HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-2005 ITEM II.A.1&2X
YOF_- .� .-.,
0 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
p WASHINGTON
Agenda Subject
Date:
Closed Record Hearing Application No. REZ04-0006 & PLT04-0008
12/7/2005
Department: Planning
Attachments: Please see exhibit list,
Budget Impact:
below.
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council to approve the rezone from Rural Residential (RR) and Residential Mobile Home Park
(RMHP) for the northern 6.8 acres of the site to Duplex Residential (R3) and approve the preliminary plat
for subdivision of 13.14 -acres into eight (8) lots and three tracts to be developed in a single phase with
the Hearing Examiner's recommended nine conditions.
Background Summary:
The Hearing Examiner on August 16, 2005 conducted an open record hearing on the request of Monte
Adams represented by Hans Korve of DMP Engineers Inc. for the rezoning of 13.14 acres from RR (Rural
Residential) and RMHP (Residential Mobile Home Park) to R3 (Duplex Residential) for the preliminary
plat known as "Adams Vista' for subdivision of 13.14 -acres into eight (8) lots and three tracts to be
developed in a single phase. The request is proposed to be a gated subdivision pursuant to City
standards of ACC 18.48.140. The site is located east of the south terminus of Hemlock Street SE.
between Auburn Way South and the White River.
The Hearing Examiner's recommendation issued on September 14, 2005 is to only approve the rezoning
of the northern 6.8 acres of the site from RR (Rural Residential) and RMHP (Residential Mobile Home
Park) to R3 (Duplex Residential). The Hearing Examiner's recommendation differed from the staff's
recommendation since the Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the rezone from RR (Rural
Residential) to R3 (Duplex Residential) for the southern 6.2 acres of the site that is steeply sloped and
proposed to be established as a tract (Tract B) dedicated to the City of Auburn as part of the associated
preliminary plat. The Hearing Examiner found that the rezoning of the southern 6.2 acres was not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the
preliminary plat with eight (8) conditions.
On September 28, 2005 a Request for Reconsideration was filed by Jane Ryan Kohler on behalf of Frary
Breckenridge. On October 11, 2005 the applicant's representative, Hans Korve, provided a letter to the
Hearing Examiner responding to the Request for Reconsideration.
Reviewed
y ounce Committees:
Reviewedy
epartments
ivwsions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
EBuildingM&O
Airport Finance
Cemetery
Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Serv.
Finance
Parks
Human Services Planning & CD
Fire
Planning
Park Board Public Works
Legal
Police
Human Resources
Planning Comm. Other
Public Works
Action:
Committee Approval: eYeseNo
Call for Public Hearing
Council Approval: Yes No _I—I—
Referred to Until I I
Tabled Unto T T
Councilmember: Norman Staff: Krauss
Meeting Date: December 13, 2005 Item Number: II.A.1&2
A[,IBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject Date:
Closed Record Hearing Application No. REZ04-0006 & PLT04-0008 12/7/2005
On October 11, 2005, the Hearing Examiner ruled on the Request for Reconsideration by adding an
Additional plat condition (Condition Number 9) regarding installation of protective fencing for trees to be
retained. On October 12, City staff made a written request for clarification to the Hearing Examiner of his
decision. On October 21, 2005 the Hearing Examiner issued a decision modifying Condition Number 9 of
his earlier decision and to replace "qualified professional forester" with "certified arborist".
On November 7, 2005 the City Council voted to conduct a closed record hearing on the rezone and
preliminary plat request.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 2001 Aerial Site Photograph
Exhibit 2 Environmental Checklist Application, Revised March 15, 2005, SEP04-0033
Exhibit 3 Final Staff Evaluation of Env. Checklist Application, File No. SEP04-0033
Exhibit 4 Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, dated July 20, 2005, File No. SEP04-
0033
Exhibit 5 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study Steep Slope Hazards
Adams Preliminary Plat Auburn Washington, Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 200
Exhibit 6 Adams Preliminary Plat On -Site Infiltration Systems Auburn Washington, Golder
Associates Inc. August 6, 2004
Exhibit 7 Clarification of Response Comments from the City of Auburn RER Completeness
Golder Associates, Inc., March 21, 2005
Exhibit 8 Response to Comments from the City of Auburn Regarding the Completeness of the
Rezone Plat and Environmental Checklist Applications for the "Adams Vista' Project,
Golder Associates Inc. December 10, 2004
Exhibit 9 Adams Vista Site Information, Sheet 1 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004, revised April
6, 2005
Exhibit 10 Adams Vista Topography Information, Sheet 2 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004,
revised April 6, 2005
Exhibit 11 Adams Vista Site Plan Sheet 3 of 3. DMP Inc., September 23, 2004, revised April 6,
2005
Exhibit 12 Adams Vista Composite Utility Plan Sheet 1 of 1, DMP Inc., April 7, 2005
Exhibit 13 Agenda Bill (Staff report) to Hearing Examiner on Rezone REZ04-0006
Exhibit 14 Agenda Bill (Staff Report) to Hearing Examiner on Preliminary Plat PLT04-0008
Exhibit 15 Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, September 14, 2005
Exhibit 16 Request for Reconsideration by Jane Ryan Kohler on behalf of Frary Breckenridge,
September 28, 2005
Exhibit 17 Applicant's response to Request for Reconsideration, DMP Inc. October 11, 2005
Exhibit 18 Hearing Examiner's Response to Request for Reconsideration, October 11, 2005
Exhibit 19 Hearing Examiner's Response to the City of Auburn's Comments on the Request for
Reconsideration, October 21, 2005
Exhibit 20 E-mail from Mel Daley of DMP Inc to acknowledge that exceeding the 120 -day time
period for final approval of this project is acceptable, November 2, 2005
The other exhibits that were considered by the Hearing Examiner are listed at pages 2 through 3 of the
Hearing Examiner's written recommendation, September 14, 2005. These exhibits are available for
review or may be requested by contacting the Planning Department.
Page 2 of 2
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat/ Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
EC EIVED
APP 1 1 2005
Purpose of Checklist The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chat *3 O�ly"
requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal
before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all
proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The
purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help King County and / or any other
agencies with jurisdiction to identify impacts from a proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts
from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help King County decide whether an EIS is
required.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Monte Adams Subdivision / Re -Zone REVISED
2. Name of proponent:
Monte Adams
3. Address and phone number of proponent and contact person:
Proponent:
Contact Person:
4. Date checklist prepared:
September 15, 2004
December 15, 2004
March 15, 2005
5. Agency requesting checklist
City of Auburn
Monte Adams
28738 Redondo Beach Dr. S.
Des Monies, WA 98198
Hans Korve
DMP Engineering
726 Auburn Way North
(253) 333-2200 Phone
(253) 333-2206 Fax
REVISED
REVISED
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Application Submittal ..............................
September 2004
Re -Submittal .............................................
December 2004
Complete Application .............................
December 29, 2004
Re Submittal .............................................
April 2005
Public Hearing..........................................June
2005
Final Action ...............................................
July 2005
Engineering Submittal ............................
August 2005
Site Grading ..............................................
August 2005
Final Plat ...................................................
December 2006
REVISED 03/15/05
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Platt Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes please explain.
No. Not at this time
8. List any information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly
related to this proposal.
The following information will be prepared and submitted under separate cover
or is available in County files:
• Preliminary Plat Maps & Re Zone Exhibit
• Geotechnical Report
• On -Site Infiltration Report.
• Site Grading Clarification Report— Dec. 1o, 21104
• Golder Associates Clarification Report - March 21, 2005
No additional information is currently available
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by this proposal?
None known.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
Rezone Request eq City
of Auburn
SEPA Threshold Determination City of Auburn
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval City of Auburn
Clearing and Grading Permits City of Auburn
Building Permits City of Auburn
11. Give brief, complete description of the proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this Checklist that ask
you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those
answers on this page.
The proposal is to subdivide one lot, totaling approximately 13.14 acres into 8
single-family lots, open space, private internal plat roads, access tracts and
storm water facilities, in the proposed R3 zone. The site N currently zones RR
and RMHP. The Applicant is requesting that the property be re -zoned to R-3 to
support this subdivision application. The Applicant is not proposing to
subdivide the land to the full density allowed by the R3 zone. Given the
environmental constraints of the property, the Applicant is proposing a gross
density of only 1.88 DU/AC.
Please refer to the Re Zone exhibit for additional information.
REVISED 03/15/05
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat; Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
12. Location of the proposal. Provide a street address, if any, and section, township, and
range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographic map, if available.
The subject proposal is situated on one tot, totaling approximately 13.14 acres,
located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Auburn in the NW y4 of
Section 28 Township 21 North, Range 5 East W.M. The site is located on parcel
282105-9021. Please refer to the Preliminary Plat map for the legal description.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): fiat, rolling, it tee slo
mountainous.
The property is located on a ridge, overlooking the White River, in Auburn.
The southern 213'd of the site contains slopes in excess of 40%. A preliminary
Geotechnical Study of the site has determined the location of the geological
hazard areas and the recommended buffers. The remaining property on the
north 113n° has been found to be stable and designated for development
Initial and follow-up stone water analysis has determined that on-site
infiltration systems are feasible and recommended. The While River base
Flood Elevation is over 100' below the proposed development elevation. A
note indicating the last known flood elevation is shown on the site map. No
flood information is available for this site.
Please refer to the preliminary plat map for contour information as well as the
various reports and letters of clarification from Golder Associates.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
According to the field topographic survey and the Geotech report, the
steepest slopes on the site are in excess of 40% +-located along the south
side of the project site.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them
and note any prime farmland.
According to the US Soil Conservation Service Soil Map and the soil tests
performed by Golder Associates, the site is primarily Proglacial Stratified Drift
(Qpv). Follow-up reports have indicated that theses soils will be sufficient to
support the proposed storm water infiltration system.
REVISED 03/15105
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat/ Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity?
so, describe.
The project site lies within the City of Auburn Class I and Class Ill landslide
hazard areas. The property also lies within the Class i Seismic Hazard Area.
Please refer to the Geotechnical report for more specific information.
Grading associated with individual building lots will be addressed during the
building permit phase of any future construction. The issue has been
addressed by Golder Associates in their response letter dated November 9,
2004. No adverse impact is expected. Golder Associates has also addressed
the issue in the letter dated March 18, 2005.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Grading of the site will be necessary to modify the site for stormwater
drainage flow and construction of the required access road. The exact
quantity of grading 11.11110t known at this time, however, initial estimates
indicate that the project may include up to 11,000 yds of cut and 22,000 yds of
fill to accommodate the construction of the proposed public improvements.
All grading activities will take place outside the slope hazard areas and their
associated buffers unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.
The exact amount of surface grading can only be determined during the
Engineering Design phase of the project and will not include information
about the grading of individual lots.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of Gearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Some erosion could occur onsite as a result of construction activities;
however, temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures to be
approved by the City of Auburn will be employed to reduce erosion impacts.
All construction during the wet season will comply with the adopted KC 1998
Surface Water Design Manual, Appendix "D" concerning site coverage_
techniques. All areas that are altered during the development process will be
re -vegetated.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Due to the preliminary nature of the plans, the exact percentage of
impervious surface associated with this project is currently unknown.
However, estimates put the total site coverage at approximately 27% and
individual lot coverage at no more then 40%.
REVISED 03/15/05
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat f Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
2. Air
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any:
During construction, the contractor will follow an approved temporary
erosion and sedimentation control plan meeting City of Auburn standards.
Typical measures, which may be employed, include the use of sik fences,
straw bales, and temporary storm drainage features. Hydroseeding exposed
soils and cleared areas after construction will also reduce the potential for
erosion. All construction during the wet season will comply with the adopted
KC 1998 Surface Water Design Manual, Appendix "D" concerning site
coverage techniques. All construction will comply with the recommendations
of the Geotechnical Engineer.
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
Construction:
Emissions and dust particulates generated primarily by construction
equipment will be produced during the construction phase of this project.
The amount of emissions to the air will be minimal and will occur during the
actual construction of the development.
Lorin Term Air Quality:
Long-term air impacts would be those typically associated with residential
land uses. Sources of long-term emissions and odor could include vehicle
emissions from increased vehicle use generated by the new residential units
and emissions from wood burning fireplaces (if permitted). The additional
vehicular emissions in these areas are not anticipated to concentrate and
therefore are not anticipated to create a health hazard to the residents or
surrounding areas.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?
If so, generally describe.
I:L•a
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
If particulates become suspended during construction, frequent watering of
the site during the construction phase of the project would be used to help
control dust and other particulates generated on the site. This will be
accomplished in accord with Appendix "D" of the adopted KC 1998 Surface
Water Design Manual.
REVISED 03/15/05
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat/ Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
The White River is located adjacent to the south side of the project site.
The Base Flood Elevation of the White River is over 100' below the
proposed development elevation. More specific information is not
available. Panel 1266 of the 1995 revised FIMA Flood Map provides no floor
information east of Hemlock Street. A note indicating the last known flood
elevation has been added to the site plan.
2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
None. The steep slopes on site as well as the river will receive the required
buffers. The nearest lot comer is over 250 feet north of the river.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan
According to the King County Sensitive Areas Maps, no portion of the site
lies within the 100 -foot floodplain. The property is located well above the
water level.
The Base Flood Elevation of the White River Is over 100' below the
proposed development elevation. More specific information is not
available. Panel 1266 of the 1995 revised FIMA Flood Map provides no
flood information east of Hemlock Street A note has been added to the site
plan indicating the last known flood elevation.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters?
If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
REVISED 03/15/05
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat! Re -Zone FOR AGENCY
City of Auburn SEPA Checkiist USE ONLY
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
A road side ditch is proposed adjacent to the private road to address storm
water. It is also anticipated that each house will utilize on-site infiltration to
address storm water. Golder Associates has reviewed soil stability and
recommends approval of the on-site infiltration proposal. Additional review
has occurred, and it is discussed in the March 18, 2005 letter. The small
public storm water system proposed at the intersection of Hemlock and 261h
Street SE will also utilize and onsite infiltration system. The system
however, will be separate from the private construction.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks
or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial. agricultural;
etc.)
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the numbe
of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the
system(s) are expected to serve.
The Applicant will connect to public sewer. Some lots may require the use
of grinder pumps. A preliminary utility plan has been provided. Staff from
the Utility department have already reviewed and approved the preliminary
design. Storm water infiltration Is not considered a waste material. All
Storrs Water issues are addressed by the Adopted Storm Water Manual.
Staff from the Storni water Department have reviewed and approved our
preliminary proposal
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including stone water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will
this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
On-site storm water runoff will primarily be generated from roadways,
residential structures, and associated driveways. Stone water will be
collected along the roadways and treated in a road -side ditch. Residential
roof tops and other lot specific hard surfaces will be detained and treated
using individual lot infiltration systems. Golder Associates reviewed the
use of on-site infiltration systems in their August 6, 2004 report A Level
One Report will be produced during the Engineering Phase. Golder
Associates has also provided a follow-up letters dated December 10, 2004
and March 18, 2005. On-site infiltration systems will be designed and
reviewed either during the Engineering of Building penult phase of the
proposal. Staff has already reviewed and approved the preliminary
proposal. As indicated above, the proposed public and private systems will
be separated.
REVISED 03/15/05
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat 1 Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Some pollutants normally associated with residential development could
enter the surface water, however, the amount would be minimal since all
on-site drainage will be conveyed to detention facilities constructed in
conformance with the adopted 1998 Surface Water Design Manual.
d- Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts,
if any:
The storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed to water
treatmentfinfltration facility(s) that will be designed and constructed in
conformance with the adopted 1998 Surface Water Design Manual.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple • aspen, other
evergreen tree: fr cedar. hemlock, pine, other
shrubs
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other:
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
The site is forested with sparse, second growth trees. Many of the trees are
concentrated along the northern property line, in the path of the proposed
access road. The remainder of the site is populated with ferns, shrubs and
berry bushes. Many downed trees also can be found on the site. All downed
trees are attributed to natural blow -downs. All vegetation located in the
proposed right -of way or within the utility corridors will be removed. In
- addition, any trees or shrubs that will be disturbed as -a result of grading
operations will also be removed. No clearing is proposed for the steep
slopes or their associated buffers.
A preliminary review of the off-site trees indicates that the majority will be
outside the construction zone. Individual trees will need to be evaluated by
an Arborist during and after construction to determine if they require removal
for safety reasons. Tree and vegetation removal will be kept to a minimum
when possible. The applicant has no information on any tree removal that
may have occurred prior to his taking of ownership.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
There are no known threatened or endangered plant species on or near the
site.
REVISED 03/15/05
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat/ Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
The proposed preliminary plat anticipates retaining existing trees when
possible. The new single-family residences will provide new landscaping
including lawns, shrubs, and ornamental tress. Native vegetation will be
utilized, where appropriate.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rodents
fish: bass, perch, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None Known.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Installation of native landscaping throughout the plat will provide coverage
and habitat for urban tolerant wildlife. The majority of the site will remain in a
sensitive area easement. Any wild life on that portion of the site will remain
undisturbed.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed projects energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc.
Electrical energy will be the primary source of power serving the needs of the
project and natural gas will be made available for the purpose of heating and
other needs associated with residential Irving.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
The residential buildings that will be constructed as a result of this project
will meet or exceed the applicable single-family residential energy
Conservation f consumption requirements in City of Auburn and the
International Building Codes
REVISED 03115M
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat / Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals,
risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that
could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
It is unlikely under normal working conditions that environmental health
hazards would be encountered. All project -related construction will meet or
exceed current Local, County, State and Federal laws.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
In the event that environmental health hazards are encountered or occur
during construction, all appropriate precautionary measures will be
employed. Any emergency situation would be addressed by the existing
resources of Fire District #31 (Auburn City Fire)
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
State regulations regarding safety and the handling of hazardous
materials will be followed during the construction process. Equipment
refueling areas would be located in areas where a spill could be quickly
contained and where the risk of hazardous materials entering surface
water is minimized. On-site management will be equipped with mobile
communications equipment at all times to contact emergency services in
the event of an incident
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area, which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment operation, other)?
There are no noise generating activities near the site.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Short-term impacts would result from the use of construction equipment
during site development Construction would occur during permitted
construction hours and in compliance with City of Auburn noise
standards.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Construction activity will be limited to permitted construction hours and
construction equipment will not be allowed to idle for continuous periods
of time, which will help to mitigate the impacts of potential construction
noise. Hours of operation will be posted on-site.
REVISED 03/15/05 10
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat/ Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is comprised of one undeveloped lot. Adjacent land uses consist of
low density single-family residences to the west and higher density
condominiums and a mobile home park to the north and east.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
It is not believed that the site was utilized for agricultural production in the
past.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
No existing structures.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
NA
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The project site is zoned RR and RMHP (Rural Residential and Manufactured
Home Park). The Applicant is proposing to rezone the entire parcel to the 113
zone. R3 is the highest zoning classification allowed under the current
Comprehensive Plan designation. The R3 designation will provide the most
flexibility for developing the limited amount of developable land on the site.
The Applicant proposes to utilize only a fraction of the density allowed under
the R3 zone. (See attached Plat Map & Re Zone Exhibit)
Adjacent properties located to the northwest are currently zoned R3. The
majority of property to the northeast is either R-4 or RMHP.
f What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Moderate Density Residential. (MDR)
The proposed R3 zone is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan
designation. This current designation is also supportive of the R3 and
RMHP zoning found in adjacent lots.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Not applicable. The proposed development is over 250 feet from the White
River. The proposed project is also over 100 feet above the last know flood
elevation. Please refer to previous responses on this issue.
