Many revenues accruing to these entities (such as special purpose taxes, investment earnings and federal sources) are not easily identified or quantified. Many of the costs associated with new population are equally difficult to identify and quantify because they are indirect and dispersed across a much larger population. Impacts to these special purpose districts were not included in the analysis. Secondary economic impacts would be expected to occur as a result of development of the land use alternatives. These would include additional spending and employment opportunities which could produce additional fiscal impacts. The measurement of secondary impacts - or the ripple effects associated with a development - relies on the use of income and employment multipliers and can be quite complicated and theoretical. Multipliers are usually developed for large sectors of the economy or events, such as federal spending or investment, and are generally not applicable to any specific situation, project or small economic area. Secondary impacts and their fiscal implications associated with development of the alternatives have not been quantified for this analysis. 4. Development Assumptions A number of assumptions were made for this analysis regarding the timing of development, building characteristics, sales potential, tax and levy rates, the price level, housing and general market and economic conditions. Development assumptions for each of the action alternatives (Retail, Retail/Office, Retail/Residential) and the No-Action/Existing Zoning alternative are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Comparison of Development Assumptions NE Auburn Special Area Plan Alternatives SF MF Development Assumptions Retail Office Residential Residential Emp. Pop. (SF) (SF) Retail Alternative 720,000 1,296 Retail/Office Alternative 200,0001,600,000 3,960 Retail/Residential Alternative 360,000500 648 1,116 No-Action/Existing Zoning 73,200130132 132 601 Alternative Specific phasing assumptions for the proposed alternatives were provided by the project proponent and are presented in the Appendix B of the EIS. a. Site Preparation and Construction NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 3 For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, site preparation and construction of off-site improvements for all the alternatives were assumed to occur in Year 1 with construction of commercial retail, office and residential uses and on-site improvements phased over the next 10 to 15 years. It was assumed that 75% of on-site infrastructure improvements would be completed in Year 1 and 25% in Year 4 (Robertson Properties Group personal conversation with Michael Dee, April 2003). Construction was assumed to be completed in the year it began and occupancy was assumed for the following year. The actual phasing of on-site infrastructure improvements may differ from the assumptions used in the fiscal analysis. The primary imfiscal sense - would be to change the amount of sales tax revenue on that portion of construction of on-site infrastructure occurring in a particular year. Given that the relative contribution of sales tax revenue on construction of on-site infrastructure improvements is small compared with other components of construction period sales tax revenue (on building construction for example), changes in phasing of infrastructure improvements is not expected to significantly affect the fiscal outcomes identified. For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, single-family units were assumed to average 2,300 square feet and multi-family units were assumed to average 1,200 squarte feet (Architects BCRA, personal conversation with Stuart Young, April 2003). A range of construction costs by type of development were provided by the Robertson Properties Group. Retail construction, ranging in cost from $75-$100 per square foot, was assumed to average $88 per square foot for the fiscal analysis. Office construction, ranging in cost from $110-$140 per square foot, was assumed to average $125 per square foot. Multi-family residential construction, ranging in cost from $70- $80 per square foot, was assumed to average $75 per square foot. Single-family residential construction, ranging in cost from $65-$80 per square foot, was assumed to average $72 per square foot (Bennett Homes, personal conversation with Mike Herman, May 2003). b. Population and Employment For commercial retail and office uses, gross leasable area was assumed to be 90% of gross building area. Occupancy rates for single- and multi-family housing were assumed to be 97.9% and 92.6%, respectively (Central Puget Sound Real Estate Research Report, Vol. 54, No. 1, Spring 2003; 2000 Census). Retail employment was estimated using an average of 500 sf/employee (International Council of Shopping Centers, personal conversation with Susan Pistilli, March 2003) and office employment was estimated using an average of of 400 sf/employee (Urban Land Institute, Characteristics of Tenant Employment Densities, Employment and Parking in Suburban Business Parks: A Pilot Study). Population was estimated based on an average household size of 2.41 people for the Auburn area (Puget Sound Regional Council, Population and Employment Forecast Report, May 2001 and the 2000 Census). It should be noted that in June, 2003, after the fiscal analysis was completed, the Washington State Office of Financial Management released its estimate of household size for the King County portion of Auburn. The official estimate of 2.4906 people per household is 3.3% greater than the figure of 2.41 people per household used in the fiscal analysis. The slightly larger household size estimate is not expected to significantly change the results of the fiscal analysis. c. Operation For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, retail development was assumed to generate an average of $254.34 per square foot of gross leasable area (Urban Land Institute, 2002 Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers). The value of new construction for the purpose of property tax assessment was assumed to be based on the cost- of-construction approach. NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 4 B. Fiscal Analysis 1. City of Auburn The city of Auburn would incur additional costs in order to provide public services to residents and businesses within the project area. These costs would include development review and inspection, police service, fire and emergency medical services, public works operation and maintenance (water, sewer and storm water), parks operation and maintenance, and general government services. a. Costs of Development and Operation Development Review and Inspection The City of Auburn would provide development review and inspection services for each of the development alternatives over the buildout period. It was assumed that grading and major site preparation would occur during Year 1. The City would collect grading plan review and grading permit fees. These fees are based on the total quanity of material (cubic yards). As discussed in the description of alternatives in the EIS, the total quanity of cut and fill on the site would be 750,000 cubic yards. This was assumed to be the same for each of the alternatives because the primary need for grading is related to flood prevention and stormwater control, which would be handled similarly under any alternative. Table 2. City of Auburn Grading Plan Review and Permit Fees Quanitity Grading Plan Review Fee 200,001 cubic yards or more $402.25 for the first 200,000 cubic yards plus $7.25 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Grading Permit Fee 100,001 cubic yards or moe $919.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $36.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Source: City of Auburn, 1997 Uniform Administrative Code, Tables 3-G and 3-H The City of Auburn building permit fees are based on building valuation as set forth in Building Standards (April 2002). The valuation data represent average costs for most buildings. Table 3 presents the building valuation data used in the fiscal analysis. Table 3. Building Valuation Data Occupancy and Type Average Cost per Square Foot Dwellings: Type V-Wood Frame (Good) $67.30 Apartment Houses: Type V-Wood Frame (Good) $82.00 Stores: Ty$50.40 Offices: Ty$71.50 Source: Building Standards, April 2002. Building permit fees are based on the building valuation data set forth in Table 3 and the square feet of development by type of use (e.g. retail, residential) and phase of development for each of the alternatives. For all of the alternatives, the estimated building value by type of use and phase of development exceeded NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 5 one million dollars. The appropriate building permit fee calculation was based on the fee schedule set forth in Table 4. Table 4. City of Auburn Building Permit Fees Total Valuation Building Permit Fee $1,000,001 and up $6,394 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof. Source: City of Auburn, Ordinance 5715, November 2002. Police Service The City of Auburn Police Department provides police services, including patrol, crime prevention, community programs and other services. The Department currently has 82 commissioned officers and 33 support staff. In 2002, there were a total of 65,500 computer aided dispatch calls for service. The total calls for service increased 4.8% between 2000 and 2002, or approximately 1.6% per year. Based on this average annual rate of increase, total calls for 2003 will be approximately 66,532. Given the Department budget of $13,287,789 in 2003, the estimated average cost per call is $199.72. Future population growth and development under any of the alternatives would result in increased demands for police services as well as other community programs supported by the Police Department (e.g. community watch). To meet increased demands, the Police Department would be required to hire additional personnel and purchase new equipment. As a consequence, service costs would increase. The ratio of calls for service (or police officers) to population is frequently used as a measure of the level of police service. Based on the Citys current population of 45,010 and estimated calls for service, the current level of service is approximately 1,478 calls per 1,000 population or 1.82 commissioned officers per 1,000 population. These estimates of level of service, however, do not directly reflect the impacts of employees on the Citys Police Department. In order to try and better address the issue of service impacts, specific level of service estimates were developed for different types of development contained in the proposed action alternatives. These level of service estimates are based on actual developments and calls for service within the City of Auburn. The only development type without a comparable counterpart in Auburn is office park development. \[It should be noted that in June, 2003, after the fiscal analysis was completed, the Washington State Office of Financial Management released its estims population. The official estimate of 45,355 is less than 1% greater than the population of 45,010 used in the fiscal analysis. The slightly larger population is not expected to significantly change the results of the fiscal analysis.\] Table 5 presents estimates of calls for service based on type of development. The estimates were developed with the Auburn and Bothell Police Departments based on residential and retail developments within Auburn and office developments within Bothell thought to be comparable to the proposed alternatives. Within the City of Auburn, the Mallard Pointe Apartments and Lakeland Hills North were used as estimates of likely service impacts for multi-family and single-family residential developments proposed in the Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternatives. The SuperMall of the Great Northwest was chosen as an estimate for calls for service from retail development and Canyon Park Office Center in Bothell was chosen as an estimate for calls for service from office development. Table 5. Estimated Calls for Police Service by Type of Development Type of Development Calls for Service NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 6 Single-Family Residential 1.09 calls per dwelling unit Multi-Family Residential 0.33 call per resident per year Retail 1.39 calls per 1,000 SF per year Office 0.024 calls per 1,000 SF per year Source: City of Auburn Police Department, 2003; City of Bothell Police Department, 2003. Fire/EMS Service Fire protection and emergency medical services in the City of Auburn are provided by the Citys Fire Department. The Fire Department currently has 68 firefighters/emergency medical technicians and 12 support staff. Average response time within the city is approximately 7.5 minutes. However, the distance of the project site to existing fire stations would result in a response time of approximately 8-10minutes. In th 2002, the City purchased a 1.59 acre site at 30 and I Street NE for a future fire station. It is anticipated that the closer proximity to the project site would improve average response time. In 2002, the Department received 7,238 calls for service. The total calls for service increased 8.0% between 2000 and 2002, or approximately 2.6% per year. Based on this average annual rate of increase, total calls for 2003 will be approximately 7,426. Given the Department budget of $8,247,703 in 2003, the estimated average cost per call is $1,111. Future population growth and development under any of the alternatives would result in increased demands for fire and emergency medical services. To meet increased demands, the Fire Department would be required to hire additional personnel