HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-2005 Final Staff Eval for ChecklistG
FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SEP04-0037
Date: February 8, 2005
Project Name: River Sand Planned Unit Development
Applicant: Rob Pursuer
Centex Homes
11241 Slater Avenue NE, Suite 100
Kirkland WA 98033
425-216-3400
Location: Generally, south of South 277' Street and west of the Green River
Legal Description: Generally, a portion of the George E. King Donation Land Claim No. 40 in
Section 31, Township 21 Range 5 East, W.M. A full legal description is attached to the applicant's
environmental checklist application and provided on the site plan.
S -T -R: 31-21-05
Principal Parcel Number: 000420-0023 (approximately 41 -acres)
Related Parcel Number: NA
Proposal: Request for a rezoning from R-4, Multiple Family Residential and R-3, Two -Family
Residential to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation, initial short platting into two lots
and the subsequent preliminary plat approval of a subdivision into approximately 172 single family
lots, one multiple family lot with approximately 115 dwelling units and seventeen tracts and binding
site plan approval of the multiple family development, all under the provisions of the PUD. The
proposal includes the site preparation, construction and dedication of new public streets within and
adjacent to the plat, the construction of privately -owned recreational spaces, the installation of on-
site landscaping, utilities and the dedication of land to be used for a public park. The project
includes approval of deviations for street standards, variances from single-family setbacks and RV
parking and a modification to plat standards related to park land dedication.
Existing Zoning: R-4 Multiple Family Residential and R-3, Two -Family Residential
Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Residential/Moderate Density Residential
A. Background: Pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2), the City of Auburn is required to send any
DNS which may result from this environmental review, along with the checklist, to the DOE, the US
Army Corps of Engineers, other agencies with jurisdiction, affected tribes, and interested parties.
Therefore, the City will not act on this proposal for fifteen days after the DNS issuance.
6. Phasing'. Initially, the project site is proposed to be short platted into two lots to facilitate
purchase of property in phases.
Subsequently, the proposal is a formal subdivision that may require two final plat phases. During
the preliminary plat, 172 single family lots, one multiple family lot containing 115 dwelling units and
seventeen tracts will be proposed, with construction of the permanent storm drainage facility and a
interim signalized access to S. 277"' Street. Under a two-phase scenario, the first final plat phase
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 2
will construct 69 single-family homes and 115 dwelling units on the multiple family lot. The second
final plat phase will authorize an additional 103 single-family lots, generally within the eastern half
of the site.
7. Future Actions: Future actions related to the project include the subsequent construction of a
second water supply line and private utilities within a new right-of-way to be established and
constructed to serve the project site from the west. This off-site construction will necessitate
additional environmental review.
8. Other Environmental Information: Other environmental information includes information that
has been prepared related to previous environmental decisions for the site. On September 30,
2005, the City of Auburn issued a combined Determination of Significance and Adoption of
Existing Document, City file Number SEP04-0016 for the filling and rough grading of up to 200,000
cubic yards of excavated soil on an approximately 41 -acre, undeveloped site located in the
northeast and southeast quarters of Section 31, Township 22 North, Range 5 East. W.M, in
anticipation of future residential development. The source of material will be existing soils from an
adjacent 67 -acre permitted wetland mitigation construction site under construction by the Port of
Seattle.
Title of documents adopted:
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Master Plan Update Development
Actions at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport, U.S Department of Transportation (USDOT),
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Port of Seattle, February 1996
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Master Plan Update
Development Actions at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport, USDOT, FAA and Port of Seattle,
May 1997
SEPA Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Master Plan Update Development Actions at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport, USDOT, FAA
and Port of Seattle, January 24, 2000 (related to the Auburn Wetland Mitigation Site).
SEPA Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
MasterPlan Update Development Actions at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport, USDOT, FAA
and Port of Seattle, May 5, 2000 (related to the Auburn Wetland Mitigation Site).
SEPA Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Master Plan Update Development Actions at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport, USDOT, FAA
and Port of Seattle, June 17, 2003 (related to the Auburn Wetland Mitigation Site).
The following environmental information has been prepared and submitted in support of this
application:
Terra Associates Inc.
4, 2004
Wetland Assessment of the Bristol Property S 277"' Street and West of the Green River, Auburn
WA J.S. Jones Associates Inc., January 31, 2002, revised July 30, 2002
Hydrology Precipitation and Temperature Date for December 2002 — February 2003 of the Bristol
Pro rt , J. S. Jones, February 27, 2003.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 3
Letter from Gail Terzi to Jeffrey Jones, May 22, 2003 re: verification of wetland delineation
boundaries.
Letter Request for Determination on Ditches on River Sand LLC, J.S. Jones and Associates Inc.
Dated February 19, 2004
joint Aquatic Kesources rermit Application (JARPA) to the Corps of Engineers, DBM Engineers,
dated October 2, 2003 revised June 23, 2004, seeking relocation of the north -south ditch to the
west and along the west property line.
River Sand PUD Preliminary Site Plan, DBM Engineers Inc. March 22, 2005
Storm Drainage Report for River Sand PUD, DBM Consulting Engineers, March 31, 2004.
Existing Tree Exhibit, DBM Engineers, September 28, 2004.
River Sand PUD Landscape Schematic Design Sheet SD1 1 — SD1 5, Lauchlin R. Bethune
Associates, Inc., April 14, 2004
Riley Group, August 8, 2003.
River Sand PUD Preliminary Site Map, DBM Engineers, March 22, 2005
Modification to Plat Standards for Required Park Area, DBM Consulting Engineers, November 22,
2004.
Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey of the Proposed River Sand PUD King County
Washington, Entrix Inc., August 10, 2004,
Traffic Impact Analvsis River Sand PUD Transportation Consulting Northwest, April 12, 2004.
The report was revised June 24, 2004 and supplemented on September 27, 2004.
dated December 15, 2004
B. Environmental Elements:
1. Earth: The 1973 USDA Soil Conservation Service's "Soil Survey for the King County Area,
Washington", classifies the site's soils as a combination of Oridia silt loam (Os) and Briscot silt
loam (Br). The southwestern portion of the site is identified as Oridia silt loam (Os) while the
northeastern portion of the site is identified as Briscot silt loam (Br).
Oridia silt loam (Os) is a gently undulating, somewhat poorly drained soil, formed in alluvium in
river valleys. This soil generally has slopes of less than 2 percent. Oridia silt loam possesses the
following characteristics: moderate to moderately slow permeability in the subsoil; a seasonal
water table at depth of 1 to 2 feet; high available water capacity; slow runoff; slight erosion hazard;
and moderate flood hazard.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 4
Briscot silt loam (Br) is a poorly drained soil formed in alluvium under conifers and grass in river
valleys. It possesses the following characteristics: moderate permeability; a seasonal water table
of 1 to 2 feet; high available water capacity; slow runoff; a slight erosion hazard; and a moderate
stream overflow hazard. Briscot silt loam is identified as a hydric soil.