REVISED 03115/05 11
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat/ Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If
so, specify.
As described earlier, portions of the site have been identified as landslide anc
erosion hazard areas. These designations are primarily associated with the
steep slope along the south 213n° of the site. The remaining 11V on the north
is stable. (See Golder Associates Report, May 7, 2004) Also refer to all
follow-up letters from Golder Associates.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Assuming 2.5 persons per household, approximately 20 people would reside
in the proposed project (8 new units)
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
The proposed project will provide 8 new housing units.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
The project will be developed in accordance with applicable City of Auburn
development and land use codes to ensure the project is consistent with the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development
regulations in effect at the time of a complete Preliminary Subdivision
application. The proposed re -zone and land use is consistent with
development in the area.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or lav -income housing.
Approximately 8 new middle-income housing units will be provided.
b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Adherence to the comprehensive plan and growth management planning
goals of the City of Auburn would ensure that housing development is
consistent with those policies stated in the applicable land use plan.
REVISED 03/15/05 12
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Platf Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what
is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
No specific building plans are included with this project; however, it is
anticipated that houses built on the site would conform to the City of Auburn
development regulations and be limited to a height of 30 feet in accordance
with Section 18.16.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Development of the site would result in a change to the visual character of
the site for the nearest existing residences and roadways to that of a single-
family neighborhood area. No significant views would be obstructed.
Removal of the existing trees along the north property line may open new
view corridors for the adjoining property owners.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
The site plan has been developed to provide a site design layout consistent
with the development regulations In place for the R-3 zones. Nearly 2f3rd of
the property will remain in open space.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
Light and glare from the completed project is anticipated to be that typically
generated by single-family residences, mainly occurring during the evening
hours, and be associated with vehicle headlights, streetlights and residential
unit lighting.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
Not under normal circumstances.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Installation of street trees along the street frontages and landscaping in open
space areas will help to alleviate some of the light and glare created by
streetlights, headlights and residential unit lighting from the adjacent
properties. The proposal will only install those street lights approved by th
City of Auburn.
REVISED 03N5r05 13
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat I Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
The proposal is fro 8 large lot, single-family homes. With lots in excess of
20,000 sq. ft., residents will have ample space to recreate within the plat. A
City Park is located 2 blocks to the north, within walking distance of the
project T
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
The project would not displace any existing recreational uses.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The proposed project will not provide onsite recreation space per 17.12.260
Parks and playgrounds. The subject property will provide 213n° of the site as
open space.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? if so, generally describe.
None known.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,
or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no landmarks or evidence of any
significant historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural resources known to
be on or next to the site.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
If any such historic or cultural evidence is encountered during construction
or installation of improvements, work would be halted in the area and a state -
approved archaeologistlhistorian would be engaged to investigate, evaluate
and/or move or curate such resources, as appropriate.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access
to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The proposed project will take primary access from Hemlock Street SE on the
west side of the site. Emergency access will be provided through the
adjoining mobile home park to the east The applicant proposes to construct
an internal access road along the north boundary of the property. Please see
the attached plat map. The preliminary road design has been reviewed and
approved by the Transportation Deparbnent
REVISED 03!15!05 14
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat! Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to
the nearest transit stop?
Yes. The nearest transit stop is located near the comer of Auburn Way S. and
& Hemlock Street SE, approximately .11 miles north from the project site. The
Metro bus routs providing service to that stop are #152 & 915.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
None. The proposed project will provide parking in private driveways,
garages and on -street parking.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private).
The proposed project will require the minor extension of a public street at the
terminus point of Hemlock St. to allow access to a new public tum -around.
Construction of a private internal circulation road and access tracts will
continue from the east end of the new public cul-de-sac. The project has no
frontage on an existing public street However, Parcel 282105-9023 is
intended for public road construction. The proposed public extension will
occur on this parcel.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Assuming 10 trips per household per day, the completed project will generate
80 new vehicular trips per day. 8 peak hour trips.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
The proposed project will require the minor extension of a public street at the
terminus point of Hemlock St. to allow access to a new public turnaround.
The applicant will also construct a private internal plat road to provide
vehicular access to each lot. The applicant will also contribute his
proportional share to any identified intersection which is impacted by the
proposed subdivision in accordance with ACC 19.04.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
The completed project would result in an increased need for police and fire
protection as well as emergency medical service.
REVISED 03115/05 15
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Mista Preliminary Plat/ Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
The project will be designed and constructed with adequate water pressure,
fire hydrants and roadways to allow adequate access for fire, medic and
police protection vehicles. Increased property valuation will result in
increased taxes generated to support public services.
The proponent will pay necessary school mitigation fees to offset the
potential impacts to the school system. The current Auburn School District
#408 fee is $3.917 per new single-family home.
16. Utilities
a. Indicate utilities currently available at the site:
Ems, Natural Gas, Water, Telephone, Sanitary Sewer, Septic System,
Refuse Service, Other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general activities on the site or vicinity which might be needed.
Water System: City of Auburn
Water service will be extended to service the
property. Individual pressure reducing valves are
required to maintain city standard water pressure.
Water plans will be developed during the Engineering
design phase of the project. Water and sewer lines
will be located within the 2e Street corridor.
Sanitary Sewer System: City of Auburn
Sewer service will be extended from the SSMH
located at the east edge of the property to service lot
#1. Grinder pumps are proposed for the remaining
lots. The preliminary sewer plan has been reviewed
and approved by Staff.
Storm Watery City of Auburn f Private
Electricity f Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy
Telephone: Qwest
Refuse Service: Robanco
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
the lead agency is relying n them to make its decision.
Signature: /-
ans A. Korve
Planning Manager -DMP., Inc.
Date Prepared: September 15, 2004
December 15, 2004 REVISED
March 15, 2005 REVISED
I understand that
REVISED 03H5J05 16
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat I Re -Zone FOR AGENCY
City of Auburn SEPA checklist USE ONLY
DO NOT USE THIS SHEET FOR PROJECT ACTIONS
Rezone Request from RR / RMHP to R-3
Parcel # 282105-9021
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at
a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general
terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emission to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
This proposal is to rezone 13.14 acnes of RR and RMHP into R-3. The approved
rezone would have only a minor increase in the amount of water or air discharge
from the project The current proposal is intended to enable the concentration
of the allowed development by reducing the minimum lot size from 4 Ac. to
3,600 Sq Ft- -The-reduction in lot size is needed to address the -constraints
imposed on the site by the existing steep slopes on the south edge of the
property. The re -zone application also allows for a single zoning designation
over the entire property. The current zoning mixes Rural Residential and Mobile
Home Park. The applicants proposal is to develop only 8 single-family lots on
the subject site. The resulting project will have a gross density of only 1.88
dulac.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
The site conditions will not allow for creation of more then 8 single family lots
within the developable portions of the site. All development will be in accord
with the adopted Aubum Development standards.
2_ How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine fife?
The proposed rezone will have no significant impact on the existing plant or
animal populations. The proposed rezone will only allow for smaller lot sizes
REVISED 03/15/05 17
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat I Re -Zone
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist
FOR AGENCY
USE ONLY
and will have only a minor effect the total amount of developed area. All
sensitive areas (steep Slopes) will maintain the same level of integrity with or
without the approval of the proposed rezone. The majority of disturbance will
take place along the north property line, with the installation of the access road.
This road will be required under either zoning designation; therefore the
impacts will be the same.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The identified steep slopes and their buffers will be protected in a Sensitive Area
Tract There are no identified endangered species on site. The proposed
sensitive area and the associated buffer would be identical under either the
existing or proposed zoning designation.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposed rezone allows for a decrease in the allowed lot size and only a
marginal increase in the actual density of the project The applicant is
proposing only 8 single-family units on a 13.14 acre parcel. The proposed
rezone would have no adverse effect on energy or natural resource supplies
beyond that of any other 8 lot subdivision.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
All homes will be built in compliance with the adopted energy codes.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as
parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? -
All development will take place outside the identified sensitive area and its
buffer and therefore, there will be no increased impact to sensitive areas.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
All development will be in accord with Auburn development standards. The
sensitive area and their buffers would be identical under either the existing or
proposed zoning.
REVISED 03/15/05 18
03-300 Adams Vista Preliminary Plat/ Re -Zone FOR AGENCY
City of Auburn SEPA Checklist USE ONLY
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether
it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
None
The proposed rezone is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
None
The proposed development takes place outside the sensitive areas and the
associated buffer.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
The proposed rezone would have only a minimal increase on demand for public
services. The applicant is proposing to develop only 8 single-family lots.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
None
The applicant will install all required public improvements.
7. identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws
or requirements for the protection of the environment.
None
• The proposed rezone is consistent with the current Comprehensive plan.
• The proposed zoning designation is identical to many of the adjoining
properties.
• The proposed rezone and subsequent development will be consistent with
development in the vicinity.
• The proposed rezone will have no additional unmitigated impact on the
transportation system. The applicant will pay any proportional share
contribution to effected intersections or transportation systems.
• The proposed rezone will not have an adverse affect on the general health,
safety or welfare of the citizens of Auburn.
REVISED 03/15/05 19
��
FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SEP04-0033o�/Ql
Date: May 6, 2005
Project Name: Adams Vista Rezone and Plat
Applicant: Monte Adams
28738 Redondo Beach Drive South
Des Moines, WA 98198
253-709-8009
Contact Person: Hans Korve
DMP Engineering
726 Auburn Way North
Auburn, WA 98002
253-333-2200
Location: Generally, east of the existing southern terminus of Hemlock Street SE. and between
Auburn Way South and the White River.
Legal Description: Generally, Government Lot 1, Section 28, Township 21 Range 5 East, W.M.
A full legal description is provided on the site plan attached to the applicant's environmental
checklist application.
S -T -R: 28-21-05
Site Size: approximately 13.14 acres
Principal Parcel Number: 2821059021
Related Parcel Number: NA
Proposal: Request for a rezoning of a 13.14–acre site from RR, Rural Residential, and RMHP,
Residential Mobile Home Park to R-3, Two -Family Residential designation, and subsequent
preliminary plat approval of _a subdivision of the site into approximately eight, lots andthreetracts.
The proposal includes the site preparation and construction of a new street with public and private
portions within the plat and the construction of utilities.
Existing Zoning: RR, Rural Residential (the western approximately 2.62 acres) , and RMHP,
Residential Mobile Home Park (the northeastern approximately 0.52 acres)
Proposed Zoning: R3, Two -Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: 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: The proposal is a formal subdivision that will require preliminary plat approval, City
approval of the infrastructure, infrastructure construction and then final plat approval. Only after
final plat approval are individual lots created and can individual building permits be pursued.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 2
7. Future Actions: Future actions related to the project include the subsequent construction
homes on the individual lots after final plat approval.
8. Other Environmental Information: Other environmental information includes information that
has been prepared related to previous SEPA applications and decisions for the site.
While not identified in the environmental checklist application, in 1996 the applicant submitted an
environmental checklist application for the rezoning of the northern 6.8 acres of an approximately
14 -acre parcel from RR, Rural Residential, to R3, Two -Family Residential. Simultaneously, the
City received a rezone application (File No. REZ0003-96) to affect this change. On May 13, 1997
the City issued a Final Determination of Non -Significance (File No SEP96-0017). The Final
Determination of Non -Significance was subsequently appealed by neighboring property owners of
the Winchester Heights Condominium Association (File No. HAP97-0001). The Hearing Examiner
held a hearing on August 19, 1997 to consider the rezone and the SEPA appeal. The Examiner
denied the appeal concluding that the environmental review of the rezone was adequate. The
Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the rezone with two conditions. One condition
related to subsequently preparing the legal description for the area of the rezone and the second
condition required environmental review for any further development of the site.
The attorney of the Winchester Heights Condominium Association filed a request for.
reconsideration of the Examiner's decision on the appeal and rezone on September 4, 1997. On
September 17, 1997 the Examiner denied the request for reconsideration citing that no errors
were made in procedure or judgment, and there was no discovery of new evidence. On October
20, 1997, the City Council conducted a closed record hearing on the rezone request and denied
the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for the rezone by Ordinance No. 5038.
The following environmental information has been prepared and submitted in support of the
current application:
Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 2004
Adams Preliminary Plat On -Site Infiltration Systems Auburn Washington, Golder Associates Inc.
August 6, 2004
Supplement Letter to Environmental Checklist Application, DMP Inc. December 8, 2004
December 10, 2004
Golder Associates Inc.
Supplement Letter to Environmental Checklist Application, DMP Inc. December 15, 2004
Adams Vista Site Information Sheet 1 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004, revised April 6, 2005
Adams Vista Topography Information Sheet 2 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004, revised April
6, 2005
Adams Vista Site Plan Sheet 3 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004, revised April 6, 2005
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 3
Adams Vista Composite Utility Plan Sheet 1 of 1, DMP Inc., April 7, 2005
10. Other Approvals: Other approvals for the project may include a forest practice application
from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Other approvals from the City may
include approval by the City Engineer of a deviation from road design standards for the internal
street and for the length of the private street. Approval will also be required by the Planning and
Public Works Departments for the proposed gated subdivision pursuant to ACC 18.48.140.
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 consisting of Alderwood Kitsap Soils, very steep (AkF)
Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF) is a moderately well drained soil formed under
conifers in glacial deposits. This soil has slopes from ranging from 25 to 70 percent and the
following characteristics: varying drainage and permeability, rapid to very rapid runoff, severe to
very severe erosion hazard and severe slippage potential.
More detailed and site-specific information is available in the report:
Washington. Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 2004. The report indicates that the investigation
relied on excavation of ten test pits to a depth of 10-14 feet within the northern one-third of the
site. The results indicate the upper portion of the site soil consists of forest duff and topsoil
generally 5 to 12 inches thick. Below this, the site consists of recessional outwash except in test
pit TP -6. The recessional outwash consisted of loose to compact stratified fine to coarse sand
with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles, silt and occasional boulder. In TP -6 alluvium and then till
was encountered below the topsoil. The till layer was very dense and only about two feet thick. A
glaciolascustrine deposit consisting of a very dense laminated silt occurred below the till layer in
TP -6. Groundwater seepage was not encountered during excavation of test pits however; the
report notes that this may not be characteristic of the site. The report notes that the risk of soil
liquefaction and associated hazards is low based on not encountering the groundwater level.
However, the report notes that groundwater levels should be subsequently confirmed.
The report indicates the site consists of approximately 13.14 acres of undeveloped property
bounded to the east, west and north by residential and business development and to the south by
the White River. The north, approximately one-third of the site is -situated on an upland ridge that
lies between about elevation 238 and 322 feet. The southern one-third of the site slopes steeply
(>40 percent) down to the south to a nearly flat sand bar along the White River. There are three
ravines that drain from the north upland, south towards the White River. The ravines are
truncated by the steep slopes creating hanging or perched drainages. No water was observed in
the ravines at the time of the field investigation.
The report evaluates the steep slopes based on review of available geologic and geotechnical
data, a review of historical stereoscopic aerial photographs and a geologic site reconnaissance.
The site includes an upland plateau surface that is relatively flat or terrace like, a steep section
generally bordering the south edge of the upland and a low terrace area along the White River.
According to the report the deeper deposits of the site consist of Vashon age (approximately
13,000 to 20,000 year old) pro -glacial valley train fluvial sediments. These sediments are mapped
to be about 10 to 50 feet thick, and consist mostly of well -sorted sandy pebble and cobble gravel
deposited along and beyond the retreating front of the Puget glacial ice lobe. The valley train
deposits are mapped to be underlain by undifferentiated Vashon age glacial drift that appears to
vary from about 20 to 50 feet thick. Locally along the White River, the undifferentiated glacial drift
is underlain by middle to late Pleistocene (20,000 to 100,000+ years old) fluvial sand gravel of the
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 4
Salmon Springs glaciation. The mapped thickness of the Salmon Springs deposits varies from
generally 50 feet to as much as 200 feet.
The report indicates that based on the research, the upland plateau portion of the site is underlain
by recessional outwash sediments (Qpv) and these extend to the base of the steep slope along
the White River for most of the site. Glaciolacustrine or glacially overridden and redeposited
lacustrine sediments (i.e., till) underlie the recessional outwash sediments at the base of the slope.
They are exposed along the White River at the east end of the site (QvUQvt). Two, Late
Holocene and modem fluvial terraces flank the north side of the White River at the western one-
half to two-thirds of the site. These two terraces are composed of loose sand and gravels and
vegetation varies.
According to the report: "Five small shallow debris landslides or landslide scars were observed
during the site geologic reconnaissance and during a review of historical (1985 to 2002),
stereoscopic aerial photographs of the site (Figure 3). Three of the small landslides are located
on with in the central and western part of the site. They occur at the crest of the steep, south
facing -slope and are underlain by intact loose to dense recessional outwash sediments. The three
debris lands range from about 25 feet to 120 feet side and extend down slope for about 20 to 60
feet. The debris landslides are shallow, generally less than about 3 to 5 feet thick. The debris
landslides appear to have failed from erosion undercutting of the slope crests, which may have
been exacerbated by intense rainfall events. The review of historical aerial photographs revealed
that the three western debris landslides occurred sometime between 1985 and 1990, because
they are present in the 1990 photographs, but absent in the 1985 photographs."
"Two of the five debris landslides are on the steep slopes at the eastern end of site (Figure 3).
They range from about 60 to 150 feet wide, and extend down slope to the White River. These
debris landslides appear to have triggered by erosion at the toe of the steep slope by the White
River."
"No deep-seated landslides were identified on the steep slopes at the site. In addition, the
stratified nature of the recessional outwash sediments indicates that they have been in place since
the time of their deposition at least 13,000 years ago, and have not been disturbed."
The City of Auburn identifies the site as having the following geologically hazardous areas:
landslide hazard, erosion hazard, seismic hazard and volcanic hazard. The report assesses the
existing site slopes in relation to proposed alteration and proposes steep slope mitigation. The
report notes that there are no deep-seated landslides on the slopes of the site. "The slopes have
essentially been intact since de -glaciation about 13,000 years ago. The drainage system incised
into the plateau surface at the site are undisturbed, are perched anywhere from 60 to 100 feet
above the White River and reflect glacial recessional melt water erosion about 13,000 years ago.
In addition the topography of the steep slopes is uniform and vegetated with mature, undisturbed
conifer trees indicating long-term (geologically) slope stability with respect to potential deep-seated
failure."
Based on the study, the landslide hazard at the Adams Preliminary Plat is from localized future
shallow debris landslides occurring on the south -facing slope adjacent to the White River. "These
debris slides appear to have failed at the crest of the steep slope in the western part of the site as
a resuit of the localized and period erosion and undercutting and oversteepening of the crest of
the steep slope. In the eastern part of the site, the localized debris landslides tend to occur in the
mid -slope region, and as a result of continued erosion of the toe by the White River."
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 5
"...there appear to be at least one and possibly two episodes of localized debris landslides
approximately every 20 years on the steep, south facing slopes of the site. The shallow debris
slides are about 2-5 feet thick suggesting 2-5 feet of slope retreat in each debris slide event. If it
were assumed that the localized debris landslides occur uniformly along the crest of the slope, that
there are one to two events per 20 years, and the amount of retreat is 2-5 feet per event, then the
annual average rate of slope retreat would range from about 0.2 to 0.5 feetlyear. Thus, in 50
years the total retreat of the crest of the slope could range from 10 to 25 feet." As a result, the
report recommends observance of a 30 -foot setback from the crest of slope within the western
three-fourths of the site and a 50 -foot setback from the crest of the slope along the eastern one-
fourth of the site. The actual crest of the 40% slope should be field verified by survey.