and purchase new equipment. As a consequence, service costs would increase. Table 6 presents estimates of calls for service based on type of development. The estimates were developed with the Auburn and Bothell Fire Departments and based on the residential, retail and office developments identified above. Table 6. Estimated Calls for Fire/EMS Service by Type of Development Type of Development Calls for Service Per Year Single-Family Residential .072 calls per dwelling unit Multi-Family Residential 0.088 call per dwelling unit Retail 0.116 calls per 1,000 SF Office 0.117 calls per 1,000 SF Source: City of Auburn Fire Department, 2003; City of Bothell Fire Department, 2003. Public Works The City of Auburn Public Works Department provides water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer services to residents and businesses within the city. A discussion of existing system characteristics and capacity is presented in the Public Services and Utilities Section of the EIS. Water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer services are paid for through utility connection fees on new development and monthly use charges. Utility connection fees are charged for new construction and/or when upgrading an existing service. Connection fees consist of a permit fee to cover administrative costs and inspection fees and materials and a system development charge to reflect previous investment of the City and its customers in the utility system. Fees are paid at the time a building permit is issued. Specific fees, summarized in Table 7, are outlined in the Citys 2002 which is incorporated by reference. NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 7 Table 7. City of Auburn Utility Connection Charges Permit Fee System Development Charge Utility Service SF Residential Commercial SF Residential Commercial Storm Sewer $10 $100 $901 per parcel $901 per ESU* Sanitary Sewer Varies Varies $850 per parcel $850 per RCE** Water Service Varies Varies Varies Varies *An Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) is equal to 2,600 square feet of impervious surface. **An Residential Customer Equivalent (RCE) is calculated based on number of fixture units and wastewater flow. Sanitary Sewer permit fee rates vary and are calculated on an individual basis and are based on actual labor and materials. Water service permit fees vary and are based on the type of water service and meter box presence at a development site. The water service system development charge varies based on a number of characteristics, including meter size, size of development, fireline connections, and othes. Storm Sewer Storm sewer connection charges include a permit fee and a system development charge. The permit is $10 per parcel for a single-family residence or duplex (per parcel) and $100 for other uses. The system development charge is $901 for a single-family residence or duplex and $901 per Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) for commercial uses. An ESU is equal to 2,600 square feet of impervious surface. Estimates of the total amount of impervious surface (buildings and surface parking) by alternative are presented in the accompanying tables. It should be noted that the amount of impervious surface assumed for the fiscal analysis represents a worst case assumption. The actual amount of impervious surface will likely be less and will be determined when actual project design proceeds. The monthly rate for storm sewer accounts varies based on customer class and includes a monthly base rate and ESU rate. The ESU rate is calculated as described above. Single-family residences are charged a base rate of $9.07 per month (there is no ESU rate for single-family residences). Non-single-family customers are charged based on the type of retention, detention and water quality treatment provided on site. For the fiscal analysis, the project was assumed to include detention and water quality treatment. The corresponding charges are a base rate of $5.76 per month plus $3.16 per ESU. Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer connection charges include a deposit of $50 at the time of application submittal and permit fee based on actual labor and materials. The system development charge is $850 per single-family residence or duplex (per parcel) and $850 per Residential Customer Equivalent (RCE) for other parcels. The s Non-Residential Sewer Use Certificate. The RCE is based on the number of fixture units (e.g. bathtub, shower, dishwasher, sink, lavatory, etc.), where 20 fixture units equal one RCE. Multi-family residential units were assumed to contain 1 RCE of fixture units. Commercial retail and office uses were assumed to include 20 fixture units per 2,500 square feet of development (Architects BCRA personal conversation with Stuart Young, May 2003). The monthly rate for sanitary sewer accounts varies based on customer class and includes a monthly rate based on the amount of water used (in cubic feet). Single-family residences are charged a rate of $9.25 per month (there is no additional charge for water used). Non-single-family customers are charged $9.25 for the first 750 cubic feet of water used and $0.93 for each additional 100 cubic feet of water used per month. For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, water use for commercial customers was estimated based on the Department of Ecology Criteria for Sewage Works Design (December 1998), commonly referred to as the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 8 Orange Book. Use estimates for planning projections are 100 gallons per person per day for dwellings and 200 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of floor space for commercial uses. One gallon per day is equivalent to 0.1337 cubic feet. Water Service Water service connection charges (permit fee and system development charge) vary based on meter size, whether a meter box is required, and if streets are paved or unpaved. For the purpose of this analysis, single- family residences were assumeeter water service and meter box required with paved streets. The estimated permit fee and system development charge were $1,735 and $1,628 per single-family unit, respectively. Commercial uses were assumed to reeter service and meter box with paved streets. The estimated permit fee and system development charge were $2,645 and $5,421 per commercial building, respectively. The estimated number of buildings by land use per alternative is shown in the accompanying tables. The monthly rate for water service accounts varies based on customer class and includes a monthly base rate and a quantity charge for each 100 cubic feet of water used. Single-family residences are charged a base rate of $6.95 per month and $1.60 per 100 cubic feet of water used (for 7.01 to 15 cubic feet). Multi-family residences are charged a base rate of $20.44 per month and $1.44 per 100 cubic feet of water used. Commercial customers are charged $20.95 per month and $1.65 per 100 cubic feet of water used. Transportation Consistent with the Growth Management Act, Auburn levies transportation impact fees on new development within the city with the intent that new development pay its proportionate share of the cost of new transportation facilities to serve it. Impact fee revenues are earmarked for transportation improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development and are paid at the time of building permit application. Impact fees cannot be used for operation and maintenance. A summary of transportation impact fees is presented in Table 8. Table 8. Transportation Impact Fees Land Use Unit of Measure Impact Fee Rate Single-Family Residential Dwelling Unit $677.71 Multi-Family Residential Dwelling Unit $440.91 Retail Shopping Center Square Feet/Gross Leasable Area $0.98 - $1.69 Office Square Feet/Gross Floor Area $1.12 - $1.92 Impact fee rates for office and retail shopping centers vary based on the incremental increase in square feet of GLA or GFA, respectively (e.g. the first 9,999 square feet; 10,000 to 49,999 square feet, etc.). Source: Auburn City Code, Chapter 19.04. Parks and Recreation The City of Auburn Parks and Recreation Department operates and maintains a total of 533.2 acres of parks, special use areas and open space. Of the total, 43.9 acres are neighborhood parks, 204.2 acres are community parks, 31.8 acres are linear parks, 54.3 acres are special use areas, and 199 acres are open space. In 2003, the Department had a total staff of 50 and budget of $4,304,600. For the purpose of assessing park land needed for new development, the City focuses on neighborhood, communityitys system. The recommended standard for all types of parks is 6.03 acres per 1,000 population and is outlined in Table 9. According to a recent study by the NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 9 City, the total cost to maintain an acre of developed parkland is approximately $7,500 (City of Auburn Parks and Recreation Department personal conversation with Daryl Faber, May 2003). Table 9. City of Auburn Recommended Park Standards Park Type LOS (Acres/1000 Population) Neighborhood Park 0.76 Community Park 4.50 Linear Park 0.77 Total LOS 6.03 Source: City of Auburn, Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, Ordinance 5051, December 1997. The standards presented in Table 9 apply to single family residential developments required to mitigate impacts by paying impact fees or providing developed park land. The City has not adopted a system of park impact fees. In the past, the City has negotiated park land dedication for large developments (50 single family residential units or more) on a case-by-case basis. On occasion, this has included voluntary contributions for park improvements in lieu of dedicated land and the contribution has been calculated as 50% of the park development cost for developed park land needed as a result of the proposed development. The City does not currently have a recommended park standard or impact fee formula for commercial developments and has not levied impact fees on commercial developments in the past. To address this and issues of consistency, the City is currently working toward a more standardized impact fee for new development. For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, impacts to the Parks and Recreation Department were calculated for the alternatives with a residential component (Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning) and based on the annual maintenance cost for developed park land needed as a result of the alternatives. This is a conservative estimate relative to the negotiated impact fees that have occurred in the past, but may underestimate the total impacts because it does not reflect impacts associated with employees. As part of the residential alternative, the proponent proposes to include active recreational facilities and trails throughout the site to serve the proposed development. As noted in the Data Sources and Methodology section, the fiscal analysis assumes that the project proponent retains ownership of the entire property. Consequently, all recreational facilities would be owner maintained rather than publicly maintained. No additional operation or maintenance costs for the City of Auburn Parks and Recreation Department were assumed. General Government The City of Auburn provides a number of general government services for residents, businesses and other City departments. These include the executive (mayor and city council), legal, finance, personnel and general administration. In 2003, general government services employed 52 staff and had a budget of $6,558,687 or 15% of the City Future growth and development under any of the alternatives would affect services provided by these general government departments. The level of general government services needed to support growth and development of the alternatives was assumed to be directly related to the amount of economic activity generated bylevel of economic activity that can be approximated by the revenue generated by the alternatives. For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, the current relationship between general government costs and total city revenues was used to estimate future costs of the alternatives. The cost of providing general government services was assumed to be 15% of budgeted revenues. NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 10 b. Revenues The City of Auburn levies a number of charges and fees to cover the costs of providing services and facilities to new growth. Some of these were identified above and include fees associated with site preparation and building plan review, utility connections and system development charges, and transportation facilities. In addition to these sources of revenue, the City would collect its share of sales and property tax revenues, utility tax revenues, and shared revenues. These are described briefly below. Sales Tax Sales tax revenues would accrue to the City of Auburn fromaterials and contractor services during construction and the sale of goods and services from new businesses. Sales taxes on construction materials and services were estimated based on the value of construction (see the discussion under Site Preparation and Construction above) and the City In addition to the local share of sales taxes (0.85% or .0085), Auburn would collect the Special Hotel/Motel tax, currently 1% (or .01). This tax is in addition to the local sales tax. Funds collected from the hotel/motel tax are deposited in a special revenue fund for tourism, promotion and economic development within the City. Only the Citys local share of the sales tax is reported in the fiscal analysis. Revenues from this source are deposited in the General Fund. Total sales tax revenues from all sources are included in the accompanying tables. Table 10. Sales Tax Rate Jurisdiction Tax Rate Total Sales Tax 8.8% State of Washington 6.5% Local Rate 0.85% Regional Transit Authority 0.4% King County 0.15% Other 0.9% Special Hotel/Motel 1.0% Tax revenues generated during operation were estimated using average sales per square foot estimates from the 2002 Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers prepared by the Urban Land Institute. For the fiscal analysis, sales per square foot of gross leasable area were assumed to average $254.34 per year (ULI, 2002). Property Tax Property taxes are assessed against three forms of real propertyprovements and business personal property. The amount of tax revenues collected depends on the tax rate and the total assessed value of the property. The current total levy rate for the City of Auburn is $13.53243 per $1,000 of assessed value and includes the City as well as other taxing districts like King County, the Library District and Kent School District . The Citys portion of the property tax levy is $2.92857 per $1,000 of assessed value (Table 11). Table 11. 