The site is relatively flat with an approximately one percent slope to the west, away from the River.
Additional information on the site soils is contained in the report: Geotechnical Report River Sand
1" (sic) Street NE and South 2779' Street, Terra Associates Inc. February 4, 2004. The report
indicates that the investigation relied on excavation of thirteen test pits to a depth of 1-15 feet and
four cone penetration tests to the depths of 50 feet. The results indicate the upper portion of the
site consists of 10-15 feet of fine-grained, loose sand silt interbedded with loose silty sand. Below
this, the site consists of loose and soft -layered alluvial soils to a depth of 24 to 27 feet. Medium
dense to very dense granular soils underlie the compressible soils. Groundwater seepage was
encountered at depths of 2.5 to 10 feet. The risk of soil liquefaction and associated hazards is low
as identified.
The report indicates the site is suitable for the proposed development however the site soils are
moisture sensitive and when worked in wet weather would be unstable and not suitable for support
of buildings construction. The site soils are also not suitable for structural fill when too wet. To
avoid added costs, grading and utility construction should occur during normally dry summer and
early fall months. The report notes buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings
foundations bearing on stable sub grade prepared in accordance with the report
recommendations. The recommendation includes: removal of all vegetation and organic surface
soils (2-4 inches). In general, a minimum of 18 inches of clean granular structural fill over
geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. Alternatively, unstable soils can be
excavated and replaced with clean granular structural fill
The report also contains particular recommendations about the design and construction of
stormwater ponds. In particular; site soils are subject to limitations within high water areas and
require certain maximum slopes and stabilization.
Under the proposal, it is estimated that the earthwork would consist of the excavation and removal
from the site of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of organic soils. The project will also require the
importation of approximately 325,000 cubic yards of soil for general site filling for the sub -base
under paving and to raise site to equal grades with the adjacent right-of-way and properties, to
provide cover for utilities and to achieve the grades necessary for adequate site drainage.
Approximately 25,000 cubic yard of excavation and backfill will be necessary for the installation of
utilities. Approximately 80,000 cubic yards of excavation and 15,000 cubic yards of filling are
proposed for building footings and storm drainage system construction, respectively. The on-site
street construction is estimated to include 75,000 cubic yards of fill and 15,000 cubic yards of
excavation. Up to 200,000 cubic yards of fill placement has previously been authorized by city
permit No. GRA04-0025 from the adjacent wetland mitigation construction site by the Port of
Seattle.
While the site's soils and flatness do not themselves present an erosion hazard; the site
preparation includes importation and placement of large amounts of fill for construction. These
proposed actions, if not properly controlled, could result in erosion and sedimentation impacts to
on-site wetlands, adjacent properties or the surface drainage system. The City will require the
preparation, review and approval of a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan in
accordance with the Chapter 5 of the City's Design and Construction Standards manual.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 5
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows:
The City shall seek to ensure that land not developed or otherwise modified in a manner
which will result in or significantly increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide,
subsidence or substantial soil erosion. The City's development standards shall dictate the use
of Best Management Practices to minimize the potential for these problems. [Policy EN -66,
Auburn Comprehensive Plan (ACP)]
The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the City is of equivalent quality to
the water entering. This will be accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to
surface and ground waters through education programs and implementation and enforcement
of Best Management Practices. (Policy EN -11, ACP)
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on hazards associated with soils and
subsurface drainage as a part of its environmental review process and require any
appropriate mitigating measures. (Policy EN -68, ACP)
2. Air: Short-term impacts on air quality could occur during site preparation and paving
operations. Construction activity, including the hauling necessary for the importation of fill material
will contribute to short-term increases in local suspended particulate levels. These impacts will be
controlled through watering the site as necessary. Street cleaning in accordance with the City's
Design and Construction Standards manual will also lessen these impacts.
Minimizing the increased levels of suspended particulates is a priority of the City. The City shall
consider measures that will keep the levels of on-site and off-site dust emissions at acceptable
levels.
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows:
The City shall seek to secure and maintain such levels of air quality as will protect human
health, prevent injury to plant and animal life, prevent injury to property, foster the comfort and
convenience of area inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of the
area. (Policy EN -18, ACP)
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on air quality as a part of its
environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. (Policy EN -
22, ACP)
3. Water:
A. Surface: The presence of wetlands on the property was investigated in the Report: Wetland
Assessment of the Bristol Property S 277"' Street and West of the Green River Auburn WA, J.S.
Jones Associates Inc., January 31, 2002, revised July 30, 2002. The report concluded that the
site contained two wetland areas: a wetland connected to the ditch south of S 277`" Street in the
northwest corner and a portion of a larger off-site wetland near the southwest corner. The report
noted three wetland ditches: one east -west along the south side of 277`" street, a north —south
ditch within the western one-third of the site and a ditch along the south side of the pedestrian trail
leading to the Green River. The report was supplemented by the report: Hydrology Precipitation
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 6
and Temperature Data for December 2002 — February 2003 of the Bristol Property, J.S. Jones,
February 27, 2003. The report supplements the previous wetland assessment with specific
weather and precipitation data.
Subsequently, the Army Corps of Engineers modified the delineation via a Letter from Gail Terzi to
Jeffrey Jones, May 22, 2003 verifying the wetland boundaries in the attached map, dated May 12,
2003. The letter reported the site contained two wetlands: a 1,243 square foot (0.03 -acre) wetland
at the northwest corner and an 18,655 square foot (0.43 -acre) wetland at the southwest comer.
The letter also noted that the site contained three ditches meeting the definition of "Waters of the
U.S". The applicant's representative sent a Letter Request for Determination on Ditches on River
Sand LLC, J.S. Jones and Associates Inc., dated February 19, 2004 indicating that the site ditches
should be exempt from Corps regulation so they can be piped or relocated.
The applicant has submitted a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) to the Corps
of Engineers, dated October 2, 2003, revised June 23, 2004 seeking the relocation of the north -
south ditch to the west and along the western property line and piping approximately ninety (90)
feet for a total fill area of 270 square feet. Not addressed, is the filling and elimination of the
eastern portion of the east -west ditch on the south side of S 277th Street to coincide with north -
south ditch relocation and half street improvements to S 2771h Street. It has been represented that
the on-site ditches are not wetlands and do not necessitate mitigation or that mitigation has
already been completed by the City of Kent as part of their S 277"' Street Phase I improvements.
If mitigation is necessary, the applicant must demonstrate permission to utilize Kent's mitigation
construction or identify additional mitigation.