The slope mitigation of the report also recommends that surface water runoff is intercepted and
prevented from uncontrolled discharge over the crest of the site's steep slopes. Also groundwater
infiltration systems must be located and designed such that recharge is not concentrated near the
crest of the steep slope.
The geologic report also contains more general recommendations about project design and
construction. It indicates the site is suitable for the proposed development however the some of
the site's site soils are moisture sensitive and when worked in wet weather would be unstable and
not suitable for support of buildings. To minimize drainage and sub grade degradation problems
major earthwork is recommended during the driest summer months. The report notes that cuts of
up to 16 feet and fills up to 30-40 feet in depth are proposed for the project's road construction.
Bole holes are recommended to provide more accurate information for the purpose of determining
temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes.
The report notes buildings can be supported on conventional shallow isolated or continuous
spread footings foundations bearing on undisturbed native sub grade or on compacted structural
fill prepared in accordance with the report recommendations. The recommendation includes:
removal of all vegetation and organic surface soils (generally 6-12 inches but may be deeper).
A letter supplement: Adams Preliminary Plat On -Site Infiltration Systems Auburn Washington,
Golder Associates Inc., August 6, 2004 contains recommendations about the design and
construction of the storm water infiltration pond and the roof downspout systems. In particular,
roof downspouts and roadway runoff are suitable for infiltration if property designed and
constructed. Infiltration testing needs to be conducted for the area of the storm pond.
Under the proposal, it is estimated that the earthwork would consist of the excavation and removal
from the site of approximately 11,000 cubic yards of organic soils. The project will also require the
importation of approximately 22,000 cubic yards of soil for general site filling for the sub -base
under paving and to raise site to provide cover for utilities and to achieve the grades necessary for
adequate site drainage.
The site's is identified as an erosion hazard area and the site preparation includes proposed
excavation and filling that if not properly controlled, could result in erosion and sedimentation
impacts to off-site 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
City's Design and Construction Standards manual.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 6
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 site is bordered to the south by the White River. The City's critical areas
inventory does not show any other surface waters on the site. However, the report: Preliminary
- •-.v •.�y,,,v11Y11111111P1 I IPl
Auburn Washington Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 2004, notes: "... a groundwater spring was
identified near the toe of the steep slope and near the eastern end of the older fluvial terrace about
20 feet in elevation above the White River. The spring was flowing at about 50-100 gallons per
minute at the time of geologic reconnaissance (March 11, 2004)."
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 7
The proposed plat construction is greater than 200 feet from the ordinary high water of the White
River and outside the identified spring. According to the checklist application, the area of the
shoreline, approximately 6.2 -acres is proposed to remain undisturbed and platted as Tract B and
dedicated to the City.
The site contains FEMA 100 -year flood elevation associated with the White River. However, the
floodplain elevation at the west edge of the property is 160 feet according to panel 1266 of 1725,
revised May 16, 1995. The lowest elevation of the proposed plat development is 240 feet.
B. Groundwater: The project proposes to discharge runoff from the private street that is
proposed to be extended to serve the individual lots via an on-site infiltration system. In addition,
each lot will utilize infiltration to address rooftop and other runoff.
The suitability of the site for infiltration is addressed in the supplemental geotechnical report:
Adams Preliminary Plat On -Site Infiltration Systems Auburn Washington, Golder Associates Inc.,
August 6, 2004. The report contains recommendations about the design and construction of the
storm water infiltration pond and the roof downspout systems. In particular, roof downspouts and
roadway runoff are suitable for infiltration if property designed and constructed. Infiltration testing
needs to be conducted for the area of the storm pond.
C. Runoff/Stormwater: According to the checklist application, the proposed plat construction will
result in approximately 27% 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 atter 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 infiltration system. Pollutants that accumulate on paved surfaces include heavy
metals, petrochemicals and other substances and require water quality treatment prior to
discharge into the groundwater.
The storm water management system is proposed to consist of catch basins within the private
street connected to underground piping conveying storm water to linear swale paralleling the north
side of new roadway. The storm drainage facility is proposed to be located within a private tract
containing the road and storm facilities. The design and construction of the storm drainage
system must meet city storm drainage standards, including water quality treatment.
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)
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 8
The City will regulate any new storm water discharges to creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes
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
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 native forest. The report: Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study Steep Slope Hazards Adams Preliminary Plat
Auburn Washington Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 2004 characterizes the site as: "...forested
with sparse, mature second growth trees consisting of fir, cedar, alder, maple and others. The
understory is dense to open with abundant ferns and low-lying berry bushes with moderate
amount of downed trees. The site timber appears to have been thinned recently."
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 9
The proposed construction would remove vegetation within the northern 50 feet for construction of
the private street and drainage system. Additional vegetation removal will be necessary for
grading of the lots for home sites. The checklist application: "No clearing is proposed for the steep
slopes for their associated buffers." The trees along the north, west and a portion of the southern
perimeter of property will require evaluation prior to site clearing to determine opportunities to
retain trees and avoid affecting off-site trees controlled by others. The Checklist application
identifes that individual trees adjacent to the site will need to be evaluated by an arborist during
and after construction to determine if they warrant removal for safety reasons.
Rather than surveying individual trees in relation to clearing, it is recommended that the following
measures by observed: a construction sequence that includes such items as establishing obvious
clearing limits, evaluating trees at the backs of lots to refine clearing limits, evaluating trees within
buffer and open space areas to determine hazard trees and a pre -construction conference.
To ensure that adequate provisions for protection of existing trees and replacement for removed
trees are achieved, the Planning Director shall review and approve the landscape plan, to include
street trees.
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 dependent species. Under
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 10
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).
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: Concur with checklist.
8. Land and Shoreline Use: The subject parcel is undeveloped, roughly rectangular in shape,
and varies from 230 to 620 feet north to south and 1,140 feet, east to west. The proposal is to
rezone the approximately 13.14 —acre site from RR, Rural Residential and RMHP, Residential
Mobile Home Park to R-3, Two -Family Residential designation, and subsequent preliminary plat
approval of a subdivision of the northern 6.94 -acres of the site into approximately eight lots and
three tracts.
The Current Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is "Moderate Density Residential" for the
northern portion and "Open Space" for the portion immediately adjacent to the White River. The
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 11
rezone request to R3, Two -Family Residential designation is consistent with the designation for
that portion designated as Moderate Density Residential by the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The intent of the R3 zone is to permit a limited increase in population density in those areas to
which this classification applies by permitting two dwelling units on a minimum size lot while at the
same time, by means of the standards and requirements set forth in this chapter, maintaining a
desirable family living environment by establishing minimum lot areas, yards and open spaces. A
related consideration is to provide a transition between single-family areas and other intensive
designations or activities which reduce the suitability for single-family uses.
The applicant has proposed to develop the northern portion (approximately 6.94 acres) of the site
as a single family plat with detached single-family homes, which will be processed concurrent with
the rezone application. The site plan indicates this yields a density of 1.64 dwelling units per acre
over the 13.14 -acre site. The applicant has indicated the intended use is single family residential
though the lot sizes proposed are large enough to meet density requirements for duplexes.
Adjacent zoning and land uses include:
• North: Undeveloped property and residences zoned R3 and R4
• East: Mobile home park zoned RMHP
• West: single family residences zoned R3 and Federal Aviation Administration zoned P1.
• South White River with undeveloped properties beyond zoned RR
The City of Auburn identifies the site as having the following critical areas: landslide hazard,
erosion hazard, seismic hazard and volcanic hazard and 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 clearing and construction of the proposed
eight dwelling units has the potential to result in adverse visual impacts as the site converts from
low intensity use to urban development.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 12
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 along the northern boundary of the site. To ensure that the project's at ground storm
drainage facilities do not result in adverse functional or visual impacts, the design of the drainage
and landscape treatment and side slopes 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: Concur with checklist.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: There are no known historical or cultural resources on the
site owever, the site has not been investigated for potential historical or cultaurl resources. If any hunter -
fisher -gatherer or historic period archaeological deposits or human remains are discovered in any portion of
the Adams Vista project area, ground -disturbing activities shall 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 state Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the Duwamish Tribe, the Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe, and a professional archaeologist shall be notified immediately. Treatment of the archaeological
deposits or human remains shall be coordinated and implemented through consultation among these parties.
Applicable policies adopted for the exercise of substantive SEPA authority are noted as follows:
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)
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 13
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
according to the amount of traffic generated by the completed development. Temporary impacts
associated with the importation of fill material will be addressed through provision of a haul route
plan and review and approval consistent with the City's design and construction standards manual.
No traffic impact analysis was requested or required as trip generation for eight dwelling units is
significantly lower then the City's threshold at which an analysis is required as published in the
city's Traffic Imapct Analysis Guidelines. Based on the ITE Manual, "Trip Generation" the
proposed eight dwelling units can be expected to generate 8 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour.
Traffic impact fees would be required at time of building permit for each single-family residence
per City regulations at ACC 19.04.
The proposed project includes extending a public street approximately 290 feet east of Hemlock
Street SE through existing undeveloped right-of-way and land to be dedicated to the City as a
public road and city standard cul-de-sac. The road (shown as 26"' Street SE) will continue east an
additional approximately 1,000 feet as a private street (within Tract C) to provide access to the
individual lots. A private access tract, Tract A is proposed to provide access to Lots 1 through 4.
The private street extension is planned to be gated and will be required to meet the city standards
as a gated residential subdivision, ACC 18.48.140.
Policy TR 13 and the City's Design and Construction Standards, section 10.02.5.2 limit cul-de-sac
length to 600 feet but recognizes that cul-de-sacs can be longer if constrained by environmental
issues or parcelization issue+s such as the fact that it is bordered by development that would limit
additional access. A deviation request would need to be submitted to the City Engineer for the
additional length of the road.
Private street should ensure that one side of the street does not allow parking and is marked as a
fire lane as would a public street in the city.
The following design standard issues should also be noted:
Per Auburn design and construction standards (D&CS) 10.01.3.4 Private streets at a minimum shall be
designed to the local street standard that most closely reflects their intended use. That standard would be for
a local residential road.
Per Auburn, design and construction standards section 10.01.3.4 the design of a private street shall be such
that it will discourage any through traffic of non-residents.
An emergency gate shall be designed and installed at the east end of the plat road to ensure that all vehicles
except emergency vehicles cannot travel into the parcel to the east of this site.
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 SEP04-0033 - Page 14
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:
1. 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:
1. 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)
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 bome 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
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 15
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.
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
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 16
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
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.
The applicant will installing fire hydrants on-site in accordance with City Code.
16. Utilities: The proposal requires the extension of utilities to serve the project and new lots.
Sanitary Sewer— The proposal shown on the Adams Vista ComDOsite Utility Plan Sheet 1 of 1,
DMP Inc., April 7, 2005. Sewer is proposed to be provided by extension of an eight -inch main
approximately 134 feet west from the the existing off-site sewer main located to the east. A new
manhole would be installed on-site and a 2 -inch force main extended on-site. The effuent from
Lot 1 would gravity to the sewer system while Lots 2 through 8 are proposed to have grinder
pumps. The extension of mains from the east may require provision of easements and access, if
not already existing.
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 17
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 - The proposal shown on the Adams Vista Composite Utility Plan Sheet 1 of 1, DMP Inc.,
April 7, 2005 will require construction of an 8 -inch waterline west from the existing 8 -inch water line
located off-site to the east and along the length of the private access tract (Tract C) and continuing
approximately 61 feet to the north along Hemlock Street SE to interconnect to the existing 6 -inch
water line located in Hemlock Street SE. The interconnection is necessary to provide looped
water system as identified in the City's Comprehensive Water Plan. The existing water lines have
extreme water pressure (+/- 100 psi), and individual pressure reducing valves are required to
maintain city standard water pressure (35-80 psi). If requested, the developer is entitled to a
payback of water system from properties north of proposed 26th ST SE when they connect.
Stormwater Drainage - Element 3 of this evaluation demonstrates the need for submittal and
approval of detailed plans for stormwater management system including water quality treatment
and coordination of the geotechnical recommendations and stormwater management. 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 developer, 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:
Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist SEP04-0033 - Page 18
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.
e. Water.
f. Sanitary sewers.
g. Controlled and developed access to existing and proposed streets. (Policy LU -106, ACP)
C. Conclusion: 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
CITY OF
ADBURNPeter B. Lewis, Mayor
WASHINGTON 25 West Main Street * Auburn WA 98001-4998 * www.oubumwa.gov * 253-931-3000
FINAL
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE
SEP04-0033
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request for a rezoning of a 13.14—acre site from RR Rural
of utilities.
PROPONENT: Monte Adams
LOCATION: Generally east of the existing southern terminus of Hemlock Street SE and
between Auburn Way South and the White River
LEAD AGENCY: City of Auburn
The Responsible Official of the City of Auburn hereby makes the following Findings of Fact
based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist and the "Final Staff Evaluation for
Environmental Checklist No. SEP04-0033", and Conclusions of Law based upon the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan, and other Municipal policies, plans, rules and regulations designated as a
basis for the exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy
Act Rules pursuant to R.C.W. 43.21C.060.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
The proposed project action known as "Adams Vista" involves rezoning of 13.14—acre
site from RR, Rural Residential, and RMHP, Residential Mobile Home Park to R-3, Two -
Family Residential designation, -and subsequent preliminary plat approval of a ------- -
subdivision of the site into approximately eight lots and three tracts. The proposal
includes the site preparation and construction of a new street with public and private
components within the plat and the construction of utilities. The project also includes
approval of a deviation from street standards for the internal roadway construction.
2. The proposed action includes a rezone request from RR (Rural Residential) and RMHP
(Residential Mobile Home Park) to R3 (Two -Family Residential). The City of Auburn
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations are "Moderate Density Residential"
and "Open Space".
3. The proposed action includes the site preparation and construction of an eight lot single-
family subdivision. The proposal includes substantial clearing and grading, street
construction and extensions of utilities. The proposal is to be constructed as one phase.
4. The City of Auburn identifies the site as having the following geologically hazardous
areas: landslide hazard, erosion hazard, and seismic hazards.
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 2
5. The construction will require the excavation and removal from the site of approximately
11,000 cubic yards of organic soils. The project will also require the importation of
approximately 22,000 cubic yards of soil for general site filling, for sub -base under
paving and to raise site grades necessary for adequate site drainage.
6. The applicant's geotechnical report,
Associates Inc. June 8, 2004 with supplements: "Adams Preliminary Plat On -Site
Infiltration Systems," Auburn Washington, Golder Associates Inc. August 6, 2004 (for
infiltration) and clarifications: "Response to Comments from the City of Auburn
Appucations for the 'Adams vista' Project", Golder Associates Inc. December 10, 2004
contain recommendations related to site development that will be incorporated into the
project design. The project has the potential for slope slippage and erosion if
precautionary geotechnical recommendations are not followed.
7. The applicant's geotechnical report includes recommendations for subsequent, more
detailed information to guide project design and construction.
8. Due to the presence of steep slopes, vegetation removal must be kept to a minimum
and precautionary geo-technical recommendations must be followed during construction
activities.
9. The environmental checklist application indicates vegetation will not be removed from
the setback recommended in the geotechnical report from the site's 40 percent or
greater slopes.
10. While development is generally planned for the northerly upland portion of the property,
the southern portion of the project consists of a steep south -facing slope that extends
down to the White River. While the hillside is not proposed for development, the project
has the potential to introduce human intrusion into the site's environmentally sensitive
steep slopes unless mitigation measures are implemented.
11. Site preparation and construction activities will generate increased levels of local
suspended particulate emissions.
12. This proposal includes importing up to 22,000 cubic yards of material to the site. The
temporary truck trips generated by the construction operations will likely cause adverse
impacts to traffic operations and city streets during peak traffic hours and will thus
generate increased levels of local suspended particulate emissions. Impacts are
expected to be addressed through provision, review and approval of a haul route plan
with specific traffic control measures, pursuant to city design and construction
standards.
13. The applicant indicates that the project includes construction of impervious surfaces
over approximately 27 percent of the site. The construction of paved surfaces and an
uncontrolled increase in runoff will adversely impact the site's steep slopes unless
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 3
mitigation measures are implemented consistent with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report.
14. Stormwater runoff from the plat's impervious surfaces will be collected and treated on-
site in a system designed in accordance with the City of Auburn Design and
Construction standards. The storm drainage system is proposed to be private and
located within Tract C. The project proposes an infiltration system to manage storm
water runoff. The design and construction of storm drainage facilities consistent with
City of Auburn standards will reduce the potential for adverse impacts to the area's
ground water quality to a level of significance.
15. Construction activity will include the on-site grading of existing soils and could result in
potential water quality degradation. that will be mitigated through the compliance with the
development regulations prescribed in the City of Auburn design standards.
16. Impervious surfaces will increase the quantity of storm water discharge from the site.
The project's storm drainage facilities must be properly designed and constructed to
accommodate the increased runoff in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in the
City of Auburn's adopted standards.
17. Lack of maintenance is known to reduce the effectiveness of stormwater collection and
treatment facilities, resulting in water quality degradation. Mitigation measures are
required to protect groundwater quality.
18. The proposed project will result in the removal of forest vegetation including trees that
meet the City's definition of significant trees within the northern approximately 6.94
acres of the site. The vegetation within the sloped, southern 6.2 acres is proposed to be
preserved in its existing forested state. This preservation amounts to about 47% of the
site. The removal of vegetation and the construction of the proposal have the potential
to result in adverse visual impacts unless appropriate mitigation is provided.
19. The site is adjacent to the White River. No construction is proposed within 200 feet of
the River. The southern 6.2 acres of the site adjacent to the River is proposed to be
established as a separate tract and dedicated to the City.
20. The Current Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is "Moderate Density
Residential" for the northern portion and "Open Space" for the portion immediately
adjacent to the White River. The rezone request to R3, Two -Family Residential
designation is consistent with the designation for that portion designated as Moderate
Density Residential by the City's Comprehensive Plan and is not consistent for the
portion classified of the site designated as "Open Space".
21. The rezoning, if approved, will allow more intensive development of the site. The R3,
Duplex Residential zoning district allows one single-family residence or one duplex per
lot, outright.
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 4
22. The proposal is located on forested property with steep slopes. The buildable area is
located on an elevated hillside above the valley floor. Removal of vegetation has the
potential to create adverse visual impacts.
23. While the site contains no known historic or cultural resources, the potential for these
resources exists and such resources could be disturbed by project construction.
24. The project will contribute approximately eight to sixteen additional vehicle trips to the
street system in the PM peak hour. No off-site traffic improvements are warranted by
the project's level of trip generation except as needed to complete the road connection
to Hemlock Street SE.
25. The internal private street will be designed and constructed to City of Auburn standards
for a local residential street. The driving surface of the road must include 28 feet of
paved surface to allow for 20 feet of emergency access and 8 feet of parking on one
side of the street. The other side would be marked "no parking" as a fire lane. The
private street shown shall be constructed to access to Hemlock Street SE. and to extend
east to and provide secondary access (for emergency purposes) to and from the internal
road of the mobile home park to the immediate east of the subject property. Road is
currently not shown designed to city standards.