2003 Property Tax Rate Tax Rate per $1,000 NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 11 Jurisdiction Assessed Value Total Levy $13.53243 Consolidated Levy $4.50523 City of Auburn $2.92857 Kent School District $5.35720 Library $0.50 EMS $0.24143 The fiscal analysis takes a conservative approach to quantifying property tax revenues associated with development of the alternatives. The analysis assumes that the annual growth in assessed value is attributable only to the increase in value associated with new commercial and residential construction. In reality, it is likely that assessed value would also increase as a result of increased market value associated with growth and new development occurring throughout the City and the region. It is assumed that the total property tax rate remains constant over the development period. In reality, it will likely fluctuate within statutory limits as the City and other taxing districts determine the amount of money needed to maintain their current level of service (the County Assessor then calculates the tax rate necessary to raise that amount of money). When estimating property tax revenues, the analysis also only includes the additional increase in assessed value associated with new construction and not the total value including the project site. The current assessed value of the project site is $6,868,500 of which $6,144,300 is the assessed value of the land. In 2003, property taxes on site totaled $89,642.47, of which $20,115 accrued to the City of Auburn. The value of business personal property (e.g. machinery, equipment, supplies and furniture) was assumed to be $10 per square foot. Total property tax revenues accruing to the City were lagged one-year to reflect the delay between assessment and collection. Utility Taxes The City of Auburn collects a 6 percent tax on gross sales of city-owned storm water, sanitary sewer, and water utilities, where gross sales are the total revenues collected from user fees and service charges. The tax is not levied in addition to user fees but is distributed to the general fund once revenues have been collected. The City of Auburn also collects a 6 percent tax on gross sales of private utilities. Utility tax revenues go back to the general fund. Use of natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable and solid waste would vary by specific land use and project design. The City would collect revenues based on actual use. These additional revenues have not been quantifited for the fiscal analysis. As noted earlier, the fiscal analysis incorporates conservative revenue estimates. To the extent that private utilities serve the proposed alternatives, tax revenues to the City of Auburn are underestated. Shared Revenues Shared or intergovernmental revenues, such as the liquor excise tax and motor vehicle taxes, are collected by the state and distributed to each city, town and county based on population. In 2002, the per capita distribution of all state-collected revenues to the City of Auburn totaled $413.77. Many of these revenues are earmarked for specific uses, such as Department of Transportation funding and Criminal Justice Assistance. For the purpose of the fiscal analysis, only the liquor/liquor control board receipts (liquor excise tax and liquor profits), lodging excise (hotel/motel), motor vehicle (local vehicle license fees and motor vehicle fuel taxes) and miscellaneous taxes were included in the estimation of shared revenues associated NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 12 with future residential population. In 2002, these sources totaled $43.25 per person. This rate was assumed to remain in effect through the development period. Table 12. Intergovernmental Distributions Revenue Source Per Capita Distribution Liquor/LCB Receipts $8.97 Lodging Excise Tax $1.11 Motor Vehicle Tax $30.52 Miscellaneous $2.65 Source: State of Washington Treasury Management System, Distribution of State Collected Revenues For Calendar Year 2002 (October, 2003). 2. Kent School District The NE Auburn Special Area lies within the Kent School District, the fourth largest school district in the state. The following information is summarized from ear capital facilities plan. During the 2002-2003 school year, the District had 26,378 students or 25,354 full-time equivalent students (Kindergarten students are 0.5 FTE). The District currently has permanent capacity to house 24,559 students (see Table 13). Portable classrooms are used as interim or transitional facilities. Currently, the District utilizes 158 portable classrooms: 74 to house students in excess of permanent capacity; 78 for program purposes; and 6 for other purposes. Each portable classroom can accommodate 23-31 students. Districtwide, there is current capacity to accommodate an additional 242 students. Most of the excess capacity, 88%, is at the senior high level. Table 13. 2002-2003 Facility Capacity Number FTE Surplus Grade Level of Program Portable Total Enrollment (Deficit) Schools Capacity Capacity Capacity Projection Capacity Elementary School 29 12,994 414 13,358 13,339 19 Junior High School 7 5,984 812 6,796 6,785 11 Senior High School 4 5,631 0 5,631 5,419 212 Total 40 24,559 1,226 25,785 25,543 242 Source: Kent School District #415 Capital Facilities Plan, April 2002. Student enrollment is projected to increase to 27,114 by the 2007-2008 school year, an increase of 6% over current enrollment or approximately 1.2% per year (see Table 14). Planned classroom construction during th the 2004-2005 school year and grade level reconfiguration (9 grade to move to high schools) will add additional capacity of 1,923 at the senior high level. A proposed elementary school (as yet unfunded) would add additional capacity of 540 during the 2007-2008 school year. Total capacity by 2007-2008 would be 28,509. Districtwide, there would be capacity to accommodate an additional 1,395 students. Most of the excess capacity, 97%, would be at the junior high level. Table 14. 2007-2008 Planned Capacity FTE Surplus NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 13 Grade Level Permanent Portable Total Enrollment (Deficit) Capacity Capacity Capacity Projection Capacity Elementary School 13,484 92 13,576 13,569 7 Junior High School 5,984 0 5,984 4,626 1,358 Senior High School 7,554 1,395 8,949 8,919 30 Total 24,559 1,487 28,509 27,114 1,395 Source: Kent School District #415 Capital Facilities Plan, April 2002. ndard of service for current and future capacity. The Plan includes student generation factors for calculating the number of students in each grade level generated by single- and multi-family homes and impact fees for calculating the proportionate share of capital facility costs from single- and multi-family homes. Student generation factors and impact fees are presented in Tables 15 and 16. Table 15. Student Generation Rates Grade Level Elementary School (K-6) 0.504 0.273 0.211 0.114 Senior High School (10-12) 0.183 0.076 Total Students 0.898 0.463 Source: Kent School District No. 415 Capital Facilities Plan, April 2002. The Kent School District has established impact fees for new single- and multi-family residential development. The impact fees are calculated based on a variety of factors, including student generation rates, projected student capacity, new facility acreage and construction requirements, and portable use. The fee calculation includes credits for state matching funds and property taxes. The fees are levied and collected by the City of Auburn and remitted (less an administration fee) to the District. Fees are paid prior to a building permit being issued. The City of Auburn has adopted a maximum payment or cap on the amount of impact fees that can be collected from new residential development (see Table 16). Table 16. School Impact Fees (per DU) Kent School City of Auburn City of Auburn Type of Residence District Cap Administration Fee Single-Family Residence $4,147 $2,500 $50 Multi-Family Residence $2,554 $1,000 $25 Source: Kent School District No. 415 Capital Facilities Plan, April 2002; Auburn City Code, Chapter 19.02. During 2002-2003, the Operations Levy per student was approximately $1,267 per student (personal conversation with Fred High, Finance Director, Kent School District, May 2003). C. Summary of Impacts A summary of net revenues expected to accrue to the City of Auburn and the Kent School District as the result of construction and operation of the alternatives are presented in the following section. Detailed tables are included in the accompanying tables. 1. City of Auburn NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 14 The results of the fiscal analysis for the alternatives indicate that the City of Auburn would experience a fiscal surplus (total revenues exceed total costs) over the life of each of the alternatives. Comparisons of net revenues for each of alternatives are summa Over the 10-year development period, total revenues accruing to the City of Auburn would range from approximately $4.8 million under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to $12.4 million under the Retail Alternative. Over the same period, total costs accruing to the City would would range from approximately $3.3 million under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to $7.0 million under the Retail/Residential Alternative. Total net revenues accruing to the City of Auburn would range from approximately $1.6 million under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to $6.3 million under the Retail Alternative. By buildout, net revenues per year accruing to the City of Auburn would range from approximately $156,000 under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to $1.1 million under the Retail Alternative. a. Revenues Major sources of revenues accruing to the City as a result of construction and operation of the alternatives would include development permit fees, retail sales taxes, property taxes, utility fees and taxes, and shared revenues. In general, revenues, such as property taxes, would be generated and collected each year of construction and operation. However, some revenues would only be collected once (e.g., development permit fees). For the purpose of identifying the frequency of revenue collections, the term "one-time revenue" is used to represent fee or tax revenues that would be collected only once and the term "recurring revenue" is used to represent revenues that would be collected in each successive year of development and/or operation and would be expected to continue indefinitely. NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 15 Table 17. Comp Retail/Office Alternative 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 1-10 Year 1-17 Construction Period Revenues Grading Fees $2,124 $2,124$2,124 Building PermitFees$10,458$43,925$43,925$43,925$43,925$43,925$35,080$35,080$35,080$35,080$35,080$35,080$35,080$35,080$35,080$335,322$545,800 Transportation Impact Fees $53,640 $208,626 $208,626 $208,626 $208,626$208,626$165,714$165,714$165,714$165,714$165,714$165,714 $165,714 $165,714 $165,714$1,593,914$2,588,200 Storm Sewer Connection Charges $41,685 $152,281 $152,281 $152,281 $152,281$152,281$118,913$118,913$118,913$118,913$118,913$118,913 $118,913 $118,913 $118,913$1,159,829$1,873,308 Sanitary Sewer Connection Charges $13,766 $50,021 $50,021 $50,021 $50,021$50,021$39,041$39,041$39,041$39,041$39,041$39,041 $39,041 $39,041 $39,041$380,991$615,237 Water Connection Charges$21,892$37,373$37,373$37,373$37,373$37,373$24,238$24,238$24,238$24,238$24,238$24,238$24,238$24,238$24,238$281,469$426,894 Sales Tax on Construction $26,728 $32,183 $153,640 $157,458 $153,640 $153,640$153,640$127,893$127,893$127,893$127,893$127,893$127,893 $127,893 $127,893 $127,893$1,214,607$1,981,968 Total Construction Period Revenues $28,852 $173,623 $645,865 $649,683 $645,865 $645,865$645,865$510,879$510,879$510,879$510,879$510,879$510,879 $510,879 $510,879 $510,879$4,968,256$8,033,530 Operating Revenues Sales Tax Revenues (Local) $77,828 $140,090 $202,353 $264,615$326,878$389,140$389,140$389,140$389,140$389,140$389,140 $389,140 $389,140 $389,140$389,140$2,179,185$4,903,167 Property Tax Revenues (Local) $3,947 $15,035 $69,024 $127,130 $183,920$240,710$297,500$345,420$392,497$439,573$486,649$533,726 $580,802 $627,878 $674,955$722,031$1,675,182$5,740,795 Utility Fees $10,572 $47,752 $84,932 $122,112$159,292$196,472$225,519$254,566$283,613$312,660$341,707 $370,754 $399,800 $428,847$457,894$1,101,218$3,696,493 Utility Taxes $675 $3,048 $5,421 $7,794$10,168$12,541$14,395$16,249$18,103$19,957$21,811 $23,665 $25,519 $27,373$29,227$70,290$235,946 Shared Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0 $0$0$0$0 Total Operating Period