The site is approximately 41 -acres in size and contains two wetland areas; Wetland 2, a 1,243
square foot (0.03 -acre) wetland at the northwest corner and Wetland1, a 18,655 square foot (0.43
acre) wetland at the southwest comer. The on-site wetland total approximately 19,898 square feet
(0.46 -acres) of palustrine, emergent wetland.
The proposed action does include placing fill in wetlands however; the project will include
construction proximate to the site wetlands that will increase disturbance to the wetland areas.
To compensate and mitigate the loss of wetland functional values associated with construction
disturbance, a conceptual mitigation plan was prepared. Information on the proposed mitigation
for wetland impacts is contained in the report: Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan of the River
Sand Property, J.S. Jones and Associates Inc., revised January 26, 2005. To reduce or avoid
impacts, the proposed construction includes observing a fifty (50) foot minimum enhanced buffer
around Wetland 1 (Category ll) and observing an average of twenty-five (25) foot enhanced buffer
around Wetland 2 (Category IV). According to the report, the existing buffer does not contain
suitable buffer vegetation and buffer enhancement is proposed as a result. The enhancement
around Wetiand 1 (approximately 68,836 square feet including the adjacent Tract J) and the buffer
enhancement around Wetland 2 (approximately 8,034 square feet) will be replanted with native
trees and shrubs to create a forested community with habitat structures added. The enhancement
of Wetland 2, itself, by replanting is also proposed.
The report states: " Wetland 2 may require supplemental hydrology in order to match the pre and
post hydrology condition. Pre and post hydrologic calculation will be provided by the civil engineer
at the time of final engineering." The site's wetlands are rated low to moderate for flood and
stormwater storage, and groundwater support, erosion protection, water quality improvement,
natural biological support and habitat functions. These wetlands are rated low for socio-economic
and cultural functions.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 7
While the City conceptually agrees with the suggestions and recommendation of the conceptual
wetland mitigation plan, the following exceptions are noted: 1) In addition to the vegetative
performance standards proposed, hydrologic performance standards are necessary to ensure
adequate hydrology to wetlands areas and reported. 2) Permanent, critical areas fencing shall be
provided at the buffer boundary to protect wetland construction and enhancement areas.
Critical factors in the enhancement of wetland environments include both the timing and
subsequent monitoring of activities to ensure satisfactory results. To accomplish this task, the
conceptual mitigation plan recommends five-year monitoring of the mitigation performance be
conducted.
Prior to authorization of the proposed action, a final wetland mitigation plan and details shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval. In addition, proper financial assurances and
commitments will be provided to the City, which guarantees the success and survival of the
wetland mitigation areas. The City should also consider a requirement for provisions of a
biological consultant to assist the City in inspection and monitoring of the project in accordance
with the recommendation of the wetland report.
A portion of the eastern boundary of the site is adjacent to the Green River. King County property
intervenes along the remaining portion of the eastern property boundary. There are on-site areas
along the eastern boundary within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark that therefore are
within areas subject to the City's Shoreline Management Program. According to the plat and
environmental checklist application, this area of shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to remain
undisturbed with this project and dedicated to the City for future recreational use.
An area of FEMA floodway is located within the southeast comer of the site and extends to
approximately 49 -feet in vertical elevation. The elevation is based upon the Army Corps of
Engineers maximum flow release (12,000 cfs) from the Howard Hanson Dam, located upstream
on the Green River. No work will be performed east of the levee or adjacent to the River. The
100 -year floodplain is coincident with the floodway in the vicinity due to the levee.
A small area of 100 -year floodplain also occurs within the western portion of the site and it's based
on actual field topography (The location of the floodplain is shown on the River Sand PUD
Preliminary Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1, DBM Engineers Inc., March 22, 2005). This floodplain is
connected to the Green River to the north of the site. The project would fill the on-site area of
floodplain and displace approximately 9,000 cubic feet of storage. The project would either
provide 100% compensatory storage on-site through excavation of areas southwest of Wetland 1
or through construction of compensatory storage on the Port of Seattle property to the south by
others. Alternatively, a FEMA floodplain map amendment is being pursued by others, which if
approved would remove any 100 -year floodplain from the site.
B. Groundwater: Concur with checklist
C. Runoff/Stormwater: The proposed construction will result in approximately 50% of the site
being covered with impervious surfaces. The removal of vegetation and the fill, grading and
paving operations will increase the site's storm water runoff. As a result, the project will alter the
existing surface water runoff characteristics and reduce the water quality of the surface runoff.
The site's paved areas have the potential to contribute pollutants to the ground and surface as
pollutants are washed from impervious surfaces into the storm drainage system. Pollutants that
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 8
accumulate on paved surfaces include heavy metals, petrochemicals and other substances and
require water quality treatment prior to discharge off-site.
The stormwater management system is proposed to consists of catch basins within streets and
parking areas directed to underground piping conveying storm water to the northwest corner of the
site where a combined detention/water quality treatment wet pond is proposed. The storm
drainage facilities are proposed to be located with one or more public tracts within the northwest
comer of the site. The design and construction of the storm drainage facilities must accomplish
quality integration of the pond and open space purposes to -be consistent with the policies and
PUD standards.
The design and construction of the storm drainage system must take into account the seasonal
high water table. The site plan shows combined facilities and does not identify separation of
public and private stormwater management. A cross drainage easement and hold harmless
agreement is required for combining public and private storm waters.
Additional information on the project's storm water system is described in the report: Storm
Drainage Report for River Sand PUD, DBM Consulting Engineers, March 31, 2004. The report
identifies the existing drainage pattern of the site and the proposed storm drainage system. The
report identifies that a north -south ditch located in the western one-third of the site, conveys runoff
from the vegetated field to the northwest comer of the property, from there, the ditch continues to
the west running parallel with S. 277"' Street. Water is conveyed through a pipe to the north side
of S. 277"' Street. The water is then conveyed north to the Green River through a series of ditches
and culverts in unincorporated King County.
Proper and routine maintenance of the site's private storm drainage facilities is necessary to avoid
adverse impacts and to ensure sufficient storage capacity and water quality treatment. The City
will consider measures to ensure proper design, construction and maintenance of the proposed
storm drainage facilities.