26. A public turnaround (cul-de-sac) is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of the
intersection of Hemlock Street SE and the project's private street. A vehicle turnaround
is also proposed in the vicinity of Lots 4 and 1 inside the development for the purpose of
allowing vehicles to turnaround and return to the public street system at Hemlock Street
SE.
27. Concurrent with the plat application, the applicant will require a deviation related to
street standards.
28. Due to the length of the proposed private street, a secondary emergency vehicle access
route is needed and is proposed via a gate constructed at the east end of the project
that must be equipped with a keyless rapid entry system. The proposal includes using
an existing utility and access easement through the adjacent mobile home park in order
to provide this access.
29. The City of Auburn adopted a Transportation Impact Fee under Ordinance No. 5506.
The present traffic impact fee rate for single-family dwellings is $677.71 and the fee in
effect will be collected at the time of building permit issuance.
30. The proposal as shown on the Adams Vista Composite Utility Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, DMP
Inc., April 7, 2005 indicates sanitary sewer is proposed to be provided by extension of
an eight -inch main approximately 134 feet west from the existing off-site sewer main
located to the east. Lot 1 would gravity to the sewer system while Lots 2 through 8 are
proposed to have grinder pumps.
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 5
31. The proposal shown on the Adams Vista Composite Utility Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, DMP Inc.,
April 7, 2005 will require construction of an 8 -inch waterline west from the existing 8 -inch
water line located off-site to the east and along the length of the private access tract
(Tract C) and continuing approximately 61 feet to the north along Hemlock Street SE to
interconnect to the existing 6 -inch water line located in Hemlock Street SE. The
interconnection is necessary to provide looped water system as identified in the City's
Comprehensive Water Plan. The existing water lines may require individual pressure
reducing valves to maintain city standard water pressure.
32. The stormwater management system is proposed to consist of catch basins within the
private street connected to underground piping conveying storm water to a linear swale
paralleling the north side of new roadway. The storm drainage facility is proposed to be
located within a private tract containing the road and storm facilities. The design and
construction of the storm drainage system must meet city storm drainage standards,
including water quality treatment.
33. The City received five comment letters in response to the public comment period for the
Notice of Application and the Proposed Final Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance. Three of the letters were received during the public comment period, two
are from neighbors and one from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Two other letters were
received after the close of the comment period, one is from a neighbor and the other is
from the attorney of an adjacent property owner. Some minor clarifications to Final
MDNS were made in response to comments.
34. In response to a public comment letter received the applicant has indicated in writing
that a cultural resource assessment will be prepared. A condition was added to ensure
the report will be completed prior to issuance of grading or landclearing permits by the
city and a copy will be provided to the city and tribe. Mitigation measures identified with
the report will be incorporated into subsequent city approvals as determined by the
Planning Director.
35. The "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist No. SEP -04-0033" is hereby
incorporated by reference as though set forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
Staff has concluded that a MDNS may be issued. This is based upon the environmental
checklist and its attachments, and the "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist". The
MDNS is supported by Plans and regulations formally adopted by the City for the exercise of
substantive authority under SEPA. The following are City adopted policies, which support the
MDNS:
1. The City shall seek to ensure that land is 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 -64, Auburn Comprehensive Plan (ACP)).
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 6
2. Where there is a high probability of erosion, grading should be kept to a minimum and
disturbed vegetation should be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development
standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices for clearing and grading
activity (Policy EN -65, ACP).
3. Large scale speculative filling and grading activities not associated with a development
proposal shall be discouraged as it reduces a vegetated site's natural ability to provide
erosion control and biofiltration, absorb storm water and filter suspended particulates. In
instances where speculative filling is deemed appropriate, disturbed vegetation shall be
restored as soon as possible and appropriate measures to control erosion and
sedimentation until the site is developed shall be required (Policy EN -67, ACP).
4. 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 -71, ACP)
5. 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 -16, ACP).
6. The City shall encourage the retention of vegetation and encourage landscaping in
order to provide filtering of suspended particulates (Policy EN -18, ACP).
7. 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 -20, ACP).
8. 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,
Auburn Comprehensive Plan (ACP)]
9. The City shall seek to minimize degradation to surface water quality and aquatic habitat
of creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and other water bodies; to preserve and
enhance the suitability of such water bodies for contact recreation and fishing and to
preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of such waters by requiring the use of
current Best Management Practices for control of stormwater and non -point runoff.
(Policy EN -3, ACP)
10. The City will regulate any new storm water discharges to creeks, streams, rivers, ponds,
lakes and other water bodies with the goal of no degradation of the water quality or
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 7
habitat of the receiving waters, and where feasible seek opportunities to enhance the
water quality and habitat of receiving waters. (Policy EN -4, ACP)
11. 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)
12. 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. (EN -13, ACP)
13. 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)
14. Where possible, streams and river banks should be kept in a natural condition, and
degraded streambanks should be enhanced or restored. (Policy EN -6, ACP)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. The City recognizes that new development can have impacts including, but not limited
to, flooding, erosion and decreased water quality on downstream communities and
natural drainage courses. The City shall continue to actively participate in developing
and implementing regional water quality planning and flood hazard reduction efforts
within the Green River, Mill Creek and White River drainage basins. The findings and
recommendations of these regional efforts, including, but not limited to, the "Draft"
Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Mill Creek Basin, the 'Draft" Mill Creek
Flood Control Plan, the Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement, and the Mill
Creek Water Quality Management Plan, shall be considered by the City as City
programs and plans are developed and updated. (Policy EN -15, ACP)
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 8
18. The City recognizes the value and efficiency of utilizing existing natural systems (e.g.,
wetlands) for storm water conveyance and storage. However, these natural systems
can be severely impacted or destroyed by the uncontrolled release of contaminated
storm waters. Prior to utilizing natural systems for storm drainage purposes, the City
shall carefully consider the potential for adverse impacts through the environmental
review process. Important natural systems shall not be used for storm drainage
storage or conveyance, unless it can be demonstrated that adverse impacts can be
adequately mitigated to a less than significant level. (Policy EN -16; ACP)
19. 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)
20. 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).
21. 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)
22. The City shall seek to protect human health and safety and to minimize damage to the
property of area inhabitants by minimizing the potential for and extent of flooding or
inundation. (Policy EN -57, ACP)
23. Site plan review shall be required under SEPA for any significant (e.g. over the SEPA
threshold) development in the flood plain. Appropriate mitigating measures shall be
required whenever needed to reduce potential hazards. (Policy EN -60, ACP)
24. The City shall enact ordinances and review development proposals in a manner which
restricts and controls the discharge of storm water from new development. At a
minimum the peak discharge rate after development shall not exceed the peak
discharge rate before development. (Policy EN -62, ACP)
25. The City recognizes the important benefits of native vegetation including its role in
attracting native wildlife, preserving the natural hydrology, and maintaining the natural
character of the Pacific Northwest region. Native vegetation can also reduce the use of
pesticides (thereby reducing the amount of contaminants that may enter nearby water
systems) and reduce watering required of non-native species (thereby promoting
conservation). The City shall encourage the use of native vegetation as an integral part
of public and private development plans through strategies that include, but are not
limited to, the following:
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 9
• Encouraging the use of native plants in street landscapes and in public facilities.
• Providing greater clarity in development regulations in how native plants can be used
in private development proposals.
• Pursuing opportunities to educate the public about the benefits of native plants.
(Policy EN -33, ACP)
26. Development regulations shall emphasize the use of native plant materials that
complement the natural character of the Pacific Northwest and which are adaptable to
the climatic hydrological characteristics of the region. Regulations should provide
specificity as to native plant types in order to facilitate their use. (Policy EN -33A, ACP)
27. The City shall discourage the unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation in new
development. (Policy EN -34, ACP)
28. 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; floodwater or storm water storage; storm water purification;
recreational value; historic or cultural value; aesthetic value; and educational value.
(Policy PR -7, ACP)
29. The City shall seek to retain as open space those areas that provide essential habitat for
any rare, threatened or endangered plant or animals species. (Policy PR -9, ACP)
30. The City shall encourage development which maintains and improves the existing
aesthetic character of the community. (Policy UD -1, ACP)
31. Storm drainage facilities shall incorporate high standards of design to enhance the
appearance of a 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 rear or side
yard areas and the design should preclude the need for security fencing whenever
feasible. (Policy UD -6, ACP)
32. All new development shall be required to underground on-site utility distribution service
and telecommunication lines. (Policy UD -12, ACP)
33. The visual impact of large new developments should be a priority consideration in their
review and approval (Policy UD -9, ACP).
34. The City shall encourage the protection, preservation, recovery and rehabilitation of
significant archaeological resources and historic sites. (Policy HP -1, ACP)
35. 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)
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 10
36. Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the
development process. All costs will be bome by the development when the proposed
new streets serve the development. 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).
37. New developments shall incorporate non -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 and the Land Use Plan
(Policy TR -35, ACP).
38. Encourage pedestrian -oriented design features in all development. (Policy TR -37, ACP)
39. The City shall encourage consideration of the needs of pedestrians in all public and
private development. (Policy TR -52, ACP)
40. The City shall require developers to construct storm drainage improvements directly
serving the development, including any necessary off-site improvements. (Policy CF -38,
ACP)
41. 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)
42. 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.
e. Water.
f. Sanitary sewers.
g. Controlled and developed access to existing and proposed streets. (Policy LU -
106, ACP)
43. 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
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 11
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.
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, mufti -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.
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 12
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 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)
44. The City shall encourage and approve development only where adequate public
services including police protection, fire and emergency medical services, education,
parks and other recreational facilities, solid waste collection, and other governmental
services are available or will be made available at acceptable levels of service prior to
project occupancy or use. Demand for any City service compared to level of support for
such service will also be given substantial consideration when reviewing development
proposals (Policy CF -7).
45. No new development shall be approved which is not supported by a minimum of
facilities to support the development and which does not provide for a proportionate
share of related system needs (CF -13). - -
46. Provisions shall be made wherever appropriate in any project for looping all dead-end or
temporarily dead-end mains. Construction plans must be approved by the appropriate
water authority prior to the commencement of construction. Where it is not feasible at
the time of approval and installation to loop a water system, in the opinion of the fire
department, the loop requirement may be relaxed if the intent of the code is met and a
stub is provided on the main for future expansion. (ACC 13.16.090 Dead-end mains
prohibited Ord. 3064 § 1, 1976.)
CONDITIONS:
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have probable significant
impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required under
R.C.W. 43.21C.030(2)(c), only if the following conditions are met. This decision is made after a
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead
agency. This information is available to the public on request.
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 13
1. The recommendations of the geotechnical reports: "Preliminary Geotechnical
Auburn Washington", Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 2004 and the supplements of
Adams Preliminary Plat On -Site Infiltration Systems Auburn Washington, Golder
Associates Inc. August 6, 2004 and Response to Comments from the City of Aubui
Applications for the "Adams Vista" Project, Golder Associates Inc., December 10, 2004
and/or other subsequent site specific soils or geotechnical reports shall be incorporated
into clearing, grading and other appropriate construction plans, as determined by the
City Engineer. The recommended thirty-foot (30) buffer and fifty -foot (50) setback from
the top of slopes identified in the geotechnical report shall be shown on all plans,
including the final plat. The recommended restrictions on activities and prohibition on
any construction within the setback areas shall be made a requirement of the final plat.
The 40% and greater slope setback area for Lot 5 shall be 50 feet uniformly east -west
across the proposed Lot.
2. Prior to issuance of clearing or grading permits, a grading plan for grading and clearing
necessary for both the construction of infrastructure such as roads and utilities and for
lot grading shall be prepared, submitted and approved by the City of Auburn. The
purpose of the plan is to accomplish the maximum amount of grading at one time to limit
or avoid the need for subsequent grading and disturbance, including grading of
individual lots during home construction. The plan shall identify the surveyed boundary
of the crest slopes for the site's 40% or greater slopes as called for by the geotechnical
report. The plan shall demonstrate conformance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study
Steep Slope Hazards Adams Preliminary Plat Auburn Washington Golder Associates
Inc. June 8, 2004 and the supplements of Adams Preliminary Plat On -Site Infiltration
Systems, Auburn Washinoton, Golder Associates Inc. August 6, 2004 and Response
and environmental cnecaist applications for the "Adams Vista' Project, Golder
Associates Inc. December 10, 2004. The applicant's grading plans shall be prepared in
conjunction with and reviewed by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical
engineer shall develop and submit, for the .City's review, specific recommendations to
mitigate grading activities with particular attention to developing a plan to minimize the
extent and time soils are exposed on site and address grading and related activities
during wet weather periods. The plans shall show the type and the extent of geologic
hazard area or any other critical areas as required in chapters 16, and 18 of the
International Building Code (IBC).
3. A licensed geotechnical engineer shall monitor on-site rough/preliminary plat grading
activities to ensure that the recommendations of the preliminary geo-technical report
and any additional conditions or requirements that are imposed to ensure slope
stabilization are implemented.
4. The report Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study Steep Slope
Hazards Adams Preliminary Plat Auburn Washington Golder Associates Inc., June 8,
2004 identifies that cuts of up to 16 feet and fills up to 30-40 feet in depth are proposed
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 14
for the project's road construction. Prior to issuance of clearing or grading permits, bore
holes shall be conducted and a geotechnical report prepared and submitted for review
and approval to provide more accurate information on site composition for the purpose
of determining temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes as recommended by the
submitted geotechnical report. Recommendations of the report shall be made project
or plat requirements as determined by the Public Works Director.
5. The report Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study Steep Slope
Hazards Adams Preliminary Plat Auburn Washington Golder Associates Inc., June 8,
2004 concludes that the historic " ... debris landslides on-site appear to have triggered
by erosion at the toe of the steep slope by the White River." Prior to the issuance of
grading or construction approvals, a geotechnical report shall be prepared and
submitted for review and approval to assess the potential for river migration to contribute
to landslides on the project site. Recommendations of the report shall be made project
or plat requirements as determined by the Public Works Director.
6. The report Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study Steep Slope
Hazards Adams Preliminary Plat Auburn Washington Golder Associates Inc., June 8,
2004 concludes that the risk of soil liquefaction and associated hazards are low based
on not encountering the groundwater level during test pits excavations. However, the
report notes that groundwater levels should be subsequently confirmed. Prior to
issuance of clearing or grading permits, an infiltration analysis shall be conducted and
submitted to the city for review and approval. The analysis shall assess the suitability of
the site soils for both the proposed private storm drainage system and individual roof top
runoff drywells. In addition, the plan shall prescribe a typical design for construction of
the individual roof downspout drywells or specify that subsequent individual site-specific
designs are required. Recommendations of the analysis shall be made project or plat
requirements as determined by the Public Works Director.
7. According to the checklist application no -disturbance isproposed to the geotechnical
report's recommended setback from the crest of the site's 40 percent and greater
slopes. A native growth protection easement shall be noted on the final plat for that
portion of the plat with slopes greater than 40 percent, as well as, for that the portion of
the lots subject to the 30 -foot and 50 -foot setback from crest of slope. The specific
easement language shall be approved by the Planning Director but at a minimum should
reflect that no clearing, tree removal, tree alteration, grading or construction shall occur,
except as may be authorized by the Planning and Public Works Director for protection of
the public health, safety and welfare.
8. Prior to the importation and placement of fill, the City Engineer shall approve the source
of the imported structural fill material. The City of Auburn Building Official shall approve
the source of the imported fill material for all other fill activities.
9. Compaction monitoring and testing shall be required for all fill areas, both structural and
non-structural for City review. Compaction reports for structural fill shall be provided to
the City's Building Official and all other compaction reports shall be provided to the City
Engineer for review prior to acceptance.
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 15
10. Upon completion of rough grading and excavation, the applicant shall have a geo-
technical engineer re -analyze the site and determine if new or additional mitigation
measures are necessary. A revised geo-technical report shall be submitted to the City
of Auburn for review and approval by the City Engineer. Recommendations for areas
where subsurface water is known or discovered shall be given particular attention by the
geotechnical engineer and coordinated with the project engineer responsible for the
storm drainage system design.
11. Prior to the issuance of any permits authorizing any earthwork, the applicant shall
identify if any retaining walls or rockeries are proposed (none are shown on plan
provided to date) and if proposed, provide the City Engineer with a comprehensive
evaluation of retaining wall/rockery elements for the plat including structural retaining
wall designs and supporting calculations, drainage systems, easements, and safety and
maintenance provisions for review and approval. The design of the retaining walls shall
be incorporated into the plat grading and drainage plans.
12. If any retaining walls or rockeries are proposed and constructed, the applicant shall
provide the City with an in situ analysis of the retaining wall/rockery elements of the plat
within eighteen months from the date of final plat approval. The analysis shall be
prepared by a qualified professional engineer and include a one year in place
assessment of the structural integrity of the constructed retaining wall/rockery system
and any associated recommended improvements necessary to insure the integrity of
such system. To guarantee performance in addressing any identified improvements
needed, the applicant shall provide the City with an acceptable $50,000 financial
guarantee prior to final plat approval.
13. The purpose and intent of the following condition is to discourage the uncontrolled
intrusion of humans into the site's geologically hazardous areas and ensure long term
protection of native vegetation and slope stability as identified by Preliminary
Preliminary Plat Auburn Washington, Golder Associates Inc., June 8, 2004 identified as
the 40 percent and greater slopes. To ensure the long term protection of these areas,
the following information and improvements shall be provided:
a. Signs shall be installed at approximately 100 -foot intervals along the
boundary of the 30 -foot and 50 -foot setback to the 40% and greater slopes
setback. The signs shall be constructed of a permanent and durable
material and indicate the restrictions related to the use of the area. The sign
locations, construction detail and text shall be specified on plans and plat as
determined by the city.
b. Permanent fencing consisting of a minimum 3.5 foot high, black, vinyl -
coated chain link shall be provided at the boundary of the 30 -foot and 50 -
foot slope setbacks to control intrusion into native growth protection areas.
The location, construction specifications shall be specified in the final
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued) Page 16
mitigation plan. The fence shall be installed prior to approval of the final
plat.
c. The 40% and greater slope setback area shall be encumbered by a
sensitive area/native growth protection easement granted to the City of
Auburn. The easement shall state that any uses within the easement area
shall be as approved by the Planning Director. The uses shall be consistent
with the purpose of the geologic hazard and be a general benefit to the
public. The easement and restrictions shall be shown on the face of the
final plat or the Planning Director can provide an alternative comparable
encumbrance through approval.
14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each lot within the plat, a licensed
geotechnical engineer shall prepare a report for submittal to the City approving footing
placement, backfills and final slope stabilization. This requirement shall be noted on the
final plat.
15. The proponent shall provide the City with an inspection and maintenance easement for
the on-site storm drainage facilities on the development site. Evidence that the
easement has been executed and recorded is required prior to issuance of any building
permits for the site. The easement and restrictions shall be shown on the face of the
final plat or the Planning Director can provide an alternative comparable encumbrance
through approval.
16. The proponent shall provide an operation and maintenance program for all on-site
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 that utilize the shared stormwater
facilities. The operation and maintenance program for all on-site stormwater facilities
shall be specified in the homeowners associated by-laws.
17. All surface water controls shall be designed to keep flows off of slopes. Impervious
surfaces including driveways, patios, decks and roofs shall have specific water collection
systems provided to prevent runoff onto slopes. This requirement shall be noted on the
final plat.