Revenues $3,947 $104,110 $259,914 $419,836 $578,442$737,048$895,654$974,474$1,052,452$1,130,429$1,208,406$1,286,384 $1,364,361 $1,442,338 $1,520,315$1,598,293$5,025,875$14,576 ,401 Total Revenues $28,852 $177,570 $749,975 $909,598 $1,065,701 $1,224,307$1,382,913$1,406,533$1,485,353$1,563,331$1,641,308$1,719,285$1,797,263 $1,875,240 $1,953,217 $2,031,195$1,598,293$9,994,131$22,6 09,932 Construction Period Costs Development Review and Inspection $2,124 $10,458 $43,925 $43,925 $43,925 $43,925$43,925$35,080$35,080$35,080 $337,445$337,445 Infrastructure Improvements $130,983 $448,300 $448,300 $448,300 $448,300$448,300$347,906$347,906$347,906 $3,416,203$3,416,203 General Government $4,009 $4,827 $23,046 $23,619 $23,046 $23,046$23,046$19,184$19,184$19,184 $182,191$182,191 Total Construction Period Costs$6,133$146,268$515,271$515,844$515,271$515,271$515,271$402,170$402,170$402,170$3,935,839$3,935,839 Operating Costs Police Service $11,161 $20,441 $29,525 $38,610$47,695$56,780$56,780$56,780$56,780$56,780$56,780 $56,780 $56,780 $56,780$56,780$317,771$715,228 Fire and EMS Service $5,171 $24,158 $43,145 $62,132$81,120$100,107$114,957$129,807$144,657$159,507$174,357$189,208$204,058$218,908$233,758$560,597$1,885,050 Utilities $10,572 $47,752 $84,932 $122,112$159,292$196,472$225,519$254,566$283,613$312,660$341,707 $370,754 $399,800 $428,847$457,894$1,101,218$3,696,493 Parks and Recreation $0 $0 $0 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0 $0$0$0$0 General Government $592 $14,031 $31,824 $50,236 $68,449$86,663$104,877$112,343$119,683$127,022$134,362$141,702 $149,041 $156,381 $163,720$171,060$588,699$1,631,986 Total Operating Period Costs $592 $40,935 $124,175 $207,838 $291,304$374,770$458,236$509,599$560,835$612,072$663,309 $714,545 $765,782 $817,018 $868,255$919,491$2,568,285$7,928,757 Total Costs $6,133 $146,860 $556,207 $640,019 $723,110 $806,575$890,041$860,405$911,768$963,005$612,072$663,309$714,545 $765,782 $817,018 $868,255$919,491$6,504,124$11,864,596 Total Net Revenues $22,719 $30,710 $193,768 $269,578 $342,591 $417,731$492,871$546,127$573,585$600,326$1,029,236$1,055,977$1,082,718 $1,109,458 $1,136,199 $1,162,940$678,801$3,490,007$10,745,336 NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 16 Table 18. Comp Retail Alternative 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 1-10 Year 1-17 Construction Period Revenues Grading Fees $2,124 $2,124$2,124 Building Permit Fees $37,674 $23,184 $23,184 $23,184 $23,184$11,466$11,466$11,466$11,466 $176,274$176,274 Transportation Impact Fees $170,100 $122,366 $122,366 $122,366 $122,366$60,345$60,345$60,345$60,345 $900,945$900,945 Storm Sewer Connection Charges$182,033$95,065$95,065$95,065$95,065$46,883$46,883$46,883$46,883$749,823$749,823 Sanitary Sewer Connection Charges $59,583 $31,295 $31,295 $31,295 $31,295$15,425$15,425$15,425$15,425 $246,460$246,460 Water Connection Charges $10,946 $35,575 $35,575 $35,575 $35,575$16,419$16,419$16,419$16,419 $218,920$218,920 Sales Tax on Construction $26,728 $155,648 $81,159 $84,978 $81,159 $81,159$40,024$40,024$40,024$40,024 $670,928$670,928 Total Construction Period Revenues $28,852 $615,984 $388,644 $392,462 $388,644 $388,644$190,561$190,561$190,561$190,561 $2,965,474$2,965,474 Operating Revenues $340,498 Sales Tax Revenues (Local) $518,043 $695,588 $873,133$1,050,679$1,138,235$1,225,792$1,313,348$1,400,905$1,400,905$1,400,905 $1,400,905 $1,400,905 $1,400,905$1,400,905$7,155,315$16,961,648 Property Tax Revenues (Local) $3,947 $57,573 $90,148 $121,831 $152,199$182,567$198,761$213,737$228,713$243,689$244,875$244,875 $244,875 $244,875 $244,875$244,875$1,249,477$2,962,415 Utility Fees $44,884 $68,076 $91,268 $114,460$137,652$149,089$160,527$171,964$183,401$183,401$183,401 $183,401 $183,401 $183,401$183,401$937,920$2,221,727 Utility Taxes $2,865 $4,345 $5,826 $7,306$8,786$9,516$10,246$10,976$11,706$11,706$11,706 $11,706 $11,706 $11,706$11,706$59,867$141,812 Shared Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0 $0$0$0$0 Total Operating Period Revenues $3,947 $445,820 $680,612 $914,513 $1,147,098$1,379,684$1,495,602$1,610,302$1,725,001$1,839,701$1,840,887$1,840,887 $1,840,887 $1,840,887 $1,840,887$1,840,887$9,402,58 0$22,287,603 Total Revenues $28,852 $619,931 $834,463 $1,073,074$1,303,157$1,535,742$1,570,245$1,686,163$1,800,863$1,915,563$1,839,701$1,840,887$1,840,887$1,840,887$1,840,887$1,840,887$1,840,887$12,368,053$25,253 ,077 Construction Period Costs Development Review and Inspection $2,124 $37,674 $23,184 $23,184 $23,184 $23,184$11,466$11,466$11,466$11,466 $178,398$178,398 Infrastructure Improvements $422,662 $284,300 $284,300 $284,300 $284,300$139,071$139,071$139,071$139,071 $2,116,148$2,116,148 General Government $4,009 $23,347 $12,174 $12,747 $12,174 $12,174$6,004$6,004$6,004$6,004 $100,639$100,639 Total Construction Period Costs $6,133 $483,683 $319,658 $320,231 $319,658 $319,658$156,541$156,541$156,541$156,541 $2,395,185$2,395,185 Operating Costs Police Service $48,831 $74,293 $99,755 $125,217$150,679$163,236$175,792$188,349$200,905$200,905$200,905 $200,905 $200,905 $200,905$200,905$1,026,153$2,432,491 Fire and EMS Service $22,624 $34,421 $46,218 $58,014$69,811$75,629$81,446$87,264$93,082$93,082$93,082 $93,082 $93,082 $93,082$93,082$475,427$1,126,998 Utilities $44,884 $68,076 $91,268 $114,460$137,652$149,089$160,527$171,964$183,401$183,401$183,401 $183,401 $183,401 $183,401$183,401$937,920$2,221,727 Parks and Recreation $0 $0 $0 $0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0 $0$0$0$0 General Government $592 $60,140 $91,880 $123,487 $154,896$186,305$201,977$217,466$232,956$248,445$248,623$248,623 $248,623 $248,623 $248,623$248,623$1,269,699$3,009,881 Total Operating Period Costs $592 $176,479 $268,670 $360,727 $452,587$544,447$589,931$635,232$680,532$725,833$726,011$726,011 $726,011 $726,011 $726,011$726,011$3,709,198$8,791,098 Total Costs $6,133 $484,275 $496,138 $588,901 $680,386 $772,246$700,988$746,472$791,772$837,073$725,833$726,011$726,011 $726,011 $726,011 $726,011$726,011$6,104,384$11,186,283 Total Net Revenues $22,719 $135,656 $338,326 $484,173 $622,771 $763,497$869,257$939,692$1,009,091$1,078,489$1,113,868$1,114,876$1,114,876 $1,114,876 $1,114,876 $1,114,876$1,114,876$6,263,670$14,066,7 94 NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 17 Table 19. Comp Retail/Residential Alternative 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20142015 20162017 20182019 2020 2021 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 1-10 Year 1-17 Construction Period Revenues Grading Fees $2,124 $2,124$2,124 Building Permit Fees $37,674$11,718$63,312$63,312$63,312$51,594$290,922$290,922 Transportation Impact Fees $170,100 $62,021 $117,135 $117,135 $117,135$55,114 $638,640$638,640 Storm Sewer Connection Charges $182,033 $48,182 $91,643 $91,643 $91,643$43,461 $548,604$548,604 Sanitary Sewer Connection Charges $59,583 $15,870 $122,639 $122,639 $122,639$106,769 $550,139$550,139 Water Connection Charges $10,946$19,156$87,568$87,568$87,568$68,413$361,218$361,218 Sales Tax on Construction $26,728 $149,461 $39,500 $154,853 $151,035 $151,035$111,535 $784,148$784,148 Total Construction Period Revenues $28,852 $609,797 $196,448 $637,150 $633,332 $633,332$436,884 $3,175,795$3,175,795 Operating Revenues Sales Tax Revenues (Local) $340,498 $430,486 $520,475 $610,464$700,452$700,452$700,452$700,452$700,452$700,452$700,452 $700,452 $700,452 $700,452$700,452$4,703,732$9,606,899 Property Tax Revenues (Local) $3,947 $55,442 $73,664 $128,235 $181,492$234,748$274,395$274,395$274,395$274,395$274,395$274,395 $274,395 $274,395 $274,395$274,395$1,500,711$3,421,475 Utility Fees $44,884 $56,639 $132,465 $208,291$284,117$348,188$348,188$348,188$348,188$348,188$348,188 $348,188 $348,188 $348,188$348,188$1,770,958$4,208,274 Utility Taxes $2,865 $3,615 $8,455 $13,295$18,135$22,225$22,225$22,225$22,225$22,225$22,225 $22,225 $22,225 $22,225$22,225$113,040$268,613 Shared Revenues $11,326 $22,651$33,977$45,303$45,303$45,303$45,303$45,303$45,303 $45,303 $45,303 $45,303$45,303$203,862$520,981 Total Operating Period Revenues $3,947 $443,688 $564,404 $800,956 $1,036,193$1,271,429$1,390,563$1,390,563$1,390,563$1,390,563$1,390,563$1,390,563 $1,390,563 $1,390,563 $1,390,563$1,390,563$8,292,30 4$18,026,243 Total Revenues $28,852 $613,744 $640,136 $1,201,554 $1,434,288 $1,669,525$1,708,314$1,390,563$1,390,563$1,390,563$1,390,563$1,390,563$1,390,563 $1,390,563 $1,390,563 $1,390,563$1,390,563$11,468,099$2 1,202,038 Construction Period Costs Development Review and Inspection $2,124 $37,674 $11,718 $63,312 $63,312 $63,312$51,594 $293,046$293,046 Infrastructure Improvements $422,662 $145,229 $418,985 $418,985 $418,985$273,756 $2,098,601$2,098,601 General Government $4,009 $22,419 $5,925 $23,228 $22,655 $22,655$16,730 $117,622$117,622 Total Construction Period Costs $6,133$482,755$162,872$505,525$504,952$504,952$342,080$2,509,269$2,509,269 Operating Costs Police Service $48,831 $61,737 $93,026 $124,315$155,603$173,987$173,987$173,987$173,987$173,987$173,987 $173,987 $173,987 $173,987$173,987$1,005,472$2,223,382 Fire and EMS Service $22,624$28,603$46,927$65,250$83,574$95,919$95,919$95,919$95,919$95,919$95,919$95,919$95,919$95,919$95,919$534,734$1,206,164 Utilities $44,884 $56,639 $132,465 $208,291$284,117$348,188$348,188$348,188$348,188$348,188$348,188 $348,188 $348,188 $348,188$348,188$1,770,958$4,208,274 Parks and Recreation $12,702 $25,403$38,105$50,807$50,807$50,807$50,807$50,807$50,807 $50,807 $50,807 $50,807$50,807$228,630$584,275 General Government $592 $59,821 $76,165 $100,274 $124,185$148,097$156,356$156,356$156,356$156,356$156,356$156,356 $156,356 $156,356 $156,356$156,356$978,202$2,072,695 Total Operating Period Costs $592 $176,160 $223,143 $385,392 $547,444$709,496$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256 $825,256 $825,256 $825,256$825,256$4,517,997$10,294,791 Total Costs$6,133$483,347$339,032$728,668$890,344$1,052,396$1,051,576$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256$825,256$7,027,266$12,804,060 Total Net Revenues $22,719 $130,397$301,104$472,886$543,943$617,128$656,737$565,306$565,306$565,306$565,306$565,306$565,306$565,306$565,306$565,306$565,306$4,440,833$8,397,977 NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 18 Table 20. Comp No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 1-10 Year 1-17 Construction Period Revenues Grading Fees $2,124 $2,124 $2,124 Building PermitFees$10,458$25,295$31,591$31,591$31,591$31,591$18,602$18,602$18,602$217,921$217,921 Transportation Impact Fees $53,640 $55,534 $25,563 $25,563 $25,563 $25,563 $11,013 $11,013 $11,013 $244,464 $244,464 Storm Sewer Connection Charges $33,428 $42,566 $34,448 $34,448 $34,448 $34,448 $14,804 $14,804 $14,804 $258,199 $258,199 Sanitary Sewer Connection Charges $13,683 $26,532 $43,668 $43,668 $43,668 $43,668 $15,161 $15,161 $15,161 $260,370 $260,370 Water Connection Charges $10,946$65,595$114,852$114,852$114,852$114,852$54,649$54,649$54,649$699,894$699,894 Sales Tax on Construction $26,728 $37,596 $61,250 $66,708 $62,890 $62,890 $62,890 $30,046 $30,046 $30,046 $471,090 $471,090 Total Construction Period Revenues $28,852 $159,751 $276,772 $316,830 $313,011 $313,011 $313,011 $144,274 $144,274 $144,274 $2,154,061 $2,154,061 Operating Revenues Sales Tax Revenues (Local) $77,828 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $142,425 $1,074,805 $2,071,782 Property Tax Revenues (Local) $3,947 $16,900 $39,057 $62,916 $84,584 $106,252 $127,920 $138,271 $148,623 $158,975 $158,975 $158,975 $158,975 $158,975 $158,975 $158,975 $728,469 $1,841,296 Utility Fees $15,877 $46,649 $70,028 $93,406 $116,785 $123,702 $129,845 $135,989 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $732,280 $1,687,787 Utility Taxes $1,013 $2,978 $4,470 $5,962 $7,454 $7,896 $8,288 $8,680 $8,713 $8,713 $8,713 $8,713 $8,713 $8,713 $8,713 $46,741 $107,731 Shared Revenues $1,557 $6,103 $10,650 $15,196 $19,743 $21,300 $22,856 $24,413 $24,413 $24,413 $24,413 $24,413 $24,413 $24,413 $97,405 $268,294 Total Operating Period Revenues $3,947 $111,618 $232,666 $285,942 $337,027 $388,113 $421,685 $440,129 $458,574 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $2,679,700 $5,976,891 Total Revenues $28,852 $163,698 $388,390 $549,495 $598,953 $650,038 $701,124 $565,959 $584,404 $602,848 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $471,027 $4,833,761 $8,130,951 Construction Period Costs Development Review and Inspection $2,124 $10,458 $25,295 $31,591 $31,591 $31,591 $31,591 $18,602 $18,602 $18,602 $220,044 $220,044 Infrastructure Improvements $111,697 $190,227 $218,531 $218,531 $218,531 $218,531 $95,627 $95,627 $95,627 $1,462,927 $1,462,927 General Government $4,009 $5,639 $9,188 $10,006 $9,433 $9,433 $9,433 $4,507 $4,507 $4,507 $70,663 $70,663 Total Construction Period Costs$6,133$127,795$224,710$260,128$259,555$259,555$259,555$118,735$118,735$118,735$1,753,635$1,753,635 Operating Costs Police Service $11,161 $20,425 $25,279 $30,132 $34,985 $39,838 $39,838 $39,838 $39,838 $39,838 $39,838 $39,838 $39,838 $39,838 $39,838 $241,498 $520,367 Fire and EMS Service $5,171 $9,463 $12,722 $15,981$19,240$22,499$22,499$22,499$22,499$22,499$22,499$22,499$22,499$22,499$22,499$130,075$287,568 Utilities $15,877 $46,649 $70,028 $93,406 $116,785 $123,702 $129,845 $135,989 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $136,501 $732,280 $1,687,787 Parks and Recreation $1,746 $6,845 $11,944 $17,043 $22,142 $23,887 $25,633 $27,379 $27,379 $27,379 $27,379 $27,379 $27,379 $27,379 $109,238 $300,889 General Government $592 $14,361 $27,903 $32,387 $36,543 $40,699 $44,698 $46,543 $48,388 $50,179 $50,179 $50,179 $50,179 $50,179 $50,179 $50,179 $292,113 $643,366 Total Operating Period Costs $592 $46,570 $106,186 $147,260 $188,006 $228,752 $252,878 $262,613 $272,347 $276,396 $276,396 $276,396 $276,396 $276,396 $276,396 $276,396 $1,505,204 $3,439,977 Total