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows:
Stormwater drainage improvement projects that are proposed to discharge to groundwater,
such as open water infiltration ponds, shall provide for surface water pretreatment designed to
standards outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater
Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Drainage improvement projects that may
potentially result in the exchange of surface and ground waters, such as detention ponds,
shall also incorporate these standards. (Policy EN -2, ACP)
The City will regulate any new storm water discharges to creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, takes
and other water bodies with the goal of no degradation of the water quality or habitat of the
receiving waters, and where feasible seek opportunities to enhance the water quality and
habitat of receiving waters. (Policy. EN -4, ACP)
The City's design standards shall ensure that the post development peak stormwater
runoff rates do not exceed the predevelopment rates. (Policy EN -10, ACP)
The City will seek to ensure that the quality of water leaving the City is of equivalent quality to
the water entering. This will be accomplished by emphasizing prevention of pollution to
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 9
surface and ground waters through education programs and implementation and enforcement
of Best Management Practices. (Policy EN -11, ACP)
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on water quality as part of its
environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Impacts on
fish resources shall be a priority concern in such reviews. (Policy EN -13, ACP)
The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to enhance and protect water
quality as dictated by the City's Developer Design Manual or other designated standard until is
completed. In all new development, biofiltration or other approved treatment measures shall
be required prior to discharging storm waters into the City storm drainage system or into
environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, rivers, and groundwater). (Policy EN -12,
ACP)
The City shall require the use of Best Management Practices to enhance and protect water
quality as dictated by the City's Design and Construction Standards and the Washington State
Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. In all
new development, approved water quality treatment measures that are applicable and
represent the best available science or technology shall be required prior to discharging storm
waters into the City storm drainage system or into environmentally sensitive areas (e.g.
wetlands, rivers, and groundwater.) (Policy EN -14, ACP)
The City recognizes that stormwater treatment facilities do not function efficiently unless
maintained. The City shall strive to ensure that public and private stormwater collection,
detention and treatment systems are properly maintained and functioning as designed. (Policy
EN -17, ACP)
The City shall enact ordinances and review development proposals in a manner, which
restricts and controls the discharge of storm water for new development. At a minimum, the
peak discharge rate after development shall not exceed the peak discharge rate before
development. (Policy EN -55,
4. Plants: The subject parcel is predominately covered with pasture grasses with a few scattered
trees. The location of trees meeting the City's criteria for significant trees per ACC 18.50.030(E) is
identified in the Existing Tree Exhibit, DBM Engineers, received September 28, 2004. This exhibit
identifies five alder trees, which have become established on-site and under the current proposal
all existing vegetation, including the identified trees except vegetation within wetlands and portions
of wetland buffer areas and within the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction.
The required new streets will be designed to current standards, which require the installation of
street trees approximately every 30 -feet. Construction in accordance with City standards will
provide over 200 new street trees within the plat. In addition, the proponent will be providing
landscape treatments within both the private and public park space, which will include the
installation of new trees. A conceptual landscape design (without street tree plantings) is
illustrated on the River Sand PUD Landscape Schematic Design Sheet SD1.1 — SD1.5, Lauchlin
R. Bethune Associates, Inc., April 14, 2004. The proposed installation of trees will mitigate for the
loss of vegetation associated with the site preparation activities.
To ensure that adequate provisions for street tree plantings are achieved, the Planning Director
shall review and approve the landscape plan, to include street trees. Approval of a landscape
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 10
design for public and private open space is required to ensure consistency with standards of the
PUD.
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA are noted as follows:
Where possible, streams and riverbanks should be kept in a natural condition, and
degraded streambanks should be enhanced or restored. (Policy EN -6, ACP)
The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and encourage landscaping in order
to provide filtering of suspended particulates (Policy EN -20, ACP).
The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered species of plants and animals
found within the City by preventing the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and
groundcover; by promoting the design and development of landscaped areas which provide
food and cover for wildlife; and by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat
(Policy EN -23, ACP).
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of land, known or
suspected fish and wildlife habitats (Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its
environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Such
mitigation may involve the retention of significant habitats and the use of native landscape
vegetation (Policy EN -24, ACP).
The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an integral part of public and
private development plans (Policy EN -31, ACP).
The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new
development (Policy EN -32, ACP).
The City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants landscaping for both public
and private projects (Policy EN -33; ACP).
5. Animals: The site proposed for development because of its proximity to the River and
considerable size currently provides some limited habitat for upland and wetland dependent
species. Under the current proposal, the wildlife habitat currently provided by the existing site will
be impacted through site preparation and the development. Increases in noise generation,
impervious surfaces, displacing of food sources will result from the project and disrupt the existing
niche for the habitants of this urban wildlife community. The City will consider measures that
preserve existing vegetation where feasible and provide revegetation to the extent practicable to
reduce the adverse impacts to local wildlife.
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA are noted as follows:
Where possible, streams and riverbanks should be kept in a natural condition, and
degraded stream banks should be enhanced or restored. (Policy EN -6, ACP)
The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and encourage landscaping in order
to provide filtering of suspended particulates (Policy EN -20, ACP).
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 11
The City shall seek to protect any unique, rare or endangered species of plants and animals
found within the City by preventing the indiscriminate and unnecessary removal of trees and
groundcover; by promoting the design and development of landscaped areas which provide
food and cover for wildlife; and by protecting and enhancing the quality of aquatic habitat
(Policy EN -23, ACP).
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on the quality of land, known or
suspected fish and wildlife habitats (Map 9.2) and vegetative resources as a part of its
environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Such
mitigation may involve the retention of significant habitats and the use of native landscape
vegetation (Policy EN -24, ACP).
The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an integral part of public and
private development plans (Policy EN -31, ACP).
The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new
development (Policy EN -32, ACP).
The City shall encourage the use of water conserving plants landscaping for both public
and private projects (Policy EN -33, ACP).
6. Energy and Natural Resources: Concur with checklist.
7. Environmental Health: Within recent years the site has been cultivated for agricultural use
and is currently grassland. A report was prepared to evaluate the presence or likely presence of
any hazardous materials. The report: "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed River
Sand Estates Southeast Corner of the Northeast I Street and South 277"' Street, The Riley Group,
August 8, 2003, indicates no presence of any hazardous materials was found.
8. Land and Shoreline Use: The proposal is to develop a 172 -lot single-family subdivision and
115 multiple -family dwelling units under the City's PUD standards. The subject parcel is
undeveloped, roughly rectangular in shape, approximately 989 feet north to south and 1,740 foot
east to west. The northern approximately half of the site is zoned R-4, Multiple Family Residential,
while the southern part of the site is zoned R-3, Duplex Residential. The proposed PUD process
requires a rezone under the parameters defined by Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.69. The existing
comprehensive plan designation splits, with a High -Density Residential designation coinciding with
the R-4 zoning and a Moderate Density Residential designation corresponding to the R-3 zoned
land.
The intent of the PUD is to allow greater design flexibility to the applicant, while providing a higher
quality, more environmentally sensitive development than might otherwise be achieved by a
conventional development or subdivision. Under the provisions of the PUD Ordinance, the
applicant may provide up to 18 units per acre in the portion of the site designated for high density
residential development and 12 units per acre in the remaining portion, designated as moderate
Density residential. The proposal generally provides 7 units per acre throughout the site. Under
the PUD requirements, 20 percent of the gross "buildable area" must be provided as publicly
available "Open Space".