18. To ensure proper maintenance of the proposed water quality treatment system in
relation to protection of groundwater resources, prior to final plat approval, the owner
shall provide evidence of a 5 -year maintenance contract with a qualified professional for
annual routine maintenance and filter replacement.
19. Prior to the issuance of clearing and grading permits the application shall have a
certified arborist conduct an inspection of the site and prepare a plan for clearing limits.
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE SEP04-0033 (Continued)
Page 17
The plan shall be accompany the clearing and grading plan to the city for review and
approval. The purpose of the plan shall be to assess opportunities to retain existing
mature trees that meet the city's criteria for significant trees within the individual lot
areas and to assess the trees near the proposed clearing limits to reduce or avoid tree
impacts to off-site properties and to the 40% and greater setback areas. The
recommendations of the plan and/or other subsequent site-specific vegetative protection
reports shall be incorporated into grading and construction plans and plat as determined
by the Planning Director and City Engineer. The plan shall prescribe tree
protection/construction measures to be observed and provide a construction sequence
that includes:
a. Flagging of clearing limits
b. Arborist to reevaluate trees at perimeter and mark hazardous trees
c. Arborist pre -clearing conference with contractor
d. Complete logging and hazard tree removal
e. Complete grubbing and clearing
f. Install tree protection fencing at root protection zone
g. Retain understory vegetation within root protection zone
h. Arborist to conduct inspection after clearing to ensure no trees were made
hazardous by site work.
20. In the event ground disturbing activity results in the discovery of resources with potential
historical and/or archeological significance, work shall be stopped in a large enough
area to maintain integrity of the discovery and appropriate local, State and tribal offices
shall be notified immediately.
Any person aggrieved of the City's determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk
within 21 days of issuance of a final determination. Copies of the final determination, specifying
the appeals deadline, can be requested or obtained from the Department of Planning and
Community Development.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Paul Krauss, AICP
POSITIONITITLE: Director of the Department of
Planning & Community Development
ADDRESS: 25 West Main Street
Auburn, Wash' n 8001
(253) 931 90
DATE ISSUED: July 20, 2005 SIGNATURE:
Any person aggrieved of this final determination may file an appeal with the Auburn City Clerk
within 21 days of the date of issuance of this notice. All appeals of the above determination
must be filed by 5:00 P.M. on August 8, 2005 with required fee.
Golder Assoaates NIC.
18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200
Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333
Telephone (425) 883-0777
Fax (425) 8825498
www.goldeccom
�® C I ! "
1 M
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
AND
CRITICAL AREA STUDY STEEP SLOPE HAZARDS
ADAMS PRELIMINARY PLAT
AUBURN, WASHINGTON
Submitted to:
Mr. Monte Adams
28738 Redondo Beach Drive
Des Moines, Washington 98198
Submitted by:
••r'y'es rm�Cco:o;:'. '1 c.
-Golder Associates Inc.
6U6q; $ 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200
ad_GeCtO
Redmond, Washington 98052
1�Tv
Donaid O. West
Donald O. West, L.G, L.E.G.
Senior Project Manager
June 8, 2004
RFCFlVFl)
��NcDFPA
C 15 '4904
P
i
E7(PIRE1
O O
CA -JL4,9�
Andrew J. Walker, P.E.,
Associate Geotechnical Engineer
OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA. ASIA. AUSTRALIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA
June 8, 2004
1.0 INTRODUCTION
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................
4.1 Summary of Existing Information ...........
4.2 Soil Conditions Observed in Golder Test
4.3 Groundwater ............................................
043-1101.000
1
................3
5.0 STEEP SLOPE CRITICAL AREA STUDY....................................................................5
5.1
Background...................................................................................................................5
5.2
Approach and Methodology.........................................................................................5
5.3
Summary of Site Geology.............................................................................................6
5.4
City of Auburn Mapped Hazard Areas and Comprehensive PIan Policies ........ .......... 8
5.4.1 Mapped Hazard Areas.....................................................................................8
5.4.2 Comprehensive Plan Policies.........................................................................10
5.5
Description of Steep Slope Areas...............................................................................11
5.5.1 Existing Slopes..............................................................
5.5.2 Post -Development Slopes..............................................................................12
5.6
Conclusions and Proposed Steep Slope Mitigation....................................................12
5.6.1 Conclusions., ..................................................................................................
12
5.6.2 Proposed Steep Slope Mitigation...................................................................13
6.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................14
6.1
General........................................................................................................................14
6.2
Temporary and Permanent Slopes..............................................................................14
6.3
Foundation Recommendations....................................................................................15
6.4
Slab Subgrade.............................................................................................................15
6.5
Foundation Drainage...................................................................................................16
6.6
Backfilled Basement Walls.........................................................................................17
6.7
Retaining Walls................:..........................................................................................17
6.8
Seismic Design Criteria..............................................................................................18
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................19
7.1 General........................................................................................................................19
7.2 Site Preparation and Grading......................................................................................19
7.3 Utilities........................................................................................................................19
7.4 Erosion Control.............................................................. ............................................ 19
7.5 Use of On -Site Soils...................................................................................................20
060804&wl.mc
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -ii-
7.6 Fill Materials and Placement ...........................
7.7 Construction Monitoring ..................................
8.0 DESIGN INVESTIGATION ...................................
9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT ..........................................
10.0 REFERENCES...........................:.............................
LIST OF FIGURES
043-1101.000
...................................21
.................................22
Figure 1
Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Site Plan
Figure 3
Site Location Map, Generalized Geology and Steep Slope Areas
Figure 4
Slope Profile A -A'
Figure 5
Slope Profile B -B'
Figure 6
Slope Profile C -C'
Figure 7
Slope Profile D -D'
Figure 8
Slope Profile 1rE'
Figure 9
Site Photograph
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Soil Classification System and Summary Test Pit Logs (TP -1 to TP -10) .
......24
osoeo'&o I.aa
Golder Associates
June 8,2004 1- 043-1101.000
1.0 MRODUCnON
Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) was retained by Mr. Monte Adams, to complete a preliminary
geotechnical investigation and steep slope hazard study, of the Adams Preliminary Plat in Auburn,
Washington (Figures 1 and 2). The purpose of the investigation was to provide preliminary
geotechnical information suitable for site development planning and conceptual design. Golder's
scope of services included a geologic site reconnaissance of the site slopes adjacent to the area
planned for development, review of existing geologic maps and air photographs, excavation of test
pits in the area planned for development, soil sample collection and identification, and engineering
evaluation and recommendations. This report presents the results of the field investigations and
provides preliminary geotechnical design and construction criteria for the Adams Preliminary Plat.
The portion of the project site being proposed for development is suitable for construction of single-
family detachedhownhomes, multi -family apartment or condominium buildings and associated roads
and utilities. Competent soil conditions are present to provide adequate bearing capacity for the
anticipated light to moderate building loads. The southern portion of the site contains significant
slope areas with localized steep slopes (slopes 40% or greater). The present development concept
excludes the steep slope area from development. Impacts to the slope stability from the proposed
development are discussed in Section 5 of this report.
Golder Associates
1t
June 8, 2004 -2-
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
043-1101.000
The subject property is located north of the White River and east of where Hemlock Street SE dead
ends, south of the intersection, with SR -16 in Auburn, Washington (Figure 1). The site consists of
about 13 acres of undeveloped land bounded on the east and north by residential and business
developments, to the west by vacant land, and to the south by the White River. The site is elongated
east -west and broader in width to the east (Figure 2). The north, approximately one-third of the site is
situated on an upland ridge that lies between about elevation 238 to 322 feet. The southern two-thirds
of the site slopes steeply (>40 percent) down to the south to a nearly flat sand bar along the White
River (Figure 2).
There are three ravines that drain from the north upland south toward the White River. The ravines
are truncated by the steep slopes creating hanging or perched drainages. No water was observed in
the ravines at the times of our field investigation or site reconnaissance visits.
The site is forested with sparse, mature second growth trees consisting of fir, cedar, alder, maple and
others. The understory is dense to open with abundant ferns and low-lying berry bushes with a
moderate amount of downed trees. The site timber appeared to have been thinned recently. Site
access was from a 50 foot wide easement off of Hemlock Street SE in the NW corper of the site.
The preliminary site road development is shown on the Monte Adams Full Property Exhibit prepared
by DMP Engineers dated December 10, 2003 (sheet I of 1). Site development is planned only on the
northern one-third of the site occupying the upland area. The plan does not show the site subdivision
plans, but it is our understanding that it will be residential single-family housing. We anticipate that
the building loads will be light and no below grade structures are planned.
ao.u.mi.mc
Golder Assooiotes
June 8, 2004 -3-
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
043-1101.000
Field investigations for this site included ten (10) test pit excavations, completed on March 10, 2004.
Test pits were located in the field, by a Golder geologist, using tape measurements from topographic
features appearing on a drawing of the parcel and several existing centerline of road stakes provided
by DMP Engineers (Figure 2). No survey control was provided during our field investigation,
therefore, the test pit elevations and locations should be considered approximate. Test pits were
excavated only on the upland area located in the north one-third of the site where the development
will occur.
The test pits were excavated with a John Deere 120 series track -mounted excavator to depths of about
10.5 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface. A geologist from our firm examined and recorded
the soil and groundwater conditions observed in each of the test explorations. Pertinent information
including depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence were
recorded. The stratification depths indicated on the summary logs represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The soil and groundwater conditions were those recorded for the
locations and dates indicated and may not necessarily represent those of other times and locations.
Once the data was collected at each test pit the pit was backfilled with the excavated soils and tamped
into place with the bucket of the excavator. Some settlement of the test pit backfill should be
expected with time.
Disturbed but representative samples were obtained from the test pits. All samples were sealed in
plastic bags to reduce moisture loss and returned to our laboratory for further examination. The soil
samples were classified in accordance with Golder Associates Inc. Technical Procedure for Field
Identification of Soil TP 1.2-6, which is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. A summary
of the classification system is presented in the Soil Description Index, along with the test pit logs, in
Appendix A.
onoauod, Lm
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 4- 043-1101.000
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 Summary of Existing Information
The geology of the Adams Preliminary Plat has been mapped by Mullineaux (1965). The map
indicates surface soils on the site are dominated by proglacial stratified drift (Qpv) consisting chiefly
of sand and gravel outwash over most of the site, with minor exposures along the steep slopes to the
south of undifferentiated Glacial deposit% (Qu) composed chiefly of outwash sands and Salmon
Springs Drift fluvial sand and gravel deposits. The soil descriptions on the test pit logs (Appendix A)
are consistent with the geologic mapping of Mullineaux (1965).
4.2 Soil Conditious Observed in Golder Test Pits
The soil encountered in the test pits on the Adams Preliminary Plat included a surface layer of forest
duff/topsoil overlying recessional outwash deposits that extended to the bottom of all our
explorations. The following section describes the soil conditions in greater detail.
Forest Duff and Topsoil — The surface of the Adams Preliminary Plat contained a relatively uniform
layer of forest duff and topsoil consisting of abundant organic matter such as roots, twigs, leaves
intermixed with silt and fine sand. This layer is dominated by dark brown to black, organic matter
and contains small amounts of mineral soil. This zone was typically about 5 to 12 inches thick at our
test pits, but will likely vary across the site. It is not uncommon to find pockets of topsoil several feet
thick in localized areas such as depressions or where there have been past grading activities. The
topsoil layer is commonly identified based on its darker color and high organic content This can be
misleading during topsoil stripping operations, because the dark coloration often extends several
inches into the underlying mineral soil that does not require removal under structures and roadways.
Alluvium — Alluvium was encountered below the Forest Duff and Topsoil layer in TP -6 only, and
consisted of firm, yellow-brown to olive gray, mottled, silt, with trace fine sand and organics.
Recessional Outwash — Recessional Outwash was encountered below the topsoil layer in all of the
test pits excavated, except for TP -6, where no Recessional Outwash was observed. The outwash was
typically loose to compact yellow-brown to olive, stratified fine to coarse sand with varying amounts
of gravel, cobbles, silt and the occasional boulder. There was commonly a 2 to 3 foot weathered zone
towards the top of the unit with heavily iron oxide staining and was more of a medium reddish -brown
in color.
Till — Till was encountered below the alluvium in TP -6. The fill was composed yellow-brown to
olive gray silt, with some fine to coarse sand, little fine to coarse gravel with well defined silt sockets
around the coarse sand and gravels. The till layer was very dense and only about 2 feet thick in the
test pit.
Glaciolacustrine — A Glaciolacustrine deposit was encountered below the till layer in TP -6 and
consisted of a light gray, iron oxide stained, laminated, silt The unit was very dense and proved to be
tough to excavate even with the teeth on the excavator bucket.
43 Groundwater
No groundwater seepage was encountered in the test pits on Adams Preliminary Plat The pits were
excavated in mid March during a dryer than normal winter. In our opinion, the lack of seepage
observed in the test pits may not be characteristic for this site. We would expect that construction
work on the site during wetter months or during a normal precipitation year would likely encounter
slight groundwater seepage.
June 8, 2004 -5- 043-1101.000
5.0 STEEP SLOPE CRITICAL AREA STUDY
5.1 Background
The proposed development at the Adams Preliminary Plat revolves around a requested rezone of the
property from rural residential to a higher density, multiple home status that is currently allowed by
the City of Auburn. The conceptual layout planned for the site, as indicated by Daley-Morrow-
Poblete, Inc. (DMP) the civil engineers for the project, includes single family homes along the edge
of the south -facing slope of site, and moderate density duplexes for the areas away from the slope
such as the eastern area of the site. The final number, layout and configuration of the structures is
contingent on the geotechnical conditions of the site, and the approval of the City of Auburn
regarding the steep slope mitigation measures presented in this report section.
5.2 Approach and Methodology
The evaluation of steep slopes for the project was based on a review of the available geologic and
-geotechnical data(includingthegeotechnicaldata collected for the project), a review of historical,
stereoscopic aerial photographs, and a geologic site reconnaissance. The investigative approach
included the following activities:
• Collection and review of available, pertinent geologic reports and maps of the site and site
region (e.g., Troost et al, 2003; Dragovich et al, 2002; Easterbrook, 1994; Booth and
Goldstein, 1994; Livingston, 1971; Mullineaux, 1965),
• Review and geomorphic evaluation of historical, stereoscopic aerial photographs for the
period from 1985 through 2002; the characteristics of the reviewed photographs are listed in
Table 5-1,
• A site geologic and geomorphic reconnaissance to examine and document the site geologic
conditions (including examination of exposures in available test pit excavations), and the
observe and document the geomorphic and geologic conditions of the steep slopes at the site,
and
• Collection and evaluation of City of Auburn requirements for steep slope critical areas studies
and geologically hazardous areas mapping, and evaluation of the above information to reach
conclusions and development recommendations regarding the steep slopes at the site.
060904 o.i.da
June 8, 2004 -6- 043-1101.000
TABLE 5-1
Historical Stereoscopic Aerial Photographs' Reviewed for the Steep Slope Critical Areas Study
Mission
Photo Date
Color
Photo Scale
Photos Viewed
Number
umbers
SKP-85
3/08/1985
Black & White
1:19,200
16-74,16-75
1 in = 1,600 ft
KC -90
7/10/1990
Color
1:12,000
16-69,16-70
I in = 1,000 ft
KC -92
9/10i1992
Color
1:24,000
8-27,8-28
l in= 2,000 ft
KC -95
9/22/1995
Color
1:24,000
9-26,9-27
I m = 2,000 ft
KC -99
8/23/1999
Color
1:24,000
9-27,9-28
1 in= 2,000 ft
KC -00
10/07/2000
Color
1:24,000
9-27,9-28,8-26,
1 in = 2,000 ft
8-27 -
KC -02
9/23/2002
Color
1:20,160
9-35,9-36
1 in = 1,680 ft
Note: ' The aerial photographs are the property of, and were viewed at Walker and Associates,
Tukwila, Washington.
5.3 Summary of Site Geology
The proposed preliminary plat is located along the north side of the White River in southeast Auburn,
Washington (Figure l). The site includes an upland plateau surface that is relatively flat or terrace -
like, a steep slope section generally bordering the south edge of the upland, and a low terrace area
along the White River (Figures 1 and 2).
Based on the geologic mapping of Dragovich et al (2002) and Mullineaux (1965), the upland is
underlain primarily by Vashon age (approximately 13,000 to 20,000 years old) pro -glacial valley train
fluvial sediments. These sediments are mapped to be about 10 to 50 feet thick, and consist mostly of
well sorted, sandy pebble -and -cobble gravel deposited along and beyond the retreating front of the
Puget glacial ice lobe of the Vashon glaciation (Mullineaux, 1965).
The valley train deposits are mapped to be underlain by undifferentiated Vashon age glacial drift that
consists of sand, gravel and glacial till, and appears to vary from about 20 to 50 feet thick
(Mullineaux, 1965). Locally along the White River, the undifferentiated glacial drift is underlain by
middle to late Pleistocene (20,000 to 100,000+ years old), well -oxidized fluvial sand and gravel of the
Salmon Springs glaciation (Mullineaux, 1965). The mapped thickness .of the Salmon Springs
deposits varies from generally 50 feet to as much as 200 feet.
osoaam..� ao
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -7- 043-1101.000
Based on the results of the site geotechnical exploration program, that included the excavation and
geotechnical logging of 10 test pits (Appendix A), and a field geologic reconnaissance, the site is
underlain (on the upland plateau) primarily by loose to dense, weathered to fresh, stratified to non-
stratified recessional outwash sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders (unit Qpv on Figure 3). The
boulders were as much as 15 inches diameter. Locally there were thin, discontinuous silt interbeds
within the extensive sandy and gravelly sediments (e.g, test pits TP -2 and TP4). In addition,
alluvium, glacial till and glaciolacustrine deposits were locally encountered in test pit TP -6. The
recessional outwash sediments extend to the base of the steep slope along the White River for most of
the site (Figure 3). The recessional outwash sediments encountered in the test pits and exposed in
outcrops along the steep slopes of the site were consistent with the geologic mapping of Mullineaux
(1965).
Glaciolacustrine or glacially -overridden and redeposited lacustrine sediments (i.e., till) underlie the
recessional outwash sediments at the base of the slope. They are exposed along the White River at
the east end of the site (QvI/Qvt; Figure 3).
Low elevation, late Holocene and modem fluvial terraces flank the north side of the White River and
are present in the western one-half to two-thirds of the site (Figure 3) The higher, older fluvial
terrace (Qawl; Figure 3) is about 8-10 feet above the river level. It is composed of loose to compact
sandy gravel and cobbles, and appears to be deposited on fluvially-eroded Salmon Springs deposits.
The higher terrace is vegetated with conifer and deciduous trees. The younger, and lower modem
terrace (Qaw2; Figure 3) is about 6 feet above the White River and is composed of loose sand and
gravel. The younger terrace is sparsely vegetated with scrub brush.
Although Dragovich et al (2002) and Mullineaux (1965) did not map any landslides or mass wasting
deposits in the site area, five, small, shallow debris landslides, or landslide scars were observed
during the site geologic reconnaissance, and during a review of historical (1985 to 2002), stereoscopic
aerial photographs of the site (Figure 3). Three of the small landslides are located in the central and
western part of the site. They occur at the crest of the steep, south -facing slope, and are underlain by
intact loose to dense recessional outwash sediments. The three debris landslides range from about 25
feet to 120 feet wide and extend downslope for about 20 to 60 feet. The debris landslides are shallow,
generally less thaa about 3 to 5 feet thick. The debris landslides appear to have failed from erosional
undercutting of the slope crest, which may have been exacerbated by intense rainfall events. The
review of the historical aerial .photographs revealed that the three western debris landslides occurred
sometime between 1985 and 1990, because they are present in the 1990 photographs, but absent in
the 1985 photographs.