Costs$6,133$128,387$271,280$366,313$406,815$447,561$488,307$371,613$381,348$391,082$276,396$276,396$276,396$276,396$276,396$276,396$276,396$3,258,839$5,193,612 Total Net Revenues $22,719 $35,311$117,110$183,182$192,138$202,477$212,817$194,346$203,056$211,766$194,631$194,631$194,631$194,631$194,631$194,631$194,631$1,574,922$2,937,339 NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 19 Construction Period Revenues During construction, the City of Auburn would collect various fees and permit revenues for site preparation, building review and inspection, infrastructure connections and transportation impact fees. The City would also receive its portion of the local sales tax on construction materials and services. Table 21 summarizes the contribution of each revenue source to total construction period revenues for the 10-year development period. The largest source of construction period revenues are those collected for utility connections. For the alternatives, total utility connection fees range from 36.7% of total construction period revenues under the Retail/Office Alternative to 56.6% under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. Sales tax on construction is an important source of revenue under all the land use alternatives, ranging from 21.9% of total construction period revenues under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to 24.7% under the Retail/Residential Alternative. Transportation impact fee revenues are relatively more important for alternatives with a larger component of commercial development. Table 21. Composition of Construction Period Revenues Land Use Alternative Revenue Source: Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action Grading Fees 0.1% 0.08% 0.1% 0.2% Building Permit Fees 5.9% 6.7% 9.2% 10.1% Transportation Impact Fees 30.4% 32.1% 20.1% 11.3% Utility Connection Fees 41.0% 36.7% 46.0% 56.6% Storm Sewer Connection Fees 25.3% 23.3% 17.3% 12.0% Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees 8.3% 7.7% 17.3% 12.1% Water System Connection Fees 7.4% 5.7% 11.4% 32.5% Sales Tax on Construction 22.6% 24.4% 24.7% 21.9% Operating Period Revenues Long-term operation under any of the land use alternatives would generate ongoing revenues for the City of Auburn. These include the Citys share of sales taxes, property taxes, utility fees and taxes, and shared revenues (state collected revenues distributed back to local jurisdictions based on a population forumula). By buildout, total revenues per year accruing to the City of Auburn would range from approximately $471,000 per year under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to $1.84 million per year under the Retail Alternative. Table 22 summarizes the contribution of each revenue source to total operating period revenues for the 10-year development period. The two largest s 67.3% under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to 89.4% under the Retail Alternative - are the City local share of sales taxes on retail activity and property taxes. For the land use alternatives, total sales tax revenues range from 40.1% of total operting period revenues under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to 76.1% under the Retail Alternative. Property tax revenues range from 13.3% of total operating period revenues under the Retail Alternative to 33.3% under the Retail/Office Alternative. Table 22. Composition of Operating Period Revenues Land Use Alternative Revenue Source: Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action Sales Taxes (Local Portion) 76.1% 43.4% 56.7% 40.1% NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 20 Property Taxes (Local Portion) 13.3% 33.3% 18.1% 27.2% Utility Fees 10.0% 21.9% 21.4% 27.3% Utility Taxes 0.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.7% Shared Revenues 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 3.6% It should be noted that sales tax revenues are likely underestimated for the Retail/Office Alternative. For the analysis, it was assumed that only the retail component of proposed development would generate retail sales activity. It is likely that the office component would include a number of small retail uses that provide employee goods and services (e.g. copy shop, small café, coffee shop, dry cleaners, etc.). To the extent that the office component included these types of uses, retail sales taxes are underestimated. b. Costs The City of Auburn would incur additional costs in order to provide public services to the land use alternatives. These costs would include development review and inspection, police, fire and emergency medical services, public works operation and maintenance (water, sewer, streets), parks and recreation, and general government services. Construction Period Costs During construction, the City would incur additional costs primarily associated with development review, For the analysis, it was assumed that the costs incurred each year for development review and inspection and infrastructure development would equal the fee revenues generated each year. Table 23. Composition of Construction Period Costs Land Use Alternative Cost Source: Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action Development Review and Inspection 7.4% 8.6% 11.7% 12.5% Infrastructure Improvements 88.4% 86.8% 83.6% 83.4% General Government 4.2% 4.6% 4.7% 4.0% Operating Period Costs Long-term operation under any of the land use alternatives would generate ongoing costs for the City of Auburn. These include the police and fire/EMS services, public utilities operation and maintenance, parks and recreation, and general government services. By buildout, total costs per year accruing to the City of Auburn would range from approximately $315,100 per year under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to $919,000 per year under the Retail/Office Alternative. Table 24 summarizes the contribution of each cost source to total operating period costs for the 10-year development period. The two largest sources of operating period costs are public safety and utility operation and maintenance. Total public safety costs (police and fire/EMS services), range from 32.1% of total operting period costs under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative to 40.5% under the Retail Alternative. Utility costs (assumed to equal utility revenues) range from 25.3% of total operating period costs under the Retail Alternative to 48.6% under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative. NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 21 It should be noted that only alternatives with a residential component were assumed to generate costs for parks and recreation operation and maintenance. To the extent that businesses and business employees utilize local parks and recreation facilities, these costs are understated. Table 24. Composition of Operating Period Costs Land Use Alternative Cost Source: Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action Public Safety 40.5% 34.2% 34.1% 32.1% Police Service 27.7% 12.4% 22.3% 21.6% Fire and EMS Service 12.8% 21.8% 11.8% 10.5% Utilties 25.3% 42.9% 39.2% 48.6% Parks and Recreation 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 7.3% General Government 34.2% 22.9% 21.7% 19.4% To meet the increased demands for City services and facilities associated with growth and development under the land use alternatives, the City of Auburn would be required to hire additional staff. The estimated number of staff by department for each of the alternatives by buildout is presented in Table 25. Table 25. Estimated Department Staffing Needs of the Alternatives Land Use Alternative Department Retail Retail/Office Retail/Residential No Action Police Service 1.24 0.35 1.07 0.42 Fire and EMS Service 0.9 2.27 0.93 0.32 Parks and Recreation 0.59 0.32 General Government 1.97 1.36 1.24 0.40 2. Kent School District No. 415 Residential development is proposed under the Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternatives. The Retail/Residential Alternative would include 500 units of multi-family housing and the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative would include 130 units of single-family housing and 132 units of multi-family housing. Estimated student enrollment by buildout of the alternatives is presented in Table 26. The enrollment estimates are based on the student generation factores presented in Table15 and occupancy rates of 97.9% and 92.6% for single- and multi-family units, respectively. Table 26. Estimated Student Enrollment by Alternative Elementary Junior High High School Total Estimated Land Use Alternative School (K- 6) School (7-9) (10-12) Enrollment Retail/Residential 126 53 35 214 No Action 97 41 32 170 The estimated fiscal impacts to the Kent School District for the Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternatives are presented in Table 27. Under both alternatives, the School District would receive positive net revenues over the 10-year development period. Under the Retail/Residential Alternative, net revenues over the 10-year development period would total approximately $970,000. Under the No- NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 22 Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, net revenues over the 10-year development period would total approximately $257,000. Table 27. Retail/Residential Alternative Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 11 Year 1-10 Impact Fees $0$125$0$0 $500 Property Tax $0$235$502$502 $2,745 Total Revenues $0$360$502$502 $3,245 Operations $0$68$174$159 $998 Capital Facilities $0$3190$0 $1,277 Total Costs $0$387$174$159 $2,275 Net Revenues $0-$28$328$343 $970 No Action Alternative Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 11 Year 1-10 Impact Fees $0$53$41$0 $457 Property Tax $0$152$272$291 $1,333 Total Revenues $0$205$313$291 $1,790 Operations $0$74$156$160 $723 Capital Facilities $0$115$67$67 $809 Total Costs $0$189$224$227 $1,532 Net Revenues $0-$16$89$64 $257 a. Revenues The Kent School District would receive revenues in the form of school impact mitigation fees and from its portion of the property tax levied on residents and businesses within the NE Auburn Special Area. Estimated school impact fees for the alternatives are shown in Table 28. Under the Retail/Residential Alternative, the District would collect a total of $500,000 in impact fees. Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, the District would collect $457,000. Table 28. Estimated School Impact Fees Land Use Alternative Single-Family Fee Multi-Family Fee Retail/Residential 500 $500,000 No Action 130 $325,000 132 $132,000 The District would also collect its share of the property tax levy. Under the Retail/Residential property tax levy (only that portion attributable to new development) would grow from just over $7,000 in Year 2 to nearly $502,000 by Year 11. The District could expect to receive $502,000 each year after buildout of the alternative. Under the No- tion of the property tax levy would grow from just over $7,000 in Year 2 to nearly $291,000 by Year 11. The District could expect to receive $291,000 each year after buildout of the alternative. b. Costs NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 23 The Kent School District would incur additional costs for staff, facilities, transportation and administrative support generated by school-aged children generated by the land use alternatives. One- time costs represent the pro-rated share of capital costs (land and facilities) for elementary, junior high and senior high school students associated with the alternatives. The total cost for capital facilities is and multi-family residences (Table 13). Under the Retail/Residential Alternative, capital facilities costs would total approximately $1.28 million dollars. Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, capital facilities costs would total approximately $876,000. Recurring costs would consist of additional staff, administrative support, transportation and operation and maintenance. Under the Retail/Residential Alternative, operating costs would grow from approximately $68,000 in Year 5 (when students were assumed to start school) to approximately $174,000 in Year 10. Over the 10-year development period, operating costs would total approximately $998,000. Under the No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternative, operating costs would grow from approximately $18,000 in Year 4 (when students were assumed to start school) to approximately $156,000 in Year 10. Over the 10-year development period, operating costs would total approximately $723,000. Both the Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternatives experience a fiscal shortfall maintaining a surplus over the entire development period. This results from assumptions used in the fiscal analysis that assign capital facility costs at the front-end of the development period and lag property tax collections (as well as including only that portion of property tax revenues attributable to new development). Under both alternatives, sufficient revenues are generated in the years prior to the shortfall to cover the amount of the shortfall. In addition, the full amount of property taxes collected (an amount that includes the value of the land) would increase the overall surplus that occurs over the entire devel property tax levy on the current site (land only) generates nearly $33,000 per year or $263,000 over the 10-year development period. D. Conclusions City of Auburn Based on the assumptions used in the fiscal analysis, total revenues generated by the proposed land use alternatives would exceed the total costs of services and facilities provided by the City of Auburn over buildout of the proposed alternatives for the Auburn Gateway project. Over the long-term, the City would be able to maintain established level-of-service standards. No mitigation would be required. Kent School District Based on the assumptions used in the fiscal analysis, total revenues generated by the proposed alternatives for the Auburn Gateway project would exceed the total costs of providing school facilities and services provided by the Kent School District over buildout of the proposed Retail/Residential and No-Action/Existing Zoning Alternatives. Over the long-term, the School District would be able to maintain established service levels. No mitigation would be required. NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 24 APPENDIX D Method Used for Air Quality Analysis Method Used for Air Quality Analysis Two standard computerized tools were used to evaluate potential air quality impacts resulting from the proposed Auburn Gateway project in both its opening year (2008) and its design year (2020): the Mobile Sources emissions model (U.S. EPA 1996) and CAL3QHC dispersion model (U.S. EPA 1992a). Opening and design years must be considered in the air quality analysis once the conformity rules are triggered. According to the conformity rules, the opening year should be at least 10 years earlier than the design year and should represent an interim period during which the project elements would be considered reasonably operational but not necessarily complete. In 2008, any of the action alternatives associated with the Auburn Gateway project would be partially completed. According to the City of Auburn, if the Auburn Gateway project is completed by th 2008, I Street NE would be connected to Harvey Street NE south of 45 Street NE, allowing a th complete north-to-south connection from South 277 Street. In addition, several other road improvement projects funded by the City of Auburn and/or King County would be completed in the Auburn Gateway project area. Considering the travel implications of these road enhancements, the project completion schedule, and the conformity requirement that the opening year be at least 10 years earlier than the design year, 2008 was selected as the opening year for the purposes of the air quality conformity analysis. The U.S. EPA requires that a Mobile series emission factor model be used in analyses investigating the air quality implications of surface transportation sources. Mobile6, which was released in 2002, is the latest in a series of tools for use in such analyses. However, this model is not ready for general use because a standard set of input parameters have not yet been developed for its use in the Puget Sound region. Until Mobile6 is ready for general use, the U.S. EPA has provided the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) with correction factors to apply to output from the Mobile5b model to produce results close to those expected from Mobile6. The correction factors are based on region-specific input parameters and are intended to reflect the requirements of the Tier II emission controls that require all vehicles manufactured after 2003 to meet more stringent emission limits. In accordance with the agreement between the U.S. EPA and the PSRC, the PSRC was contacted regarding vehicle emission factors for the years of analysis being considered for the Auburn Gateway project. The PSRC ran the Mobile5b model, made appropriate adjustments, and provided the carbon monoxide emission factors for use in the modeling analysis (PSRC 2003). The Mobile5b input parameters were consistent with those used in the development of plementation plan and maintenance plan for carbon monoxide in the Puget Sound region, in accordance with the recommendations of the Washington Department of Ecology and the PSCAA. The Tier II adjusted Mobile5b emission factors for carbon monoxide and worst-case meteorological conditions were used as input to the CAL3QHC dispersion model (U.S. EPA wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix d.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS D-1 Special Area Plan Method Used for Air Quality Analysis 1992a) to calculate ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide near the signalized intersections selected for hotspot modeling. Selection of Intersections for CALQ3QHC Dispersion Analysis Consistent with U.S. EPA guidance, signalized intersections that would be affected by the proposed action alternatives were screened for possible analysis with dispersion modeling. This screening was based on the traffic level of service, total traffic volume, and project-related trips in the future year, as determined during the traffic analysis performed for this environmental impact statement (EIS) (see the Transportation section in Part 3). Intersections were selected for air quality analysis by ranking the affected intersections based on the worst level of service (most congested), the highest daily traffic volume, and the peak-hour traffic volume and selecting up to three intersections from each category. The U.S. EPA suggests modeling intersections with operations that would deteriorate to level of service (LOS) D or worse due to a proposed project. U.S. EPA guidance, therefore, focuses on completing modeling analyses at as few as three to as many as six signalized intersections, if warranted. For this project, the level of service during the PM peak hour represents the worst-case intersection volume and delay. The signalized intersections with LOS D or worse during the PM peak hour are listed in Table D-1. Based on U.S. EPA guidance and available traffic data, three intersections were selected for detailed dispersion modeling for this project. As shown in Table D-1, the same three intersections have the largest volumes in both the opening and design years. After ranking the intersections by cumulative delay (average intersection delay multiplied by total intersection volume), the intersections with the three highest volumes also had the greatest cumulative delay. Therefore, these three intersections represent the intersections that would be most affected by the project during the PM peak hour in both the opening year and the design year: thth South 277 Street at Kent-Kangley Road and 116 Avenue SE th South 277 Street at West Valley Highway th South 277 Street at Auburn Way North. CAL3QHC Dispersion Modeling The CAL3QHC, Version 2, dispersion model was used to calculate peak-hour carbon monoxide concentrations near the intersections most affected by the project. CAL3QHC is a dispersion model designed to calculate pollutant concentrations caused by transportation sources (U.S. EPA 1992a). It considers free-flow and queue emissions (based on Mobile5b emission factors) together with intersection geometry, wind direction, and other meteorological factors. wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix d.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan D-2 Draft EIS Method Used for Air Quality Analysis Table D-1. Traffic delay and volume at project-affected signalized intersections during Alternatives in 2008 Alternatives in 2020 Location No Build 1 2 3 No Build1 2 3 S. 277th St. with Delay 111.8 115.4 116.8 112.6 154.0 166.6 162.1 158.1 Kent-Kangley Rd. Volume 5,156 5,249 5,296 5,223 6,379 6,728 6,601 6,494 S. 277th St. with W. Delay 75.3 82.0 83.5 80.6 131.5 142.0 141.9 137.6 Valley Hwy. Volume 4,782 4,831 4,859 4,821 5,917 6,095 6,039 5,986 Delay 50.0 45.0 47.7 43.7 77.2 111.2 99.1 92.7 S. 277th St. with Auburn Way N. Volume 4,627 4,805 4,902 4,874 5,725 6,390 6,160 6,025 Delay 59.4 61.4 63.1 60.0 108.3 115.8 113.1 111.9 Central Ave. with Willis St. Volume 3,850 3,896 3,918 3,889 4,764 4,937 4,871 4,843 Delay 40.9 42.1 NA 40.9 55.0 63.3 61.8 64.8 Auburn Way N. th with 15 St. NE Volume 4,080 4,120 NA 4,113 5,048 5,197 5,142 5,114 Delay 40.5 43.5 46.2 46.1 69.8 91.9 87.5 79.4 Auburn Way N. th with 37 St. NE Volume 3,144 3,234 3,283 3,228 3,890 4,226 4,111 4,069 Delay NA NA NA NA 54.2 92.5 72.4 56.0 S. 277th St. with I St. NE Volume NA NA NA NA 4,616 5,680 5,329 5,027 Delay NA NA NA NA NA 47.2 37.4 NA I St. SE with Harvey Rd. NE Volume NA NA NA NA NA 4,076 4,001 NA a Delay NA NA NA NA NA 45.6 NA NA Auburn Way N. th with 45 St. NE Volume NA NA NA NA NA 3,207 NA NA The traffic analysis considered two traffic conditions for the determinations of level of service: roadways with and without previously approved planned improvements. The air quality analysis included only the condition with planned improvements because it is reasonable to assume that these improvements would be in place before the opening and design years, improving level of service at nearby intersections. Only signalized intersections with LOS D or worse under any alternative are included in this table. NA = level of service better than LOS D under applicable alternative. a Options for vehicle access to the Auburn Gateway project area were considered at several new or improved intersections directly adjacent to the Auburn Gateway project area. Of all the intersections considered for the analysis of vehicle access th options, the intersection at Auburn Way North and 45 Street NE would operate at LOS D or worse under vehicle access option B only. The following assumptions and parameters, which were used in the CAL3QHC modeling, are ementation plan for carbon monoxide, Washington U.S. EPA guidance for dispersion modeling: Critical meteorological parameters were a mixing height of 3,280.8 feet, a low wind speed (3.28 feet/second), and a stable atmosphere (Class E) (U.S. EPA 1992b). The modeling evaluated 72 wind directions (in 5-degree increments) to ensure that worst-case conditions were considered for each receptor location (U.S. EPA 1992b). wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix d.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS D-3 Special Area Plan Method Used for Air Quality Analysis A background 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration of 3 parts per milliion was assumed to represent other sources in the project area (U.S. EPA 1992b). The modeling configuration considered road links extending 1,000 feet from each intersection. Using the procedures required for the CAL3QHC dispersion model, both free-flow and queue links were configured approaching and departing the intersections evaluated. Near-road receptors were placed 10 feet, 82.5 feet, 165 feet, and 330 feet from cross streets, 10 feet from the nearest traffic lane, and 5.7 feet above the ground to correspond with a typical sidewalk location at breathing height. Modeling used approximately 24 near-road receptors near each intersection (U.S. EPA 1992b). The PM peak-hour traffic conditions provided by the transportation consultant would lead to the highest possible 1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations. Modeled 1-hour concentrations were converted to represent 8-hour concentrations using a persistence factor (i.e., the ratio of 8-hour to 1-hour carbon monoxide concentrations) to represent variability in both traffic volumes and meteorological conditions. Since actual monitoring data were not available, a U.S. EPA default persistence factor of 0.7 was used. All roadways and intersections were considered to be at-grade. wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix d.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan D-4 Draft EIS APPENDIX E Plant and Animal Species List Wildlife Species That May Exist or Were Observed in the Auburn Gateway Project Area and Vicinity Habitat Type Permanently Seasonally Flooded Flooded Emergent Emergent Shrub Forested Upland Agricultural Species Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Forest/Shrub Grassland Amphibians Bullfrog X Ensatina X Long-toed salamander X X X X Northwestern salamander X X X X Pacific chorus (tree) frog X X X X X Pacific giant salamander X X X Rough-skinned newt X X X Western toad X X Reptiles Common garter snake X X X X X X Northwestern garter snake X X X X X Rubber boa X X X X X X Western terrestrial garter snake X X X X Birds a American crow X X X X X American goldfinch X X American kestrel X X X American pigeon X X X a American robin X X X X X X Anna's hummingbird X X X a Bald eagle X X Band-tailedpigeonXXXXXX a Barn owl X X X X X X Bewick's wren X X X Black-capped chickadee X X Black-headed grosbeak X X Brown-headed cowbird X X X X X X Bushtit X X Canada goose X X X Chestnut-backed chickadee X X a Common snipe X X a Common yellowthroat X X Dark-eyed junco X X Downy woodpecker X X a European starling X X X wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix e.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS E-1 Special Area Plan Wildlife Species That May Exist or Were Observed in the Auburn Gateway Project Area and Vicinity (continued) Habitat Type Permanently Seasonally Flooded Flooded Emergent Emergent Shrub Forested Upland Agricultural Species Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Forest/Shrub Grassland Birds (continued) Fox sparrow X X Golden-crowned kinglet X Golden-crowned sparrow X a Great blue heron X X X X X Green-wingedtealXXX Hairy woodpecker X X a House finch X X X a House sparrow X a Killdeer X X X MacGillivray's warbler X X a Mallard X X X X a Marsh wren X X Mourning dove X X Northern flicker X X Northern harrier X X X Northern pintail X X X Osprey X Pileated woodpecker X X a Red-tailed hawk X X X Red-winged blackbird X X X X Rock dove X Ruby-crowned kinglet X Rufous hummingbird X X X Rufous-sided towhee X X a Song sparrow X X X X X X Townsend's warbler X X X X X X Tree swallow X X X X X X Turkey vulture X Varied thrush X X Vaux's swift X X X X X X Violet-green swallow X X X Western screech-owl X X White-crowned sparrow X X Wilson's warbler X X Winter wren X Yellow warbler X X wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix e.