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 12
The applicant has proposed to develop a portion (approximately 24.3 acres) of the site as a single
family plat with detached single-family homes, which will be processed concurrent with the rezone
application to allow the PUD. The applicant has also proposed a portion of the site (approximately
8.26 acres) as multiple family residential, subject to the Binding Site Plan process. The PUD,
Binding Site Plan and Preliminary Plat applications were made concurrent with the environmental
checklist application and conditions of development may be applied through those processes as
well.
In addition, the applicant has filed an application for a variance (VAR04-0006) from the yard
setbacks within the single family portion of the site to allow modulation of the houses. A variance
(VAR04-0005) is also sought to seek relief from the provision of recreational vehicle parking, ACC
18.52.020(Ax3).
Adjacent zoning and land uses include:
• North: Unincorporated King County A-10 Agricultural, one dwelling unit per 10 acres
• East: Green River levee (partially on-site) and the Green River
• West: undeveloped property zoned R4, Multiple Family Residential
• South wetland mitigation site currently under construction zoned P1, Public
City of Auburn Sensitive Area designations for the subject parcel includes: aquifer recharge area,
seismic hazard, volcanic hazard, and wetlands (suspected wildlife habitat).
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows:
The development of new neighborhoods should be governed by development standards that
allow some flexibility. Flexibility should be considered to encourage compact urban
development, to provide protection of critical areas, and resource lands (including, but not
limited to, agricultural resource lands, cultural resources, forest resource lands, mineral
resource areas (Map 9.3A) hillsides or wetlands), and to facilitate non -motorized
transportation. The City should implement mechanisms such as "planned unit developments"
which allow variation from normal development standards in exchange for enhanced design
features and environmental protection, while maintaining consistency with this Plan (Policy
LU -20, ACP).
Residential development of shoreline areas shall be in accord with the City's Shoreline
Management Program and should provide for the retention of public access to these areas.
Special care should be taken in the design of residential areas in shoreline areas to reduce
the potential conflict between residential use and public access (Policy LU -22, ACP).
9. Housing: Concur with checklist.
10. Aesthetics: The proposed removal of vegetation and construction of the proposed 287
dwelling units has the potential to result in adverse visual impacts as the site converts from low
intensity use to urban development.
Under the current proposal, the design of the buildings will be coordinated through the use of
similar architectural and design treatments. The preliminary plat approval phase of the PUD
project requires the applicant to submit a site plan and elevations of buildings to ensure a high
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 13
level of design treatment is implemented. Consistency of the elevations and treatments to the
requirements of the PUD design criteria will be evaluated as part of the approval process.
The City's Design and Construction Standards manual requires that on-site utility lines will be
placed underground. The applicant's at -grade storm water facilities are proposed adjacent to the
street in the northwest corner of the site. To ensure that the combination of the landscaping
amenities and the project's at ground storm drainage facilities do not result in adverse functional or
visual impacts, the design of the drainage and landscaping shall be coordinated. High quality
design is required to the at -grade stormwater facilities should be designed to preclude the need for
fencing.
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows:
The City shall encourage development, which maintains and improves the existing
aesthetic character of the community. (Policy UD -1, ACP)
Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the
appearance of the site, preclude the need for security fencing and serve as an amenity.
The design of above ground storage and conveyance facilities should address or
incorporate landscaping utilizing native vegetation, minimal side slopes safety,
maintenance needs, and function. The facilities should be located within the rear or side
yards areas and the design should preclude the need for security fencing when ever
feasible. (Policy UD -6, ACP)
The visual impacts of large new developments should be a priority consideration in their
review and approval. (Policy UD -9, ACP)
All new development shall be required to underground on-site utility distribution, service and
telecommunication lines (Policy UD -12, ACP).
11. Light and Glare: Concur with checklist
12. Recreation: Residential subdivisions greater than 50 -lots are required to dedicate land
suitable for parks. The projected rate of park dedication is 6.03 -acres for every 1,000 persons.
Under the current proposal, it is anticipated that the average occupancy of each structure shall be
2.8 persons; therefore, 4.846 -acres of land is required for park dedication [(287 d.u. x 2.8 persons
per structure = 803.6 personsy(1,000 persons x 6.03 acres) = 4.846 acres].
The proposed linear park, Tracts A, B, C, D, E, F and G (approximately 1.31. acres) as well as the
proposed active park land, Tracts O and P (approximately 2.78 acres) are proposed to be
dedicated to the City Parks and Recreation Department. According to the latest site plan, River
Sand PUD Preliminary Site Map, DBM Engineers, March 22, 2005 these tracts total approximately
4.09 acres. The Tracts may change prior to final plat approval.
Therefore, under the current proposal, the applicant is proposing to provide approximately 84% of
the required park land dedication to meet the standards of the City's Parks and Recreation
Department. To compensate the City for the shortfall in dedication, the applicant proposes to
provide a combination of park improvements or in -lieu fees. Since the park dedication is a
requirement of ACC 17.12.260 a plat modification is required to be processed and approved to
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 14
authorize the alternate methods of meeting this requirement. (See Modification to Plat standards
for Required Park Area, DBM Consulting Engineers, November 22, 2004. ) The applicant shall
complete improvements at the direction of the City's Parks and Recreation Director and/or provide
a lump sum payment to the city, which will be used for future park improvements.
The improvements and plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Parks and
Recreation or the Planning Director.
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows:
Encourage pedestrian -oriented design features in all development (TR -37, ACP)
The City shall encourage subdividers of new plats to include pedestrian trails in new plats
which link the development to nearby activity centers, such as schools, parks or neighborhood
shopping (Poilicy TR -45, ACP).
The Auburn Park and Recreation Plan, as may be amended or updated in the future is hereby
adopted and incorporated as part of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Policy PR -1, ACP).
New developments shall contribute to 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 of parks located
elsewhere (Policy PR -2, ACP).
The City shall evaluate the impacts of new development on parks and recreational resources
through the SEPA environmental review process, and shall take appropriate steps to mitigate
significant adverse impacts (Policy PR -4, ACP).
The City recognizes the important recreational and transportation roles played by local and
regional trail systems. The City shall continue to develop a system of separated trail facilities
to move residents through our community and to adjoining communities. The local system
should be designed to link up with regional trails and designated bicycle routes on roads. Safe
routes along existing and proposed roadways should be improved and marked for cyclists.
The City should continue to work with King County and other jurisdictions to maintain existing
facilities and improve non -motorized transportation links (Policy PR -5, ACP)
The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas having a unique combination of open
space values, including: separation or buffering between incompatible land uses; visual
delineation of the City or a distinct area or neighborhood of the City; unusually productive
wildlife habitat; wetlands; floodwater or stormwater storage; stormwater purification;
recreational value; historic or cultural value; aesthetic value; and educational value (Policy PR -
7, ACP).