Two of the five debris landslides are on the steep slopes at the eastern end of the site (Figure 3). They
range from about 60 to 150 feet wide, and extend downslope to the White River. These debris
landslides appear to have been triggered by erosion of the toe of the steep slope by the White River.
No deep-seated landslides were identified on the steep slopes at the site. In addition; the stratified
nature of the recessional outwash sediments indicates that they have been in place since the time of
their deposition at least 13,000 years ago, and have not been disturbed.
oeoeoWow�.d,�
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -8- 043-1101.000
No surface water was observed flowing in the drainages at the site during the geologic
reconnaissance. There was also no obvious evidence of active flowing water in the two north -south
primary drainages that bisect the site (e.g., erosional and depositional features in a stream bed). In
addition, no groundwater seeps were encountered in any of the test pits excavated at the site even
though three of the test pits (TP -3, TP -4 and TP -6) were in the primary drainage bottoms. However, a
groundwater spring was identified near the toe of the steep slope and near the eastern end of the older
fluvial terrace (Qawl) about 20 feet elevation above the White River (Figure 2). The spring was
flowing at about 50-100 gallons/minute at the time of the geologic reconnaissance (March 11, 2004).
The spring was located near the contact of the permeable recessional outwash sediments (Qpv) and
the underlying, relatively impermeable glaciolacustrine/till deposits (Qvl/Qvt).
5.4 City of Auburn Mapped Hazard Areas and Comprehensive Plan Policies
5.4.1 Mapped Hazard Areas
As part of City Code 16.06.030, the City of Auburn has developed maps depicting geologically
hazardous areas, where, in general, their "susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake or other
geological events are not suited to siting commercial, residential or industrial development consistent
with public health or safety concerns". The geologically hazardous areas defined in 16.06.030
include:
• Landslide hazards areas: "Areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of
geologic, topographic and hydrologic factors."
• Erosion hazard areas: "Areas identified by the USDA Soil Conservation Service as having
a severe rill and inter -rill erosion hazard."
• Seismic hazard areas: "Areas subject to severe risk or damage as a result of earthquake
induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction or surface faulting."
• Other geologic hazard areas: Areas subject to volcanic activity and areas underlain by,
adjacent to, or affected by mine workings."
The City's geologically hazardous areas are depicted on 1:24,000 scale (I inch = 2,000 feet) base
maps that are dated January 19, 1996. Because of the relatively small scale of the maps, the locations
and boundaries of the hazard areas may locally only be approximate.
For landside hazards, the proposed development lies within both Class I and Class IR landslide
hazard areas as indicated by the City of Auburn mapping. A Class I "Known Landslide Hazard Area"
is identified based on the following criteria:
• "A combination of slopes greater than 15% underlain by silt or clay."
• "Evidence of movement during the Holocene Epoch (from 10,000 years ago to present), or
the occurrence of mass wastage debris."
• "Areas designated by USGS and/or DNR as Quaternary slumps, earthflows or landslides"
• "Canyons potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding."
u6os I.d.
GolclerAssoeiates
June 8, 2004 -9- 043-1101.000
• "Slopes which could potentially become oversteepened and unstable as a result of stream
erosion."
• "Slope greater than 400/6 with vertical relief of 10 feet or more."
As Class Ill landslide hazard area is an "Unknown Landslide Hazard Area". It is defined by "those
hillslopes between 15% to 405/o which are not underlain by silt or clay."
Golder Associates
asoeom WIADC
June 8, 2004 -10- 043-1101.000
For the proposed project, the Class I landslide hazard area includes the steep, south -facing slopes
adjacent to the White River. The Class III landslide hazard area includes the lower slopes to the north
of the crest of the steep, south -facing slope.
The proposed project is also located within an Erosion Hazard Area because of the USDA Soil
Conservation Service soil series mapping. The area of the site mapped with potential erosion hazard
primarily includes the steep, south -facing slope adjacent to the White River. In addition, the site is
within a Class I Seismic Hazard Area. The Class I Seismic Hazard Area primarily includes the White
River floodplain underlain by Holocene alluvium.
5.4.2 Comprehensive Plan Policies
The City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 9, Environment, provides policies that govern the
manner in which the geologically hazardous areas can be regulated and managed. The City of
Auburn does not have a specific set of regulations related to geologically hazardous areas, but uses
the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) process to allow for, and implement any mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or avoid the impacts from geologic hazards. Pertinent City of Auburn
policies applicable to the proposed development include:
• EN -69: "The City shall seek to ensure that land not be 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."
• EN -70: "Where there is a high probability of erosion, grading should be kept to a minimum
and disturbed vegetation should be restored as soon as feasible. The City's development
standards shall dictate the use of Best Management Practices for clearing and grading
activity."
• EN -71: "The City shall consider the impacts of new development on hazards associated with
soils and subsurface drainage as part of its environmental review process and require any
appropriate mitigating measures."
• EN -73: "The City shall consider the impacts of new development on Class I and Class III
landslide hazard areas as part of its environmental review process and require any appropriate
mitigating measures. The impacts of the new development, both during and after
construction, on adjacent properties shall also be considered."
• EN -74: "Auburn will seek to retain areas with slopes in excess of 25 percent as primarily
open space areas in order to protect against erosion and landslides hazards and to help
conserve Auburn's identity within the metropolitan region. Land clearing or other significant
removal of vegetation on such slopes will be regulated by permit. "
• EN -75: "The City will require that a geotechnical report prepared by a professional engineer
licensed by the State of Washington with expertise in geotechnical engineering be submitted
for all significant activities proposed within Class I and Class III landslide hazard areas. The
City shall develop administrative guidelines which identify the procedures and information
required for geotechnical reports."
Golder Associates .Lm.
June 8, 2004 -11- 043-1101.000
• EN -76: "New development within Class I and Class III landslide hazards areas shall be
designed and located to minimize site disturbance and removal of vegetation, and to maintain
the natural topographic character of the site. Clustering of structures, minimizing building
footprints, and retaining trees and other natural vegetation, should be considered."
5.5 Description of Steep Slope Areas
5.5.1 Existing Slopes
There are two areas of existing steep slopes at the site_ The most predominant area is the extensive
south -facing slope, south of the plateau surface, and north of the White River (Figure 2). The second
area includes the east- and west -facing steep slopes along the sides of the north -south drainage that
bisects the center of the site (Figure 3).
The primary extensive steep slopes of the area adjacent to the White River are depicted on five slope
profiles (Figure 4 through 8). The generalized geologic conditions underlying these steep slopes are
also depicted on the profiles. The locations of the slope profiles are shown on Figure 3.
Based on the five slope profiles (Figures 4 through 8), the steep slopes along the White River have
local relief that ranges from about 80 feet in the western part of the site to about 130 feet in the
eastern part. Overall, the steep, south -facing slopes have grades that range from 40 percent to as
much as 143 percent (22-55 degrees). The steepest section of the steep slope can be near the crest
(e.g., Profiles A -A', B -B', and C -C'; Figures 4 through 6) where they range from about 87 to 143
percent (41-55 degrees), or near the middle and lower parts (e.g., Profiles D -D' and E -E'; Figures 7
and 8) where they range from about 84 to 90 percent (4042 degrees).
Overall, and with the exception of the few identified shallow debris landslides described previously,
the steep, south -facing slopes have uniform, undisturbed topography as depicted by the 2 -foot
contours of Figure 3. In addition, mature, straight conifer trees are common on the steep, south -
facing slope adjacent to the White River (Figure 9). The conifer trees are typically 2 to 3 feet
diameter, and 60 to 80 feet tall, suggesting that they may be about 80 to 100 years old.
The slopes of the plateau surface to the north of the primary south -facing steep slope area generally
range from about 3 percent to 31 percent (2-17 degrees) (Figures 4 through 8). The lowest slopes of
the plateau surface occur in the western and eastern parts of the site where they are as low as 3 to 9
percent (2-5 degrees) (Figures 3, 4, 7 and 8). Moderate slopes on the plateau occur in the middle part
of the site, and also in the eastern part, associated with the north=south drainages that bisect the site
(Figures 3, 5, 6 and 7).
The secondary steep slope area includes the slope flanking the predominant north -south drainage that
bisects the center of the site (Figure 3). The local relief of these steep slopes ranges from 20 feet
along the east -facing steep slope along the west side of the drainage, to about 35 feet along the west -
facing steep slope on the east side of the drainage. The steep slope along the west side of the drainage
is about 40 percent (22 deggrees), while on the east side it ranges from about 40 to 50 percent (22-27
degrees).
o 04&.L.
Golder /associates
June 8, 2004 -12-
5.5.2 Post -Development Slopes
043-1101.000
As part of the conceptual development plans, and in order to provide for site access and lot
development, the predominant north -south drainage in the center of the site will be filled with
engineered backfill. This backfill will eliminate the steep slopes that currently flank the drainage.
The primary, south -facing steep slopes along the White River will remain as is following site
development.
5.6 Conclusions and Proposed Steep Slope Mitigation
5.6.1 Conclusions
The site has been mapped by the City of Auburn as being within a Class I (Known Landslide Hazard
Area) and Class III (Unknown Landslide Hazard Area) Landslide Hazard Area. The Class I hazard
mapping appears to be based primarily on the presence of steep slopes greater than 40 percent (22
degrees) and relief of 10 feet or more. The Class III hazard mapping is based on the presence of
slopes from 15 to 40 percent (8%x22 degrees)that are not underlain by silt or clay.
Based on the results of the steep slope critical areas study described previously, there are no deep-
seated landslides on the slopes at the site. The slopes have essentially been intact since de -glaciation
about 13,000 years ago. The drainage systems incised into the plateau surface at the site are
undisturbed, are perched anywhere from 60 to 100 feet above the White River and reflect glacial
recessional meltwater erosion about 13,000 years ago. In addition, the topography of the steep slopes
is uniform and vegetated with mature, undisturbed conifer trees indicating long-term (geologically)
slope stability with respect to potential deep-seated failure.
Localized, small, shallow debris landslides have occurred on the steep slopes at the site. These debris
slides appear to have failed at the crest of the steep slope in the western part of the site as a result of
localized and periodic erosional undercutting and oversteepening of the crest of the steep slope. In
the eastern part of the site, the localized debris landslides tend to occur in the mid -slope region, and as
a result of continued erosion of the toe of the slope by the White River.
Based on the steep slope critical area study, the landslide hazard at the Adams Preliminary Plat site is
from localized future shallow debris landslides occurring on the south -facing slope adjacent to the
White River. These shallow debris slides would likely originate, and be concentrated at the crest of
the steep slope in the western part of the site. In the eastern part, they would likely originate at the
mid -slope elevation, and could migrate to the crest area from this mid -slope location.
From the review of the historical aerial photographs, there appear to be at least one, and possibly two
episodes of localized debris landslides approximately every 20 years on the steep, south -facing slopes
of the site. The shallow debris slides are about 2-5 feet thick suggesting 2-5 feet of slope retreat in
each debris slide event. If it is assumed that the localized debris landslides occur uniformly along the
crest of the steep slope, that there are one to two events per 20 years, and that the amount of retreat is
2-5 feet per event, then the annual average rate of slope retreat would range from about 0.2 to 0.5
feet/year. Thus, in 50 years the total retreat of the crest of the slope could range from 10 to 25 feet.
osoeoa JADC
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -13- 043-1101.000
5.6.2 Proposed Steep Slone Miti agation
The City of Auburn, through the SEPA process, allows for mitigation measures to reduce or avoid
potential geologic hazard impacts. Specifically, they can allow for mitigation of steep slope,
landslide hazards. This is handled through the development and implementation of best management
practices for project planning, design and construction that address the nature and limitations of the
geologic and hydrologic conditions of the site, and the geologic history of the site.
To address the long-term effects of continued, small, localized and shallow debris landslide activity,
and resulting slope retreat on the steep, south -facing slopes, it is recommended that the following
mitigation measures be implemented:
• A 30 -foot building(structure setback from the crest of the steep slope (> 40 percent) along the
western three-fourths of the site, and a 50 -foot building(structure setback from the crest of the
steep slope along the eastern one-fourth of the site. The locations of the 30 -foot and 50 -foot
setbacks are indicated on Figures 3 through 8. The actual crest of 401/6 slope should be field
verified by survey. The 30 -foot setback accommodates the estimated upper end rate of slope
retreat over a 50 -year project life (i.e., 25 feet), plus an additional 5 feet. The 50 -foot setback
accounts for the more continuous nature of the debris landslide process at the eastern end of
the site.
Control of surface water drainage such that runoff is intercepted and prevented from
uncontrolled discharge over the crest of the steep slope.
• If groundwater infiltration is being considered to mitigate surface water runoff, such systems
should be located and designed such that recharge is not concentrated near the crest of the
steep slope.
The steep slopes flanking the north -south drainage in the center of the site will be eliminated by
placement of engineered backfill. The backfill is planned in order to provide more useable area for
site development and access.
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -14- 043-1101.000
6.0 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
Based on the results of our preliminary study, the site is feasible for development from a geotechnical
standpoint utilizing conventional spread footings and conventional site development procedures for
hillside sites. The native, compact to dense site soils, or, structural fill derived from the native soils,
will provide adequate bearing capacity for buildings and structures with light to moderate foundation
loads.
The native granular soils (Recessional Outwash) will be suitable for use as structural backfill. Finer
grained deposits such as the till and glacio-lacustrine encountered in TP -6 will generally not be
suitable for reuse as structural fill. In general the major earthwork should be performed during the
driest summer months to minimize drainage and subgrade degradation problems and to optimize the
use of on-site soil for fill.
Surface water controls will need to be instituted to handle surface water flows prior to the start of
construction to protect the site soils and steep slopes. Erosion typically occurs with high water
velocities across loose to compact (easily erodable) soils or over steep slopes. The steep slope along the
south side of the site creates the potential for erosion. The contractor should have best management
practices (BMP's) in place to prevent the chance of erosion in this area (See Section 7A for additional
information).
Geotechnical recommendations suitable for planning and preliminary design are discussed in the
following sections.
6.2 Temporary and Permanent Slopes
Safe temporary excavations are the responsibility of the contractor and depend on the actual site
conditions at the time of construction. Temporary cuts are the responsibility of the contractor and
should comply with applicable OSHA and WISHA standards. We recommend that temporary cut
slopes be excavated no steeper than IH:IV (45 degrees). Cut slopes exposed for any length of time,
particularly during wet weather, should be covered with visqueen to reduce infiltration and saturation
and minimize erosion.
We understand that there are a number of fill and cut areas along the north side of the property
associated with the main access road. The most significant fill is up about 30 to 40 ft in thickness
and is being proposed for an existing ravine. In addition cuts of up to about 16 ft are also proposed.
The following slope recommendations are preliminary as we recommend that boreholes are carried
out at the location of the fills and the cut. Boreholes are required to provide more accurate in-situ
density and stratigraphy data to greater depths than can be obtained from test pits alone.
For preliminary design purposes long-term permanent cut slopes should be 2H:1 V or flatter assuming
proper drainage and erosion control. Long term permanent fill slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter
assuming proper compaction, granular fill, drainage and. erosion control. In general, 3H: IV slopes or
gentler are preferred for ease of maintenance and application of landscaping.
osoeoa&o I.a
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -15- 043-1101.000
63 Foundation Recommendations
Conventional, shallow isolated or continuous spread footings may be used, provided they are founded
on a subgrade of undisturbed native compact to dense granular soil, or on a uniformly thick layer of
compacted structural fill (see Section 7.6) placed over the native bearing soils_ Conventional shallow
isolated or continuous spread footing foundations should be designed based on the following
parameters:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE
Compact/ Dense Native...................................................................................2,500 psf
These values may be increased by 1/3 for short-term wind and seismic loading.
Assumptions —vertical loading with minimum footing sizes.
ALLOWABLE BASE FRICTION (FS=1.5)..................................................................0.35
MNEVIUM EMBEDMENT FOR FROST PROTECTION:
_Perimeter footings............................................................. ........................... .. 18 inches
Interior footings (below exterior grades)........................................................ 12 inches
MINIMUM WIDTH:
Perimeterfootings........................................................................................... 12 inches
Interior isolated footings................................................................................. 18 inches
SETTLEMENT:
Total Settlement.....................................................................................less than 1 inch
Differential Settlement............:...........................................................less than 0.5 inch
6.4 Slab Snbgrade
Conventional slab -on -grade floors can be supported on a subgrade of the native bearing soils as noted
in the Foundation Recommendations (Section 6.3), or on structural fill placed and compacted as noted
in the Fill section of this report (Section 7.6). Slab -on -grade floors should not be founded on organic
soils, loose soils or uncompacted fills. The slabs should be underlain by a capillary break material,
consisting of at least four inches of clean, free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less
than 3 percent fines passing the #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction) meeting the
following specification:
060W n.d.
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -16- 043-1101.000
TABLE 6-1
Capillary Break Gradation
Sieve Size or diameter iu
% Passing
1"
100% Passing
No. 4
0%-20%
No. 200
0-3%
A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced heavy plastic sheeting (6 mil or thicker) can be included
between the slab and the capillary break. If desired, an additional a two-inch thick layer of sand may
be placed on the vapor barrier to aid in concrete curing. The vapor barrier is recommended for all
occupied space, storage area, and any areas to receive floor covering, carpeting, or finishes on the
slab.
-- - Framed floors should also include a vapor barrier placed over any areas of bare soils and adequate
crawl space ventilation and drainage should be provided.
6.5 Foundation Drainage
We recommend that all crawl space areas be sloped for drainage and served with a minimum of an
interior crawl drain that is connected to an approved storm drainage/outfall system. Additional
foundation and slab -on -grade drainage systems may be necessary depending on groundwater presence
or foundation design elements. This may include perimeter footing drains or foundation wall
treatments for below grade living spaces. A perimeter footing drain is recommended for all extemal
walls. The drainage should consist of a perforated drainpipe placed at the bottom of the footing,
enveloped in drain rock and covered with filter fabric. Footing drains should consist of a 4 -inch -
diameter rigid -walled perforated PVC pipe or equivalent. The.pipe should be surrounded by at least 6
inches of clean free -draining sand and gravel, having the gradation specified in Table 6.2. The drain
should be tightlined to the storm system or other suitable discharge point.
TABLE 6-2
Drain Rock Gradation
Sieve Size or diameter in
% Passin
11/21,
100% Passing
3/8"
10% - 40%
No. 4
00%-5%
No. 200
0%-2%
Roof drains should be collected and conveyed in a tightlined system separate from the footing drain
system. The ground surface adjacent to the buildings should be graded to drain away from the
building. Cleanouts should be provided on all drain systems.
o5o.oaaow�.mc
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -17- 043-1101.000
6.6 Backfilled Basement Walls
Adequate drainage should be provided for basement walls to minimize !ateral earth pressures and to
prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The wall backfill should be used in conjunction with
footing drains and/or other drainage provisions discussed above to provide full wall drainage. The
backfill should be compacted firmly in maximum one -foot thick lifts near the optimum moisture
content. The optimum moisture content is the water content at which the soil can achieve the highest
density, as determined by ASTM D-1557, Proctor maximum dry density laboratory test. The
contractor should avoid over -compaction adjacent to the wall in order to prevent an increase in the
earth pressure.