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan E-2 Draft EIS Wildlife Species That May Exist or Were Observed in the Auburn Gateway Project Area and Vicinity (continued) Habitat Type Permanently Seasonally Flooded Flooded Emergent Emergent Shrub Forested Upland Agricultural Species Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Forest/Shrub Grassland Yellow-rumped warbler X X Mammals Big brown bat X X X Black rat X X X Bushy-tailed woodrat California myotis X X X a Coyote X X X X Creeping vole X X Deer mouse X Douglas' squirrel X X Eastern gray squirrel X X Hoary bat X X X House mouse X Little brown myotis X X X Long-eared myotis X X X Long-legged myotis X X X Marsh shrew X X Mule deer X X X X Norway rat X X X X X X a Raccoon X X X X X Red fox X X X Shrew-mole X Silver-haired bat X X X Striped skunk X X X Townsend's chipmunk X X X Townsend's mole X X Vagrant shrew X X X X X Virginia opossum X X X X X Western pocket gopher X Western red bat X X X Western small-footed myotis X X X Western spotted skunk X X X a White-tailed deer X X X X Sources: Sibley 2003; Bats Northwest 2003; Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture 2003; Burt and Grossenheider 1980; Corkran and Thomas 1996; Eder 2002; Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973; Ingles 1965; Leonard et al. 1993; Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Pacific Biodiversity Institute 2003; Parametrix 2001b; St. John 2002 a Animals or signs of their presence were observed by Herrera Environmental Consultants on March 2003 or Parametrix (2001b). wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix e.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS E-3 Special Area Plan APPENDIX F Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources Hazardous materials may be classified into a number of different categories based on applicable laws and regulations that define their characteristics and use, including the following: Hazardous waste Dangerous waste Hazardous substances Toxic substances. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Washington Department of Ecology maintain databases to track sites with potential and confirmed releases of chemicals to the environment and to monitor facilities that manage hazardous materials as part of their operations. The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) defines what is meant by hazardous waste. In Washington state, the Department of Ecology has been authorized by the U.S. EPA to implement most of the RCRA program. This authorization was based on state are consistent with and at least as stringent as the federal requirements. The U.S. EPA tracks hazardous waste management at individual facilities throughout the state based on notification requirements and records that define the magnitude of waste generated (i.e., small or large quantity), define the type of handling performed (i.e., treatment, storage, or disposal), and identify whether a release to the environment has occurred. The Department of Ecology tracks facilities based on the required registration of underground storage tanks; it also maintains an inventory of solid waste facilities and landfill sites. Nationally, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, defines hazardous substances. The Department of Ecology operates a parallel program in Washington state under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). Both programs are designed and administered to provide appropriate responses to the release of hazardous substances to the environment. MTCA also addresses releases of petroleum products that are not covered under federal statutes. The U.S. EPA tracks sites based on reported potential or actual releases of hazardous substances to the environment, emergency response notifications, and cleanup progress at major release sites. The Department of Ecology tracks the same types of sites and also tracks petroleum releases, including releases from underground storage tanks. Toxic substances are a subset of hazardous substances that are additionally regulated by the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA was adopted so that all new chemical substances and existing chemicals put to new uses, other than pesticides, could be evaluated for their health and environmental effects. Beyond CERCLA and RCRA, additional controls wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix f.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS F-1 Special Area Plan Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources governing disposal have been specifically applied to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). TSCA sites are tracked by the U.S. EPA. The following discussion provides detailed information about the regulatory framework and reference material accessed to determine existing site conditions based on available documentation. Regulatory Databases The U.S. EPA and the Department of Ecology maintain databases to track conditions related to the handling of hazardous materials or their discharge to the environment. A description of the databases reviewed for the Auburn Gateway project is provided below. Federal Databases The U.S. EPA maintains several databases to track properties or facilities that it has investigated or is currently investigating for releases or threatened releases of hazardous substance to the environment. The U.S. EPA also identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The following federal databases were searched to identify and evaluate potential sites of concern in and surrounding the Auburn Gateway project area. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) includes data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the U.S. EPA by states, municipalities, private companies, and private persons pursuant to Section 103 of CERCLA. CERCLIS includes sites that either have been proposed for inclusion or are already on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The CERCLIS list includes sites from 1983 to the present. Emergency Response Notification System The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. National Priorities List The NPL, which a subset of the information included in CERCLIS, identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) includes selective information on sites that generate, transport, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste, as identified by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix f.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan F-2 Draft EIS Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources Corrective Action Reports Corrective Action Reports (CORRACTS) identify waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Facility Index System The Facility Index System (FINDS) is a database of facilities (or sites) that are monitored or regulated by the U.S. EPA. FINDS uses several databases to track these sites: Permit Compliance System (PCS) Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) Docket for civil enforcement cases (DOCKET) Docket for criminal enforcement cases (C-DOCKET) Federal Underground Injection Control (FURS) Federal Facilities Information System (FFIS) State Environmental Laws and Statues (STATE) PCB Activity Data System (PADS). The FINDS database is updated quarterly; the version evaluated for the purpose of this EIS was dated April 1998. Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System The Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (HMIRS) contains information about incidents of hazardous materials spills that are reported to U.S. Department of Transportation. Materials Licensing Tracking System The Materials Licensing Tracking System (MLTS) is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); it lists approximately 8,100 sites that store or use radioactive materials and are subject to NRC licensing requirements. RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System The RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (RAATS) contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA that pertain to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the U.S. EPA. Records of Decision A Record of Decision (ROD) mandates a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site and includes technical and health-related information to aid in the site cleanup. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS) identifies facilities that release toxic chemicals to the air, water, and land in reportable quantities under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, Section 313. wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix f.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS F-3 Special Area Plan Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources Toxic Substance Control Act The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory list identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances. The list also includes the product volume of these substances by manufacturing plant site. State Databases The state of Washington and county governments also maintain databases of information on hazardous materials sites. The following state databases were searched to identify and evaluate potential sites of concern in and surrounding the Auburn Gateway project area. Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List The Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) constitutes the stats record of uivalent of the federal Superfund CERCLIS. The sites on the CSCSL may or may not be included on the federal CERCLIS list. Hazardous Sites List The Hazardous Sites List (HSL) is a subset of the CSCSL. It includes sites that have been assessed and ranked using the Washington Ranking Method (WARM). Leaking Underground Storage Tank Site List The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site list contains an inventory of reported incidents of leaking underground storage tanks. This list may also identify the type of material released and the affected media (i.e., air, soil, and water). Solid Waste Facility Database Solid waste facilities/landfill site records contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities and landfills across the state. Underground Storage Tank Database Underground storage tanks are regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA and must be registered with Ecology. The database contains information such as the site location, number of tanks, materials stored, and date of installation for registered tanks. Independent Cleanup Reports The Independent Cleanup Reports database identifies sites that have submitted remedial action reports to the Department of Ecology. These are independent remedial actions conducted without the oversight or approval of the Department of Ecology. Owners/operators are not under an order or decree to conduct these cleanup actions. wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix f.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan F-4 Draft EIS Hazardous Materials Regulations and Database Resources Other Records Washington Department of Ecology Records For sites identified on the LUST and CSCSL lists, all available the Department of Ecology records were reviewed. Information gathered from the file reviews included the type of release, affected media (soil or ground water), limits of contamination, corrective actions taken, and potential impacts associated with planned construction. King County Records The King County archives were reviewed, including property tax records dating from the early 1900s to the present. Historical Records The following historical records were reviewed: Historical topographic maps from the U.S. Geological Survey with coverage from the late 1940s through the early 1990s (Landau 2003) Historical aerial photographs with coverage from the 1930s through the Historical property tax records prior to 1974 (Washington State Archives 2003) Auburn City Directories between the 1960s and the late 1970s Results of a phase I environmental site assessment of Auburn Valley 6 Drive-in Theater (Landau 2003) Results of an asbestos and lead survey of Auburn Valley 6 Drive-in Theater (Prezant 2002). Reconnaissance of Sites in the Auburn Gateway Project Area On February 27, 2003, a visual reconnaissance of the Auburn Gateway project area and adjacent properties was conducted to observe current site conditions and identify visible indications of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances historically or currently used, generated, stored, or disposed of. Site locations in and around the project area identified on the LUST site list and the CSCSL were visually confirmed and mapped. Reconnaissance of adjacent properties was restricted to observations from public areas. wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix f.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS F-5 Special Area Plan APPENDIX G Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Definitions Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions. These levels of service are designated with letters ranging from LOS A, which is indicative of good operating conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which is indicative of stop-and-go conditions with frequent and lengthy delays. Levels of service for this analysis were developed using procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000). Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay can be a cause of driver discomfort, frustration, inefficient fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level-of-service criteria are stated in terms of the average delay per vehicle in seconds. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables including: the quality of progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume-to-capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Table B-1 shows the level of service criteria for signalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Table B-1. Level of service for signalized intersections. Level of Service Average Delay Per Vehicle General Description A Less than 10.0 seconds Free flow B 10.1 to 20.0 seconds Stable flow (slight delays) C 20.1 to 35.0 seconds Stable flow (acceptable delays) D 35.1 to 55.0 seconds Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding. E 55.1 to 80.0 seconds Unstable flow (approaching intolerable delay) F Greater than 80.0 seconds Forced flow (jammed) Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the average delay per vehicle for each turning movement. The level of service for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Delay is related to the availability of gaps in the main street's traffic flow, and the ability of a driver to enter or pass through those gaps. Table B-2 shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual. Table B-2. Level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections. Level of Service Average Delay (seconds per vehicle) A Less than 10.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 F Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. wp4 /01-01924-000 appendix g.doc NE Auburn/Robertson Properties Draft EIS G-1 Special Area Plan APPENDIX H Internal Capture Rates APPENDIX I Trip Distribution Patterns O 278 Z B 6 X 5& I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 5 T 1 F 2 4& X I U 7 2 2 3& 4& 3& X J M M J T M B 5& S 7& 367ui U O F E 2& D S 36:UI Z 4& S L F B O :& U 4& U 6& J M L J B N I O H U M 1 F 383OE Z 5 388UI I U 9 E I I 4& 3& 1 OU U 2 35 8& I 5 45 3 U 22 2 6 6 3& 48UI 3& 415UI 3:7UI I 6&U 29 5& U U T 3 T 2 2 E C U F F S 4& U 2& 6 U T T J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 6& 9UI N B J P EO E SE L 3& D B M N BJC O 5& O S V 7& C 3& V B E 29 S Z F W S B B V C I V S O X B Z 2& U T B 278 Y& SPVUFEJTUSJCVUJPO 4& 4& Y&MPDBMBSFBEJTUSJCVUJPO Bqqfoejy.2 OPSUIFBTUBVCVSO TQFDJBMBSFBQMBO PGGJDFUSJQEJTUSJCVUJPO O 278 Z B 6 X 5& I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 5 T 1 F 2 4& X 2& I U 7 2 2 3& 3& 3& 6& X J M M J T M B 5& S 367ui U O F E 4& D S 36:UI Z 3& S L 3& F B O :& U U 7& J M L J B N I O H U M 1 F 383OE Z 5 4& 388UI I U 9 E I I 3& 1 OU U 4& 2 35 9& I 5 45 3 U 22 2 6 6 4& 48UI 3& 415UI 3:7UI I U 29 7& U U T 3 T 2 2 E C U F 5& F S 4& U 2& 6 U T T J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 4& 9UI N B J P EO E SE L 2& D B M N BJC O 4& O S V 6& C 3& V B E 29 S Z F W S B B V C I V S O X B Z 2& U T B 278 Y& SPVUFEJTUSJCVUJPO 4& 3& Y&MPDBMBSFBEJTUSJCVUJPO Bqqfoejy.3 OPSUIFBTUBVCVSO TQFDJBMBSFBQMBO SFUBJMUSJQEJTUSJCVUJPO O 278 Z B 6 X 5& I H J I Z F M M B I W U U 5 T 1 F 2 4& X 3& I U 7 2 2 2& 2& 8& 2& X J M M J T M B 3& S 367ui U 4& O F E D S 36:UI Z 5& S L F B O 3& U 3& U 5& J M L J B N I O H U M 1 F 383OE Z 5 388UI 2& I U 9 E I I 2& 1 OU 5& U 2 35 2& I 5 45 3 3& U 22 2 6 6 8& 6& 48UI 2& 6& 415UI 3:7UI 6& I U 29 U U T 3 T 2 6& 2 E C U F F S 3& U 21&2& 6 U T T J CMFBIJMM423UI 26UI 9UI 7& N B J P EO E SE L D B M N BJC O 3& O 3& S V C 2& V B E 29 S Z F W S B B V C I V S O X B Z 2& U T B 278 Y& SPVUFEJTUSJCVUJPO 4& 2& Y&MPDBMBSFBEJTUSJCVUJPO Bqqfoejy I.4 OPSUIFBTUBVCVSO TQFDJBMBSFBQMBO SFTJEFOUJBMUSJQEJTUSJCVUJPO APPENDIX J Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the Scope of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Environmental Impact Statement Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on the Scope of the Northeast Auburn/Robertson Properties Special Area Plan Environmental Impact Statement Description of the Proposal Robertson Properties Group (RPG), owner of the Valley Six Drive-in theaters and adjacent properties, proposes to redevelop their property with a mix of retail, office, and/or multifamily residential uses. The current zoning for mu the site is located within a larger area the Auburn Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the City of ea G property, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is the preparation and adoption of a new, sub-area plan as an element of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan, and new zoning, and design guidelines to allow development of a mix of land uses including new retail space, office space, and/or multifamily residential units. The project would include new roads and utilities, surface parking, and stormwater detention facilities. The existing theater and other structures on the RPG property would be demolished. Access to the site is proposed from Auburn Way thth North, D Street NE, South 277 Street, and an extension of I Street NE that would reach South 277 Street. The project would be constructed in multiple phases to occur over approximately 10 years. Currently, development on the project site is subject to the requirements of the Unclassified (UNCL), Heavy Commercial (C-3) and Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning districts of the Auburn Municipal Code. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan recognizes that future development of the Northeast Auburn area would benefit from a special planning study to establish how the property should be zoned and developed. Changes to zoning and development standards will affect the type, size and location of uses permitted on the properties. The new zoning could be a modification of an existing zoning designation or an entirely new zone. January 14, 2003 1 Project Location RPG proposes to develop several parcels totaling approximately 55-acres located between D Street NE thth and the northward projection of I Street NE, south of South 277 Street and north of 45 Street NE in Auburn, Washington. (See attached Map, Page 5.) The EIS and special area plan will address an approximately 103-acre study area consisting of the RPG property and an additional approximately 48 acres. The study area extends east of the RPG property to the existing I Street NE right-of-way, and west of the RPG property to Auburn Way North. Project Proponent: Robertson Properties Group. Michael Dee, Director of Development Lead Agency: City of Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development File Number: SEP02-0008 Environmental Impact Statement Required The City of Auburn, as lead agency for environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; Revised Code of Washington \[RCW\] 43.21C) and Auburn City Code 16.06, has determined that the proposed RPG development could result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. The applicant has agreed that an environmental impact statement (EIS) as required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c) will be prepared. Actions Required for Approval of the Proposal Approval of the proposal would require: 1. Adoption of a sub-area plan amending the comprehensive plan; 2. Adoption of zoning regulations and design guidelines applicable to the sub-area; 3. Adoption of a planned action ordinance, and 4. Approval of development plans. Description of Alternatives Under SEPA rules (WAC 197-11-0440(5)) the EIS shall evaluate reasonable alternatives that meet the proponentobjectives, and a no-action alternative. Accordingly, the EIS will evaluate the proposed action in three scenarios developed by RPG that cover the potential range of land uses that could be developed under the proposed new zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. Each scenario will be evaluated as an alternative in the EIS, although it is recognized that any development that is ultimately approved and constructed following this evaluation could be a combination of the alternatives. The proposed land uses that form the basis of these alternatives include: Retail Alternative: 720,000 s.f. of retail Retail and Office Alternative: 200,000 s.f. of retail, and 1,600,000 s.f. of office Retail and Residential Alternative: 360,000 s.f. of retail, and 500 residential units (not to exceed 50% of land area of RPG holdings). No Action Alternative: Development consistent with the current zoning, which includes heavy commercial and multifamily residential uses on some portions of the site, and single-family uses in the Unclassified zone, which comprises the majority of the site. Elements of the Environment to Be Addressed in the EIS The lead agency has determined the following areas for discussion and evaluation in the EIS: January 14, 2003 2 Earth/geology A large quantity of fill will be required to raise the grade above the level of the floodplain. Grading for the project could increase the potential for soil erosion during and after construction. Filling and soil compaction may also adversely affect subsurface and surface hydrology. Air Air quality could be adversely impacted by dust during construction and by vehicle emissions during operation of the proposed development. Water Construction of the project is expected to significantly increase the amount of impervious surface within the project area, in turn increasing the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. Although city stormwater regulations provide controls, this increase could still have significant impacts on the hydrology and water quality of nearby surface and groundwater, subsequently resulting in impacts on surface waters in the area. The EIS will evaluate the effect of discharges and pollutant loadings to surface waters that could be expected from development of the site under each alternative scenario. Floodplain filling is allowed only when adequate compensatory floodplain capacity is provided. The project involves floodplain filling, and modifications to the floodplain could have significant impacts on the existing hydrology of the site and adjacent properties. Plants and Animals The planning area includes wetlands, and is adjacent to a proposed wetland mitigation project site on the Green River. Wetlands provide habitat for diverse plant and animal species. The project could adversely affect the existing and proposed wetland habitat in the project area. Potential impacts on threatened or endangered species in the study area vicinity will also be evaluated. Environmental Health The project would generate noise during construction and could also include noise generators such as ventilation equipment during operation of the development. The project site also is adjacent to potential noise sources such as commercially zoned properties where a wide range of uses could occur and existing and proposed high volume roadways. Residential uses in particular could be adversely affected by noise impacts from the development. Previous land uses may have left hazardous materials on the site and could pose health risks to future users of the site and adjacent natural properties. Land Use The proposed land uses could present incompatibilities due to hours of operation, location of service and loading activities, light and glare, and aesthetic impacts. The analysis will al consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Historic and cultural resources The project area is located on lands that may have cultural significance dating prior to European settlement. Valuable cultural resources could be impacted by the project in areas where excavation might occur. Due to their age, the buildings on the drive in theater site are not anticipated to be eligible for listing on historic registers. As a result, the removal of the structures is not considered a significant impact and is not proposed to be evaluated. January 14, 2003 3 Transportation The project will impact arterial streets adjacent to the project site and potentially other areas of the city of Auburn and neighboring areas. The EIS will evaluate the ims vehicular trip generation on transportation systems based on the s 2020 transportation model. This analysis will include potential impacts to intersection and arterial level of service (roadway capacity); traffic safety; emergency vehicle access; transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movement from each alternative. The EIS will th evaluate alternative access locations on South 277 Street and Auburn Way North, and potential th realignments or closures of other local streets including, D Street NE, 49 Street NE, and the existing I Street NE right-of-way alignment. It will also assess the potential collector roadway locations and their access to arterial roadways. Transportation impacts from proposed development near the site could contribute to cumulative impacts. Public Services and Utilities The project would create new demands on public services including police, fire, parks, and schools, and utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, and communications and electric lines. Scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS during the 21-day public comment period from January 14 through February 4, 2003. You may comment on alternatives, probable significant impacts, mitigation measures, and other approvals that may be required. A public meeting to accept comments on the scope of the EIS will be held on January 28, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at Auburn City Hall, Council Chambers, 25 West Main, Auburn. Written comments on the scope of the EIS must be postmarked by February 4, 2003 to the following address: Paul Krauss, Director Department of Planning and Community Development City of Auburn 25 West Main Auburn, WA 98001-4998 The intent of the scoping process to narrow the scope of the EIS to those areas where significant impacts are probable and to define appropriate alternatives for consideration. It is possible that through public comment, other areas of probable significant impact or additional alternatives will be identified. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Krauss, AICP Date Director of Planning and Community Development & SEPA Responsible Official January 14, 2003 4