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 15
The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas that provide essential habitat for any
rare, threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species (Policy PR -9, ACP).
The City shall seek to acquire open space lands, which provide significant environmental or
social value. Such open space shall be managed to conserve and improve the natural, visual,
historic and cultural resources associated with the land (Policy PR -10, ACP).
All areas of Regulatory Floodway within the City shall be retained as undeveloped open
space. However, this shall not preclude the relocation of the Mill Creek floodway as long as
any such relocation is consistent with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance
Program and with the design criteria of the "Proposal for Mill Creek Corridor" study. The Mill
Creek Corridor shall be a minimum of 140 feet in width. All development within the Mill Creek
Corridor, including floodway relocation, should be consistent with the "Proposal for Mill Creek
Corridor" study (Policy PR -11, ACP).
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: The proponent has prepared a historic and cultural
resources study: "Archaeological and Historical Resources Survey of the Proposed River Sand
PUD, King County, Washington," Entrix Inc., August 10, 2004. While the investigation conducted
as part of the study did not discover any historically significant resources, it identifies that the site's
potential to contain archaeological resources cannot be discounted.
The study provides an overview of the site's and micro -regional history that includes previous
cultural studies (archaeological and traditional cultural places), ethnography, and history. Based
upon that research, the consultant determined that the site has a moderate to high probability for
cultural resources. While the study's field reconnaissance did not identify any hunter -fisher -
gatherer or historic Indian archaeological resources, a moderate to high probability exists.
Based upon the high probability of resources in portions of the site, the study recommends
development of a construction monitoring plan and future monitoring of ground disturbing
activities. If any items of possible cultural or historic significance are encountered during
construction activities, work must be halted and the contractor must contact the proponent, the
City of Auburn, the Muckleshoot Cultural Program and the State Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation immediately.
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows:
The City shall encourage the protection, preservation, recovery and rehabilitation of significant
archaeological resources and historic sites. (Policy HP -1, ACP)
The City shall consider the impacts of new development on historical resources as a part of its
environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. (Policy HP -3,
ACP)
The City recognizes that the region's history began before the arrival of settlers to the area
and should accord the same levels of promotion and protection to Native American sites and
artifacts as to those of the more recent past. (Policy HP -7, ACP)
14. Transportation: Short-term impacts on transportation would occur during the site
preparation operations. Longer-term impacts to the transportation system will vary in level
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 16
according to the amount of traffic generated by the completed development. Temporary impacts
associated with the importation of fill material beyond the recently issued grading permit will be
addressed through provision of a haul route plan and review and approval by Auburn and the City
of Kent to address construction access and hauling on S 277th Street.
The project's traffic impacts were studied in the report: Traffic Impact Analysis River Sand PUD,
Transportation Consulting Northwest, April 12, 2004. The report was revised June 24, 2004 and
supplemented on September 27, 2004. Based on the analysis provided and as reviewed and
approved by City staff, it is concluded that the proposed action would generate 254 PM peak hour
trips including 165 entering and 89 exiting trips. The trip generation was based on the ITE land
use Code 210 (Single Family Home) and the ITE land use code (Residential
Condominium/Townhouse). Due to uncertainty about the exact unit count, the analysis used ten
additional single-family units (182 total) and ten additional multiple family units (130 total). These
trips were distributed and assigned to the street network and impacts identified.
The Traffic Impact Analysis studied 25 key signalized intersections as it relates to Level of Service
(LOS) operating standards in the project's vicinity. The results of the LOS analysis in 2020 (to be
comparable with future road improvements analyzed in the recent NE Aubum/Robertson
Properties Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)) indicates that the intersections will meet
City LOS standards by operating at LOS D or better or that the project will not result in level of
service reductions for those intersections operating at less than LOS D without the project. The
exception is the intersection of I Street NE and S 277'" Street. However, this intersection is
planned to be signalized at the time of its construction (1 Street NE does not currently exist at this
location).
The study also conducted an analysis of 6 road corridors impacted by the project (Table 6, TIA).
According to the study 4 of the 6 corridors are below the City's current LOS D in 2020. It is
anticipated that the corridors will operate within city standard LOS at project completion in 2008
based on the results of other available traffic studies. As it relates to "nexus", it is important to note
that while this development distributes enough traffic on S 277`" Street to require the corridor to be
studied, the level of service problem on S 277"' Street is not primarily due to the traffic generated
by the development proposal but rather is due to high levels of background traffic using the
available capacity on S 277th Street.
Initiaity, the applicant planned to construct and access S 277'" Street via the northern portion of
the undeveloped riot -of -way of I Street NE, immediately off-site. Then a second access was
added along S 277 Street however, when access to the I Street NE right-of-way proved
unfeasible due to intervening land ownership, the access proposal was revised to provide a single
boulevard -type access to S 277" Street at the northwest corner of the site. On a temporary basis
this boulevard access would accommodate full vehicle movements and would be signalized. Upon
construction of an additional roadway access from the west, generally along the extension of
49'"/51` Street NE, and completion of I Street NE to S 277"' Street (as depicted in the NE
Auburn/Robertson Properties Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the temporary signal
would be removed and the and permanent channelization shall be installed on S 277"' Street at the
intersection to prevent left turns into and out of the plat.
At the time of final plat approval, this development can meet Comprehensive Plan Policy TR 13 by
providing a permanent boulevard -type road approach to S 277"Street from the plat as approved
by the City Engineer. The boulevard shall have a divided roadway with central landscape median.
This access shall include a temporary traffic signal at the intersection of the boulevard approach
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 17
and S 277"' Street. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the equivalent of the
76th single family unit within the plat, the applicant shall financially secure the completion of a
second permanent access route consisting of the construction of a 24- foot wide paved roadway
with adequate shoulder and storm drainage provisions along the east -west alignment of a new
49th/51st NE between the proposed boulevard and the new "I" Street alignment and the new "I"
Street NE between 49th Street NE and S 277"' Street, plus a span wire traffic signal at the
intersection of the new I Street NE and S 277" Street. When the second permanent access route
is constructed, the intersection of the Boulevard approach and S 277"' Street shall have its
temporary traffic signal removed and permanent channelization shall be installed on S 277"' Street
at the intersection to prevent left turns into and out of the plat. The applicant shall pay to the City
$495,000, which in addition to the development's normal traffic impact fees provides adequate
funding to secure the second permanent access route improvements and related improvements.
In the event the City's traffic impact fees are increased prior to payment of the $495,000. this
mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased.
Notice of the future second permanent access route and the future intersection modifications (the
future removal of the temporary traffic signal at the intersection of the Boulevard approach and S
277th Street and the installation of permanent channelization on S 277th Street to prevent left turns
into and out of the plat, described above) shall be recorded on the face of the plat and on each
individual property title within the plat. In addition to this notice, adequate on-site signage of such
future traffic improvements must be provided as directed by the City.