Alternatives to the use of free draining fill behind walls would include continuous geocomposite drain
strips placed continuously behind the wall or washed drain rock within 2 feet of the wall for the full
height of the wall. Both these alternatives would be used in conjunction with wall footing drainage
discussed above.
Backfilled basement walls can be designed for an at -rest earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of
50 pcf assuming there is no buildup of hydrostatic pressure The criteria presented section 63 can
be used for foundation design.
6.7 Retaining Walls
Retaining walls may be used to accommodate grade changes, and general site grading around
buildings. A variety of wall types are feasible, including conventional cast concrete walls,
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, and rockeries. Once the grades are known, and a specific
wall type has been decided, detailed design recommendations can be developed. Cast -in-place or
gravity walls can be designed with an active earth pressure or equivalent fluid weight equal to 35 pcf
assuming a level backslope. In regards to foundations, the recommendations in section 6.3 apply to
retaining walls as well as building foundations.
For preliminary design purposes, we recommend that unreinforced cut rockeries be no higher than 6
feet. All rockeries should be designed and built to meet the standards set by the Association of
Rockery Contractors which includes a set wall batter, minimum rock sizes and quality, and a drainage
layer behind the rockery. Rockeries up to 4 feet high can be used to face fill slopes. higher rockeries
in fill can be used if the fill is reinforced or over -built and cut back. Block walls under 4 feet in
height, can generally be constructed without internal soil reinforcing, while higher fill walls (MSE)
will require soil reinforcing.
Earth Pressures for Retaining Structures:
Restrained Walls
Cantilevered Walls
Passive
50 pcf
30 pcf
250 pcf
These values assume a fully drained wall condition and flat backslope.
All retaining walls should be constructed with a permanent, full -face drain system. The wall footing
drain should consist of a 4 -inch diameter, perforated drainpipe bedded in a clean gravel backfill. The
footing drain should convey the water under gravity flow, to the storm water collection system.
060e046o IAi .
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -18- 043-1101.000
6.8 Seismic Design Criteria
The project is located within Seismic Zone 3, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997).
Within this zone, a seismic zone factor (Z) equal to 0.30 is recommended for calculation of shear and
lateral load imparted on structures during an earthquake. Based on the conditions observed on the site
during our investigations and construction observation and testing, a soil profile type of Sc is
recommended. The site is underlain by an average soil profile in the upper 100 feet that is considered
to be very dense to hard.
Based on the current information we consider the potential for liquefaction at this site is considered to
be low due to not encountering the groundwater level within the depth of the boreholes. However,
this should be confirmed when the proposed additional boreholes are carried out and more data is
obtained on the soil consistency and depth to the groundwater level.
June 8, 2004 -19- 043-1101.000
7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 General
It is strongly recommended that the major grading and foundation work be performed in the driest
summer months to minimize drainage and subgrade degradation problems and to optimize the use of
on-site soil for fill. In general, wet weather construction adds considerable cost and tends to extend
the construction schedule.
7.2 Site Preparation and Grading
Site preparation should include removal of all existing structures, utilities, vegetation, root mass,
organic soils and any other deleterious materials from building and paving areas or those locations
where structural fill is to be placed. Such materials should be wasted from the site or utilized as
landscaping fill. We estimate the topsoil depths could generally range from 6 to 12 inches although
areas of deeper topsoil may be present locally across the site. Areas of deeper organics, such as
where tree root balls and stumps and poorly drained areas are present, should be anticipated. These
deep organics, if present within areas to be developed, should likewise be removed by excavation and
backfilled with structural fill as outlined in Section 7.6 of this report. If clearing and stripping efforts
are not accomplished during or after periods of dry weather during the summer months, much greater
depths of soil removal can be expected in any wet or saturated areas present across the site. Stripping
should also include removal of any uncontrolled fill and underlying organics and topsoil.
Subgrades to receive structural fill, building foundations, or pavement, should be cleared to expose
undisturbed native bearing soils. Prior to placing fill and preparing building and pavement subgrades,
we recommend proof rolling all exposed areas to determine if any soft and yielding areas are present.
If any soft areas are observed, these areas should be either removed and replaced with structural fill or
dried back and recompacted. All pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 95% of
modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).
73 Utilities
Maintaining safe utility excavations is the responsibility of the utility contractor. Conventional
excavation equipment can be used to excavate the soils. The utility trenches should be backfilled as
noted in Fill Placement section (Section 7.6) of this report.
Based on the subsurface conditions observed in our test pits, we anticipate that shallow utility
excavations will likely not encounter significant ground water seepage during the excavation work,
however minor to moderate perched groundwater seepage should be anticipated.
Occasional boulders should be expected.
7.4 Erosion Control
Erosion control for the site will include the Best Management Practices (BMP's) incorporated in the
civil design drawings and may incorporate the following recommendations:
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -20- 043-1101.000
• Limit exposed cut slopes;
• Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed
slopes;
• Use silt fences, straw, and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded
material on the site;
• Seeding or planting vegetation on exposed areas where work is completed and no
buildings are proposed; and
• Retaining existing vegetation to the greatest possible extent.
7.5 Use of On -Site Soils
Based on the soils encountered in our test pits, the Recessional Outwash (SW/GW) may be suitable
for use as structural fill: Care should be taken in selecting the on-site fill as the Outwash tends to vary
in fines content and at some site locations (for example TP 1 and 6) finer grained deposits (silty sands
and silts) were encountered which are moisture sensitive and generally not suitable for reuse as
structural fill.
In areas where the site soils are over the optimum moisture content, the contractor will most likely have
to moisture condition (dry back) the soils prior to use as fill. Alternatively, soil admixtures such as kiln
dust, fly ash, or cement could be used to allow for compaction of soils that are wet of optimum. If
utility installation and site grading is performed during the wet season, imported granular fill materials
may be required for utility trench backfill, road subgrade, and any other structural fill.
On site sods may be suitable for structural fill behind retaining walls. Structural fill behind retaining
walls should be well -graded sand and gravel with less than 10 percent fines (% by weight passing the
No. 200 sieve). Grain size distribution testing should be used to confirm suitability for use as wall
backfill.
7.6 Fill Materials and Placement
The on-site native Recessional Outwash (SW/GW) encountered below the topsoil in our excavations
may be suitable for use as structural fill material, provided the fill material is free of organic and
inorganic debris, is at or just below the optimum moisture content, and is capable of being compacted
to the required specifications listed below. If the on-site soils do not meet the above criteria, or
cannot be reworked to be suitable, we recommend using imported granular fill consisting of well
graded material free of organic material, with less than 5 percent fines (that portion of the soil that
passes the #200 sieve). Other fill materials may be used with approval of the engineer. Alternatively,
wet on site soil free of organics could be admixed with cement, kiln dust, or other amendments, that
would allow for the soil to be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition.
ososnamwi.ex
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004
-21-
043-1101.000
Maximum Lift Thickness:
• On-site native glacial soils 12 inches loose
• Imported Granular fill 12 inches loose
Minimum Compaction Requirements:
• Beneath Building Foundations and Floors - The fill should be compacted to at least 95%
of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density value for the material. The structural fill
beneath footings should at a minimum extend laterally at a 1H:1 V slope projected down
and away from the bottom footing edge.
• Beneath Roadways and Pavements - The fill should generally be compacted to at least
90% of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except within
three feet of subgrade elevation, where the fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the
ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material.
Utility Trench Backfill - The fill should generally be compacted to at least 90% of the
ASTM D _1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except in Paved and
structural areas where the material should be compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D
1557 maximum dry density value for the material.
• Non-structural&,andscaped Areas - Firmly compacted
The structural fill should be compacted with equipment suitable to achieve proper compaction.
Effective compaction of the granular glacial soils may be achieved with a large steel drum vibrator
roller or hoe-pac compactor. A large steel drum, vibratory roller or hoe-pac compactor will be more
suitable to compact granular fills. Thin lifts or work in confined areas can also be compacted with a
jumping jack compactor. If density tests taken in the fill indicate that compaction is not being
achieved, the fill should be scarified, moisture -conditioned, and recompacted. If the required
densities cannot be met then the material can be excavated and replaced or a soil admixture used to
dry the soil
During and after periods of precipitation, the upper soils may be wet of optimum and may require
drying or admixing for use as structural fill.
7.7 Construction Monitoring
We recommend that critical site construction elements be observed, tested, and documented by the
geotechnical consultant of record. These include: confirming suitable subgrade soils for building
foundations and slabs, retaining wall construction, compaction of structural fills, and utility trench
backfill compaction under pavements.
osaoam.i a=
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004
8.0 DESIGN INVESTIGATION
-22-
043-1101.000
Ibis report is suitable for preliminary planning purposes. Depending on the foal site layout,
additional geotechnical explorations and analysis may be required during design to confirm the soil
and groundwater conditions in selected areas. If proposed site grades result in excavations deeper
than our explorations, we recommend additional test pits or borings in those areas. As discussed in
Section 6.2 we recommend boreholes be advanced in areas where significant fill placement or cuts
are proposed.
o6o3o 1.d.
Golder Associales
June 8, 2004 -23- 043-1101.000
9.0 USE OF THIS REPORT
This preliminary geotechnical and steep slope study has been prepared exclusively for the use of
Mr_ Monte Adams and his consultants for specific application to this project. This report is not meant
to represent a legal opinion. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that
Golder review the final site -grading plan and provide specific comments and criteria related
groundwater, drainage, retaining walls, foundations, and grading.
The explorations were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical
engineering practice to provide information for the area explored. There are possible variations in the
subsurface conditions between the exploration areas and in the groundwater conditions with time.
Therefore we recommend that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in the
construction schedule and budget. Further, we recommend that Golder Associates Inc. or another
qualified geotechnical engineering firm be retained to perform the construction monitoring and
testing during construction to confirm the conditions indicated by the explorations and or provide
corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions encountered during the work.
Golder Associates
June 8, 2004 -24- 043-1101.000
10.0
Booth, D.B. and Goldstein, B., 1994. Patterns and Processes of Landscape Development by the Puget
Lobe Ice Sheet: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 80, p. 207-218.
Dragovich, J -D., Logan, R.L. Schasse, H.W., Walsh, T.I., Lingley, W.S. Jr., Norman, D.K., Gerstel,
WJ., Lapen, TJ., Schuster, J.E., and Meyers, K.D., 2002. Geologic Map of Washington —Northwest
Quadrant: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM -50.
Easterbrook, D.J., 1994. Chronology of Pre -Late Wisconsin Pleistocene Sediments in the Puget
Lowland, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 80, p. 191-
206.
Livingston, V.E., 1971. Geology and Mineral Resources of King County, Washington: Washington
Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 63.
Mullineaux, D.R., 1965. Geologic Map of the Auburn Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties,
Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Map GQ -406 -
Troost, K.G., Booth, D.B., and Laprade, W.T., 2003. Quaternary geology of Seattle, in Swanson,
T.W., ed., Western, cordillera and adjacent areas: Geological Society of America, Field Guide 4,
p. 267-284.
�L&c
Golder Associates
R
FIGURES
Golder Associates
N
�8
s�
W Fy
0
SO Au�RN wAYs O
� 0
Y
U
� J
Q
w
y W
2
SITE R
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 1
SITE VICINITY MAP
Adams/Adams Prefir*n y Pbt WA
KiCAMNgedM2004MI10P00001311010q;tZft 06100M.09r24 laydttayoal �_»_— •---
awau�.a caoov4auaa.o
a
�QQ
m
to
ti
�w r
v
dJ m
LLLL
E
Om
O' a
d EJU
ei
a
b
OJ e
r
� Q
0
0
n
fn
d I
0
LU
0 0l
$
U I
o r
o
W
LL
o z
W
o
U
�
N
Y
U
Q
—
o
W
U
o
�
—
�
o
o
n
d
Q
o
9
Z
$
0 0
o
Z
(133J) NOIltlA313
p
0
W
g
o
J
O
LL
cc
o
s
LL
w
Ur
o
LL
W
w
7
F
d
Z
Y
oma
+
LUE
n
" IL
O o
� (L`
IL E
LU m
as
Q E
F
0m
c
3 I
O
a
O
'
v
N
0
�
A
o
N
O
N
Y
U
w
w
LL
Fam _
oo Z
W
U
c4i
w
Q
_
N
i.)
O
d
d
O
O
Of!1
0
Z
o
0 0
3
t7
N
O
(1330 NOLLVAM3
a
o
U
O
w
J
LL
LL
Q
�
l7
tu
w
D
O
O
w
Eu
8
ry
LU
z
v
Q
Z
0
U
]L
i
CU j
I V a
J
E m
LL LL
E
a
CL 0
o�
o
m
�'a
U)
w
cc
U
U)
a
w
f r
e
o/
Q
o
v
0
N
Y
Q
W
w
o z
w
_
U
h
o.
CF
o
n
0
0
3
H
w
z
g
H U
o
�
d' o0
o v
00 oo c
ao N
o
p
Z
CO3=1) NOIltln3-13
o
J
'
Ix $
K o
0
z
0
LL
w
w
Wy 7
w
Z
Y
i
J
a: a
I
r
cD_J C
U. E
I
I
d'a`
aE
W
a
LU
0.
LU
>
—� a
N
O
_
o
o0
w
o
F
=
W
v
n
3
_
Fn
7
S
0
ti
U
Q —
H
W
o
�
0
N
rn
0
W
LL
W
U
N
0
0
N
O
O
3
F
co
O
W
U
0
0 g
N o0
o
w
Z
(I a) NOUVA313
O
a
K
O
w
w
3
D
§
LL
ui
W
W
Ill
h
U�
Z
Y
J
�'i
0o iu
W W m
W a
O
_J
LL 11. E
CL0`
a�
W v ,
O 0
E
I
Q
W
w
>
2 W�
F-
a
ui
�
o
o
a,
-
=
3
0
0
<
A
o
�
0
N
S
U
'
W
N
W
J
Q
U
U
Y
U
_
>
mQ
F
y
o0
0
o
1n
—
H
to
W
m W
o
0 $
Q V
o o0 00
ao N
0
9
Z
�\
(t3" NOLLV 3 13
O H
_
0
o
U
O
LU
LL s
�
!C
LL
0 0
LL
a+a 3
W
K
J
(7
LL 2
3
W
W 8
a) h
F X
Z
Y
�'i
0
s '
�� -� � �j � _�,`. t �• 'rte -f- .
` �i' xh�T' 'moi. .G � �L�by-.+ _ � p � 4 a 1•
S J
uP
iG � s
APPENDIX A
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND TEST PIT LOGS
Goider Associates
Unified Soll Classification System
Relative Density or Consistency
Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Valdes
Cohesionless Soils (0)
Soil classification
Criteria for Assigninq Group Symbols and Nomes
Generolized
Relo Vie'
Group Dk riplions
COARSE-GRNIXD sous
Mors Don :AZ
GRAVELS
Yore tion SOS er
taYAN GRAVLlS
Luz uon SS f
Gw
wap oded f?mels
GP
po-61-9M 9'
Ila. D iwve
20
1 e oee0 on
cm ae trxDon
reta"aed on
12-=
lt-
No. 4 Sick
Gf IS wRN FM
Nae Um 1= r
GM
WiAo ess
a to 4
. and cloy
A
SANDS
50S or mac or
CLFAN SslipS
leu Don Si fn s
Sly
weM-galled Sagz
4 to 1D
Sip
poorly -graded SOMs
2 to 4
coarse Joction
passes No. 4 Swve
C.- eet
S M WITH FlNEs
S4
SoM old sM lrataes
4 to B
`rftiltlfp
Dense
30 to 50
More ll n 12S fines
SC
SnnA a.d cloy Ifotures
100D-2000
Very Deme
ow 5D
FlNE-GRAlI1ED 5065
SOS or more pcsz.s
the No. 200 ek'2
SILTS AND WYs
Lauid Omit
kes uan 50
b10RGNEC
CL
la. -Pb -Ily Cloys
-
Non-plps4c m la-
PIm1kBy sal.
NaE
o.a 30
-
Non-pksbc ar
ONfvWIC
0.
perry Or9orw
-
aW ta.-
iotoAk�Pimtk
Pbalkily Organic 541s
SILTS AND CUPS
4uad knt
uOBGsrbC
(>1
Ikyh-pbslieity Cloys
101
Ngh-pbaticBY sats
greater tMn 50
__
O6GN11C
011.
1
019-k MY y
MMrjr-pksAy
a9are Sinntto
HIGHLY ORG.WIC 5065
Prinoriy orgonic .otter. lurk in cobs, ore
orgo.i oda
Pr
Peal
Relative Density or Consistency
Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Valdes
Cohesionless Soils (0)
Cohesive Soils (b)
(C)
�C)
Relo Vie'
liMk
�o)
Undmmed (d)
Derisity
N. blows ft
/
Der0y
Consist
Consistency
M. blows/ft.
sheor S��ngth
Cooru w
12-=
lt-
No. No. 10„(ZOmm) to No. 40 (0.42mm)
cue so,4
No. b (0.42..) to Na. 200 (o.o74mm)
Very keine
a to 4
0 15
Ve.y Am
o to 2
<25p
Lowe
4 to 1D
1s - 35
Solt
2 to 4
250 -SOD
C.- eet
10 to 30
35 - 65
rm1
4 to B
`rftiltlfp
Dense
30 to 50
Gs - 65
SIM
B to 15
100D-2000
Very Deme
ow 5D
>BS
Very S1M
1510 30
2DW-s0p0
NaE
o.a 30
>4000
I (ei Sols aoukting of grovel. so"d. oAd MSL elDw xpaatey air caMimtio, poasesk�g ro choroctaulm
of pkstkdy. and e.1A AAg *o leh.v ._
(b) Soil Yaaess-o the characterk . of plasYwib, and e.kbding url AvA /ehwor.
(c) Refer to teA 01 ASTM D 1586-94 for a cl~i n d K in .1oly oorssawated oohesialkss sags
Nektive owwity terms ore Jaded on N values corrected for p.ere.eden prmures.
(d) Tlrrharrel shear slren9th - 1/2 urce Aed CMRrtlabn Irengtl-
Descriptive Terminology Denoting
Component Proportions
Descriptive Terms
R"e of Proportion
Boulders
Mme 12 w.
CoDlka
liMk
(a)
5-12;
Some
3 in. to 3/4 in.
AM
Sand
30-SD.S
1
Size Ronge
Boulders
Mme 12 w.
CoDlka
Trace
Gra.e1
1 n. to No. 4 (4.76..)
coorx grmet
3 in. to 3/4 in.
FAe9rmG
3/4 in. b No. 4 (4J6mm)
Sand
a Adjective
Cooru w
12-=
Mdlom cord
No. No. 10„(ZOmm) to No. 40 (0.42mm)
cue so,4
No. b (0.42..) to Na. 200 (o.o74mm)
1 (o) C.o`shy. S-wY b sly os oppr-pl
1
Component Definitions by Gradation
Component poent
Size Ronge
Boulders
Mme 12 w.
CoDlka
3 w. to 12
Gra.e1
1 n. to No. 4 (4.76..)
coorx grmet
3 in. to 3/4 in.
FAe9rmG
3/4 in. b No. 4 (4J6mm)
Sand
No.
o. 4 (4.76mm) 10 No. 200 (0.074..)