At the time of plat construction secondary emergency access shall also be provided to the plat
from S 277th Street by means of the establishment of one or more emergency accesses a
minimum of 20 feet in width. These secondary emergency accesses shall prohibit general traffic
use through the use of gates or bollards to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and City Engineer.
While initially the internal road lengths will exceed city polices related to the length for dead-end
roads without providing for secondary access connection until the 490'/51` Street NE extension is
constructed, financially guaranteeing construction of a second access point at the 76th dwelling
unit will minimize the impacts to a point of non -significance.
The internal street network of the plat will consist of two stacked loop roads with three north -south
internal connections. The internal roads will be constructed to the City's "Local Residential" street
standard except where deviations are determined appropriate and will be dedicated as public right-
of-way. Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of the internal streets to meet pedestrian goal
of the PUD. The project will'also include alley -loaded lots accessed by 18 -foot roadways within
20 -foot rights-of-way. Two access tracts meeting city standards will provide access to lots at the
east and south portions of the plat.
The right-of-way of S 277`h Street is currently within the City of Kent's jurisdiction. The design and
construction of the roadway access, temporary signalization and frontage improvements including
drainage will require approvals from the City of Kent. The applicant has coordinated with the City
of Kent and is addressed in the Letter from Gary Gill, Citv of Kent to Jeff Dixon City of Auburn
reciarding acceptability of temporary access, dated December 15, 2004 indicating general
acceptability of the project's access concept.
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA to approve, condition or deny proposed actions are noted as follows:
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 18
Improved linkages in the City's residential collector system, such as the completed connection
of lengthy dead-end streets, should be sought at every opportunity (Policy LU -56, ACP).
An efficient collector system seeks to spread the opportunity for movement over alternative
routes rather than directing traffic to a few collectors. Also, ample alternatives should exist for
emergency vehicles to access areas (in case of a blockage on a street) and to facilitate
movement of police patrols. All developed areas shall be served by at least two accesses.
A. Access in new development:
Cul-de-sacs (or other streets, public or private, that provide only one outlet to
the collector system) shall not be more than 600 feet long, unless environmental
constraints or parcelization issues cause the added length. Examples of
environmental constraints or development patterns may include, but not be
limited to, a narrow peninsula of land or a site surrounded by existing
development with no alternative access. Non -motorized paths shall be provided
(when the City determines it to be necessary), at the end of the cul-de-sac to
shorten walking distances to an adjacent arterial or public facilities including, but
not limited to, schools or parks.
2. Residential developments with fewer than 75 units and under a common
management (apartment complexes and mobile home courts) may limit general
access to one route, provided that additional access routes are made available
for emergency vehicles.
B. Access to existing areas:
Existing dead end streets should be linked to other streets whenever the
opportunity arises, unless it can be demonstrated that such connections would
lead to a substantial rerouting of through traffic onto the street. Such dead-end
streets shall not be allowed to serve substantial new development unless linked
to other streets. Where such linkage would substantially reroute through traffic
onto the street, the new development may be denied (Policy TR -13, ACP)
New development shall not be allowed if an LOS is below the LOS standard before
development or when the impacts of the new development on the transportation system
degrades the LOS to below the LOS standard, unless the condition is remedied concurrent
with the development as described in Chapter Six of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(Policy TR -17, ACP).
The term "below the level of service standard" shall apply to situations where traffic attributed
to a development results in any of the following:
a. An unacceptable increase in hazard or safety on a roadway.
b. An increase in congestion that constitutes an unacceptable adverse environmental
impact under the State Environmental Policy Act.
C. A reduction of any of the three levels of service below the following level of service
standards:
1. Arterial Corridor LOS: The Level of Service standard for each arterial corridor
is "D".
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 19
2.a. Signalized Intersection LOS: The level of service standard for signalized
intersections is LOS "D", except for those intersections currently below LOS "D"
per Figure 7.1 a where their existing LOS as shown is the adopted standard.
2.b. Unsignalized Intersection LOS: The level of service standard for these
intersections, measured as if it were signalized, shall be level of service "D". A
traffic signal warrant analysis will be conducted, as necessary, to determine if a
signal should be installed.
3. Roadway Link (Capacity) LOS: The arterial link (capacity) LOS standard for
each arterial link is LOS "D", except for collector residential arterials. The link
LOS standards for collector residential arterials is "C" (Policy TR -18, ACP).
The City shall continue to require developers 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 SOV travel (Policy TR -21, ACP).
Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the 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
development. The City will consider developing a traffic impact fee system (Policy TR -23,
ACP).
Improvements that upgrade existing streets are considered to benefit the abutting property,
and such improvements should be funded by the abutting property owners. Some City
participation may be appropriate to encourage the formation of LIDs in particular problem
areas (Policy TR -24, ACP).
Revenues for street improvements should primarily provide for the orderly development of the
general traffic flow in compliance with the six-year street plan. The basic criterion for such
funding should be the degree to which that project improves the general traffic flow and not
the benefit that might accrue to properties. Use of revenues to encourage formation of LIDs
should be of only secondary concern, and should be considered appropriate only when used
to address particularly significant traffic problems. Where it is possible to establish a direct
relationship between a needed improvement and a development, the development should be
expected to contribute to its construction (Policy TR -25, ACP).
City street standards shall generally provide for sidewalks on both sides of the street (Policy
TR -44, ACP).
An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a series of
planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing
unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should exist to
accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to
plan a series of collector -arterials and arterials designed to national standards to provide
efficient service to the community. Ample alternatives should also exist to accommodate non -
motorized transportation on collector -arterials and arterials, on local roads within and between
subdivisions, and on non -motorized pathways.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 20
A. Definitions
1. Dead end street: Street that accesses the roadway system only at one end. Dead end
streets are permanent conditions and should end in a cul-de-sac where appropriate.
2. Stub end street: Dead end street that is planned to be extended and connected to future
streets in an adjacent development. Depending on its length, it may or may not require a
temporary cul-de-sac.
B. Access in new development:
1. The internal local residential street network for a subdivision should be designed to
discourage regional through traffic and non-residential traffic from penetrating the subdivision
or adjacent subdivisions. Local residential streets shall not exceed 1,300 feet in length
between intersections and shall not serve more than 75 dwelling units.
2. Where possible, streets shall be planned, designed and constructed to connect to future
development. All stub end streets shall be properly protected by traffic barriers in a manner
that complies with the requirements of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
3. Dead end streets shall not be more than 600 feet in length. Dead end streets ending in
permanent cul-de-sacs shall serve a maximum of 25 dwelling units. When applicable, non -
motorized paths shall be provided at the end of the street to shorten walking distances to an
adjacent arterial or public facilities including, but not limited to, schools or parks.
4. Residential developments should be planned in a manner that minimizes the number of
local street accesses to arterials and collector -arterials. Residential developments with
greater than 75 dwelling units, including single family developments, multi -family
developments or any combination thereof, shall have a minimum of two accesses to either a
collector -arterial or an arterial. Residential developments with less than 75 dwelling units,
including single-family developments, multi -family developments or any combination thereof,
may limit general access to one access to a collector -arterial or arterial. Developments with
between 25 and 75 dwelling units shall also provide a second access route to a collector -
arterial or an arterial for emergency vehicle access.
C. Access to existing areas:
To promote efficient connectivity between areas of the community, existing stub end streets
shall be linked to other streets in new development whenever the opportunity arises.
D. Acceptable traffic volumes:
Projected trip generation shall be calculated based on the current edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.
Stub end streets shall not be linked to a new street if the connection is likely to result in traffic
volumes, which will exceed acceptable volumes for the road's classification. These volumes
are defined by the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Transportation Plan (chart titled
Functional Classification System, Characteristics of the Roadway Function). Local residential
stub end streets shall not be extended if the resulting roadway segment will generate more
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 21
than 750 trips per day based on the current edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
Consideration may also be given to the character and nature of the neighborhoods proposed
to be connected.
E. Community Notification:
Property owners and tenants adjacent to stub end streets shall be adequately informed of the
stub end street functional classification and potential traffic volumes. Methods for such
notification should include plat covenants, public roadway signs or other measures. (Policy
TR -13, ACP).
15. Public Services: The proposed plat will require normal police and fire protection associated
with residential uses. The increase in demand can be accommodated by the existing operations.
Average emergency vehicle response times within the City vary depending upon 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 30'h and I Street NE for a future fire station, which when developed is expected
to improve response time to the northern portion of the City, including this site. The City also has
a 1988 Mutual Aid agreement with Kent and adjacent service providers to aid in response time.
The applicant will be installing fire hydrants in accordance with City Code.
The project site is located with the Kent School District. The City has adopted and will collect
impact fees for the Kent School district in accordance with ACC 19.02.130.
16. Utilities: The proposal requires the extension of utilities to serve the project and new lots.
Sanitary Sewer — An existing METRO sewer line exists within the S 277th Street right-of-way with a
12 -inch stub to the south side of the street. 8 -inch mains are proposed to be extended within the
project's roadways to serve the lots. The project may necessitate the use of grinder pumps for a
few of the single-family homes that cannot be served by gravity. As per the Sanitary Sewer
Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5 "Alternative Sewage Disposal Systems" states. "It is the City's
policy to transport sewage by gravity as the most cost-effective method. Alternative pressure
systems should be permitted only in those circumstances when a gravity system would be
impractical, unreasonably expensive, environmentally destructive or otherwise infeasible. The City
has adopted a packaged grinder pump system for use at specific locations where individual
connections cannot be served by gravity. The units are installed one per connection." Grinder
pumps must be limited to the extent possible.
Water — Currently no water lines exist in the project vicinity. In order to provide water service to
the project, the proponent will at a minimum construct a new 12 -inch pipeline along S 277"' Street
from Auburn Way N to a point along the north property boundary sufficient for construction of a
looped water system in accordance with the improvements identified within the City's
Comprehensive Water Plan (Improvement number DS -603-108,109).
In order to meet city policies and standards for water system reliability and multiple directional
flows, prior to any Final Plat approval, the applicant shall financially secure the completion of a
second 12 -inch off-site waterline for completion of the looping of waterlines to meet the Water
Comprehensive Plan Level of Service criteria. The Water Comprehensive Plan Improvements
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 22
would consist of approximately 1,200 linear -feet of 12 -inch waterline along the proposed extension
of "I" Street NE from 45th Street NE to 49th Street NE and approximately 1,300 linear -feet of 12 -
inch waterline along an east west alignment of a new 49th/51 st NE between the proposed new "I"
Street alignment and the River Sands Development west property line. The applicant shall pay to
the City $82,000, which combined with the development's normal System Development Charges,
provides adequate funding to secure the second permanent water system improvements. In the
event the City's Water System Development charges are increased prior to payment of the
$82,000. this mitigation fee may be correspondingly decreased..
The water line construction will need to be coordinated with the City of Kent since the right-of-way
is within their jurisdiction.
Storm — Element 3 of this evaluation demonstrates the need for submittal and approval of detailed
plans for stormwater management system including water quality treatment. Prior to Civil Plan
approval, the proponent shall provide an operations and maintenance program for all private,
shared stormwater facilities including but not limited to conveyance, storage and treatment
facilities. This program is to include procedures and a schedule for maintaining all shared
stormwater facilities and shall indicate the party or parties responsible for said maintenance. This
program shall also include an agreement signed by all property owners utilizing the shared
stormwater facilities that they agree to abide by the operations and maintenance program. This
agreement and program shall be attached, binding and running with the titles of the properties,
which utilize the shared stormwater facilities.
Common practice for the City of Auburn is to require a cross drainage agreement and hold
harmless agreement between the parties utilizing common drainage facilities to be executed prior
to Civil plan approval. If the proposed drainage pond is utilized for both private and public
drainage, these agreements will be required between the City of Auburn and the Centex Homes,
or subsequent owner.
Applicable policies adopted and designated as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority
under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions are noted as follows:
The City shall require developers to construct storm drainage improvements directly serving
the development, including any necessary off-site improvements. (Policy CF -38, ACP)
The City shall require that 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 Drainage 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 should continue to use direct participation, LIDs and payback agreements to assist in the
financing of off-site improvements required to serve the development. (Policy CF -39, ACP)
Individual development projects shall provide the following minimal improvements in
accordance with established City standards:
a. Full standard streets and sidewalks in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
b. Adequate off street parking for employees and patrons.
c. Landscaping.
d. Storm drainage.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0037 - Page 23
e. Water.
f. Sanitary sewers.
g. Controlled and developed access to existing and proposed streets. (Policy LU -106, ACP)
C. Conclusion: Pursuant to growth and environmental policies of the City's Comprehensive
Plan:
The growth impacts of major private or public development which place significant service
demands on community facilities, amenities and services, and impacts on the City's
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 conformance with this Plan
shall be required. (Policy GP -6, ACP)
Based on this analysis, the proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse
impact on the environment if appropriate conditions are properly implemented pursuant to a
Mitigated DNS. Conditions of the MDNS are based upon impacts clearly identified within the
environmental checklist, attachments, and the above 'FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST,' and supported by Plans and Regulations formally adopted for
the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA.
The City reserves the right to review any future revisions or alterations to the site or to the
proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or non -significance of the project at
that point in time.
Prepared by: Jeff Dixon, Senior Planner