Cooru w
No. 4 (4-76nan) to No. 10 (2.0..)
Mdlom cord
No. No. 10„(ZOmm) to No. 40 (0.42mm)
cue so,4
No. b (0.42..) to Na. 200 (o.o74mm)
SA ae Cloy
SmoOer IMn No. 200 (0.074mm)
Figure
SOIL CLASSIFICATION/LEGEND
Samples
A SK sompkr (2.O' 0D)
FB
H”Bury splitSpoon
sheby Tule
er Sam Pilchpler
Coed
Vnlesa o0rer.lss rated, drive somDkd
odwnce0 .ith 140 k. Mmmer .t1h
30 in. drop.
Laboratory Tests
Test
Designation
Ilois4+e
(1)
Densly
D
Groin Sm
G
Nydr.rretu
N
Attrb g limits
(1)
cansardolion
C
urcoMi ed
u
W Trio.
OD
GD Trio.
CO
M Trio.
CD
P—Riity
P
(1) Moisture orb Atlemerg Limas
pkDed on kg.
Sot and May Descriptions
Description
TYpicol unified
Desigmt;..
Sill
ML (re O-tk)
fdoyey 501
CL -ML (b. ploMkib)
Say cloy
Q
cloy
CN
Plastic SM
kY1
Q'gonic SoiR
CO- Oft. M
(O Golder Associates
Associates LOG OF TEST PIT TP -1
Temp 50 OF Weather Cloudy Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
EquipmentCAT120 Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3/10/04
Elevation 267.0 It Datum. MSL Job 043-1101
Location- 15 ft. N of steep slope crest
E110
5
—10
—15
L2.
W
zo
.........
.............
A
X.
... .............
SAMPLES
NO. DEPTH
(ft)
MOISTURE
2.0
..........
...
...............
... . ..
..... ......
...
.........
. . . . . . . . .
............
. . . . . . . . . . .
...........
. . . . . . ..
Bottom
Of Test Pit at 12.0
ft
UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES
DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO
MME HOLE WIL SEEPAGE
(ft) (ft) (ft)
* 0.0 - 0.4 ft: Very loose, dark brown to black, nonstratified,
SILT and organics, trace fine to coarse sand,
moist to wet (OL) (TOPSOIL)
* 0.4 - 2.0 ft: Loose, medium reddish -brown, nonstratified,
silty, fine to coarse SAND, trace fine to coarse,
subrounded gravel, trace subrounded cobbles,
damp. (SM) (WEATHERED RECESSIONAL
OUTWASH)
* 2.0 - 12.0 ft: Loose to compact olive to yellow-brown
fine to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse,
subrounded gravel, trace silt, trace
subrounded cobbles, grading to compact, fine
to coarse SAND and subrounded GRAVEL,
little silt, trace subrounded cobbles, damp to
moist with depth. Fine sand interbeds up to 1
fL thick below 5.5 ft. (SWSW)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
08:40 0.0
08:58
SPECIAL NOTES:
No Seeps.
Checked: DOW
*A=tes LOG OF TEST PIT TP -2
Temp 50 'F Weather Cloudy Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
Equipment CAT 120 Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3110/04
Elevation 284.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1101
Location 35 ft. N. of proposed road CL
N
1
t
2
1 2.0
•:��
2 4.0
09.50 13.0
.0.'..
.•:.e
nonstratified, fine to coarse SAND and fine to
:pa: o; ti •: :.+;::•:e o:;
X . ex:
cobbles, with 3" thick inter bed of silt with
a
•v
in test pit, damp to moist. (SW/GW)
No Seeps.
:ET1�
?:D�:-y:-.-
Roots to approximately 6 feet.
Checked: DOW
B:•:XX.1�::::
.....
..'. �... <zb:
Bolton of Test Pit at 13.0
S
0
SAMPLES
NO DEPTH
(ft)
MOISTURE
M
1 2.0
2 4.0
09.50 13.0
3 12.0
light olive with iron -oxide staining,
nonstratified, fine to coarse SAND and fine to
coarse, faceted GRAVELI, trace faceted
cobbles, with 3" thick inter bed of silt with
SPECIAL NOTES:
some to little fine sand between 3 and 6 feet
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES
DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO
TIME HOLE WIL SEEPAGE
(ft) (tU (ft)
A 0.0 - 0.4 ft: Very loose, dark brown to black, SILT and
ORGANICS, trace fine to coarse sand, moist.
(OL) (TOPSOIL)
09-25 0.0
B 0.4 - 13.0 ft: Loose to dense with depth, yellow brown to
09.50 13.0
light olive with iron -oxide staining,
nonstratified, fine to coarse SAND and fine to
coarse, faceted GRAVELI, trace faceted
cobbles, with 3" thick inter bed of silt with
SPECIAL NOTES:
some to little fine sand between 3 and 6 feet
in test pit, damp to moist. (SW/GW)
No Seeps.
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
Roots to approximately 6 feet.
Checked: DOW
c�i�rres LOG OF TEST PIT TP -3
essociT
Temp 50 "F Weather. Cloudy Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
Equipment CAT 120 Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3110104
Elevation 250.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1101
E
t t
2'
DEPTH TO
SEEPAGE
00
10:25 0.0
v:a .:.
SPECIAL NOTES:
°•.�V{'':'off:
•A::':
.... . ....
.... . ..
.. .
b •:a ::: a : D
. ....... ...:..
::.o ::a•::
.......
'•D:•'r.
....
BOUo Of
Test Pit at 11.0 ft
A 0.0 - 0.5 ft: Very loose, dark brown to black, SILT and
ORGANICS, trace fine to coarse sand, moist
(OL) (TOPSOIL)
B 0.5 - 2.0 It: Loose, reddish -brown to yellow brown with
iron -oxide staining, silty fine to coarse SAND
and GRAVEL, some cobbles, trace boulders up
to 12" in dameter, damp. (SWGW)
(WEATHERED RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
C 2.0 - 11.0 ft Loose to compact with depth, olive,
nonstratified, fine to coarse SAND and
faceted GRAVEL, trace silt, trace faceted
cobbles, moist. (SW/GW) (RECESSIONAL
OUTWASH)
P11
OEM
DEPTH OF
TIME HOLE
trQ
DEPTH TO
W1L
Ift)
DEPTH TO
SEEPAGE
00
10:25 0.0
10:35 11.0
SPECIAL NOTES:
No Seeps.
Checked: DOW
6da LOG OF TEST PIT TP -4
Temp 50 OF Weather Cloudy Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
Equipment CAT 120 Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3/10104
Elevation 237.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1101
Location 6 ft N of steep slope crest
S
110
A
1 i.
---------------------------------------
B-
.
Bottom
of Test Pit at 13.0
ft
- u l ULA MV I IUM AND EXCAVATION NOTES
A 0.0 - 0.3 ft: Loose, dark brown, nonstratified, SILT and
ORGANICS, little fine to coarse SAND, moist
(OL) (TOPSOIL)
B 0.3 - 13..0 ft: Loose to dense with depth, iron -oxide
staining in upper 3 ft, nonstratified, fine to
coarse SAND, some fine to coarse, faceted
gravel, trace faceted cobbles, trace IF,
boulder at 2 ft., damp. Thin interbeds of silt
and fine sand below 5 ft., 1 to 2 inches thick.
(SW) (RECESSIONAL OUTW.ASH)
NO_I DEPTH M S�
diah
LOG OF TEST PIT TP -5
Temp 50 OF Weather Clear Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
Equipment CAT 120 Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3/10/04
Elevation 279.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1101
S
10
.;�.� ;s�v iaA ✓.iii
15 2
..r�c.i��..
B.
ft
Bottom
of Test Pit at 14.0
A 0.0 - 0.4 ft Loose, dark brown, nonstratified, SILT and
ORGANICS, little fine to coarse sand, moist.
(OL) (TOPSOIL)
B 0.4 - 14.0 ft: Loose to compact, stratified, fine to coarse
SAND, some fine to coarse faceted gravel,
trace silt, trace faceted cobbles, trace faceted
15' boulder, with 1 to 3 inch thick,
discontinuous lenses of medium to coarse
sand, moist Slight caving with depth. (SW)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
N
■
(#A=es LOG OF TEST PIT TP -6
imp 50 OF Weather Clear Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
luipment CAT 120 Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3/10/04
avation 262.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1101
SN
10
15
20
tree
rel
1 3.0
2 7.5
3 11.0
b
m
Bottoof
A
III
B
C
D
Test
Io
1
20
Pit
at 72.0
ft
SAMPLES
No DEPTH
MOISTURE
ometer = 4.5)
LIiHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES
DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO
TIME HOLE W!L SEEPAGE
(re) (111) (re)
A 0.0 - 0.4 ft: Loose, dark brown, nonstratified, SILT and
ORGANICS, little fine to coarse sand, moist
(OL) (TOPSOIL)
B 0.4 - 7.0 ft: Firm, yellow-brown to olive -gray, mottled,
SILT, trace fine sand, trace organics (roots),
damp to moist. (ML) (ALLUVIUM) (Pocket
Penetrometer = 1.75)
C 7.0 - 9.0 ft: Very dense, yellow-brown to olive -gray, with
iron oxide staining, nonstratified, SILT, some
fine to coarse sand, little fine to coarse gravel,
with well defined silt sockets, damp. (SM)
(GLACIAL TILL)
D 9.0 - 12.0 ft: Very dense, light gray, with iron oxide
staining, laminated SILT, dry to damp. (ML)
(GLACIO-LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS) (Pocket
Pentr
12:30 0.0
12:45 12.0
SPECIAL NOTES:
No Seeps.
Checked: DOW
tree
rel
1 3.0
2 7.5
3 11.0
ometer = 4.5)
Golder LOG OF TEST PIT TP -7
Assomp 55 OF Weather Clear Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
juipment CAT 120 Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3/10/04
ovation 312.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1101
r�4i�n Rte. H Ai ..i ei........1.............i
SENW
to 1 20
A 0.0 - 0.8 ft: Dark brown to black, nonstratified, SILT and
ORGANICS, little fine to coarse sand, roots
(OL) (TOPSOIL)
B 0.8 - 10.5 ft Loose to compact, olive -gray to olive -brown,
crudely stratified, fine to coarse SAND and
fine to coarse, faceted GRAVEL, little to trace
faceted cobbles, trace faceted boulders, trace
silt; coarsening with depth. (SW/GW)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
SAMPLES
NO. DEPTH MOISTURE
tit r�i
� Sf
•':r): F. �j .eo. [<�Y
::. .ra :?.•}:'a��.4J�0: .Ja O.: •.
r�y=:VVC'X )A:l�.�
•<
tS� :�.. •A . D . .fi�'y: ;
�'V:
:B:c
•aJYA:4o:'f1:V
:•: s�•i?::�:M,o: .V': .'c:l.A'::
Bottom
of Test Pit at 10.5 ft
A 0.0 - 0.8 ft: Dark brown to black, nonstratified, SILT and
ORGANICS, little fine to coarse sand, roots
(OL) (TOPSOIL)
B 0.8 - 10.5 ft Loose to compact, olive -gray to olive -brown,
crudely stratified, fine to coarse SAND and
fine to coarse, faceted GRAVEL, little to trace
faceted cobbles, trace faceted boulders, trace
silt; coarsening with depth. (SW/GW)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
SAMPLES
NO. DEPTH MOISTURE
tit r�i
*A=tes LOG OF TEST PIT TP -8
Temp 55 "F Weather Clear Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
Equipment CAT 120 Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3/10/04
Elevation 320.0 ft Datum MSL Job 043-1101
Location 45 ft from fence Dost
E
A 0.0 - 1.0 ft: Loose, dark brown to black, nonstratified,
SILT and ORGANICS, trace fine to coarse
sand and gravel. (OL) (TOPSOIL)
B 1.0 - 12.0 ft Loose to compact, olive brown, fine to
coarse SAND and fine to coarse, faceted
GRAVEL, little faceted cobbles, trace
boulders, trace sift, damp to moist. (SW/GW)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
NO I DEPTH I MOISTURE
DEPTH OF
TIME HOLE
(f)
1 I I 1
I I I 21
14:00 0.0
14:15 12.0
-: G
vtC�l:Ffyyti��'c
SPECIAL NOTES:
:qo
••.......
::RX
No seeps.
Checked: DOW
w
...... ..
Bottom
of Test Pit at 12.0 It
A 0.0 - 1.0 ft: Loose, dark brown to black, nonstratified,
SILT and ORGANICS, trace fine to coarse
sand and gravel. (OL) (TOPSOIL)
B 1.0 - 12.0 ft Loose to compact, olive brown, fine to
coarse SAND and fine to coarse, faceted
GRAVEL, little faceted cobbles, trace
boulders, trace sift, damp to moist. (SW/GW)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
NO I DEPTH I MOISTURE
DEPTH OF
TIME HOLE
(f)
- DEPTHTO
W/L
00
DEPTH TO
SEEPAGE
(ft)
14:00 0.0
14:15 12.0
SPECIAL NOTES:
No seeps.
Checked: DOW
&Golder
scates
imp 55 °F Weather. Clear
LOG OF TEST PIT TP -9
Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3110/04
Datum MSL Job 043-1101
NS
1 1 z
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES
DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO
TIME HOLE wA SEEPAGE
(ft) Aft) Ifto
A 0.0 - 1.0 ft: Dark brown to black, nonstratified, SILT and
ORGANICS, trace fine to coarse sand , moist.
(OL) (TOPSOIL)
14:38 0.0
:B
B 1.0 - 10.5 ft Loose to compact with depth, stratified, fine
to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse gravel,
Bottom
0f Test Pit at 10.5
ft
(SW) (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCAVATION NOTES
DEPTH OF DEPTH TO DEPTH TO
TIME HOLE wA SEEPAGE
(ft) Aft) Ifto
A 0.0 - 1.0 ft: Dark brown to black, nonstratified, SILT and
ORGANICS, trace fine to coarse sand , moist.
(OL) (TOPSOIL)
14:38 0.0
B 1.0 - 10.5 ft Loose to compact with depth, stratified, fine
to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse gravel,
trace cobbles, trace boulders, unit coarsens
with depth, damp. Slight caving below 6 It.
(SW) (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
SPECIAL NOTES:
No Seeps.
Checked: DOW
0=deres LOG OF TEST PIT TP -10
Temp 55 OF Weather Clear Engineer T. Sager Operator Randy
Equipment CAT 120 Contractor Custom Backhoe Date 3/10/04
Elevation 275.0 It Datum MSL Job 043-1101
Location 14 It from estimated steep slope
N
10 15
2
..
B:
C'
.. ........................
Bottom of Test Pit at 14.0 R
A 0.0 - 1.0 It: Dark brown to black, nonstratified, SILT and
ORGANICS, trace fine to coarse sand. (OL)
(TOPSOIL)
B 1.0 - 5.5 It: Loose, olive -brown, crudely stratified, fine to
coarse SAND, some fine to coarse gravel,
trace cobbles, trace silt, damp. Very slight
caving. (SW) (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
C 5.5 - 14.0 ft Loose to compact, olive -gray, stratified, fine
to medium SAND, trace organics, dry to
damp. Very slight caving. (SP)
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
S
SAMPLES
NO DEPTH MOISTURE
fftI M
1 4.0
2 10.0
182100 NE Union HAI Rood, Suite 200
Redmond WA USA 980523333
Telephone (425) 883-0777
Fax(425)882-5498
www.goldercom
August 6, 2004
DMP, Inc.
726 Auburn Way North
Auburn, Washington 98002
Attention: Mr. Mel L. Daley, P.E.
RE: ADAMS PRELIMINARY PLAT
ON-SITE INFILTRATION SYSTEMS
AUBURN, WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. Daley:
Our Ref.: 043-1101.000
MCI"
DEC 0 9 i`]4
pIANNING DEPARTMENT
We are pleased to present geotechnical recommendations regarding on-site infiltration systems for the
seven lots associated with the Monte Adams Project in Auburn, Washington. The following sections
briefly discuss the project, site conditions and our recommendations. For a more detailed site
description and discussion of subsurface conditions please refer to our preliminary geotechnical
report, No. 043-1101.000, dated June 8, 2004.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located north of the White River and east of where Hemlock Street SE dead
ends, south of the intersection, with SR -16 in Auburn, Washington. The site consists of about 13
acres of undeveloped land bounded on the east and north by residential and business developments, to
the west by vacant land, and to the south the White River. The site is elongate shaped and widens in
width to the east. The north, approximately one-third of the site is situated on an upland ridge that
lies between about elevation 238 to 322 feet. The southern two-thirds of the site slopes down to the
south to a sand bar along the White River. The overall slopes are in the range of 30 to 40 percent
(17-22 degrees) with localized steeper areas of about 40 to 90 percent (22-42 degrees)
There are three ravines that drain from the north ridge south towards the White River. The ravines
are truncated by the steep slopes creating hanging ravines. No water was observed in the ravines at
the times of our field investigation or site reconnaissance visits.
The site is forested with sparse, mature second growth trees consisting of fir, cedar, alder, maple and
others. The understory is dense to open with abundant ferns and low-lying berry bushes with a
moderate amount of downed trees. The site timber appeared to have been thinned recently. Site
access was from a 50 foot wide easement off of Hemlock Street SE in the NW comer of the site.
vf_
OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA, EUROPE. NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA
DMP, Inc. August 6, 2004
Mr. Mel L. Daley, P.E. -2- 043-1101.000
Seven single family lots are currently planned in the eastern half of the site on the upland ridge. The
lots vary in size from about 17,000 to 30,000 sgft. Golder Report No. 043-1101.000 (June 8, 2004)
recommends that all development is setback at least 30 to 50 feet from the crest of the steep slope
depending upon the location at the site.
The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating ten test pits ranging in depths from
10.5 to 14 ft. The test pits generally encountered surficial forest duff and topsoil about 5 to 12 inches
thick overlying recessional outwash soils consisting of loose to compact, fine to coarse sand with
varying amounts of gravel, cobbles, silt and occasional boulders. Water was not encountered in the
test pits, however construction work during wet months would likely encounter slight groundwater
seepage.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Infiltration requirements for single family subdivisions and roadways were referenced from the King
County, Washington, Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM 1998). Specifically, roof downspout
controls and infiltration trenches were referenced for roof downspout drains and roadways,
respectively. The designer should confirm that the KCSWDM 1998 applies to the site and that local
codes or procedures do not govern design.
Roof Downspout Controls
Proper selection of roof downspout controls for subdivisions is based on lot size and subsurface
conditions. For lots larger than 22,000 sq% both downspout dispersion and downspout infiltration
systems are acceptable. For lots smaller than 22,000 sqft but located on coarse to medium sands,
downspout infiltration systems are suitable. Based on our understanding ofthe project the
subsurface conditions and the KCSWDM 1998, we expect that downspout infiltration systems are
feasible. Downspout infiltration systems should be designed in accordance with section 5.1.1 of the
KCSWDM 1998 based on the soil types encountered at the site. The soils encountered in our test pits
most closely correspond to the medium sand classification listed in the KCSWDM 1998. Based on
Golder's recommended setback of at least 30 to 50 feet from the crest of the steep slope, we do not
expect infiltration trenches will be constructed on slopes steeper than 25 percent (4H:1 V).
Roadway Infiltration
We recommend using infiltration trenches along roadways. Infiltration trenches are considered
suitable for linear areas and are discussed in section 5.4.5 of the KCSWDM 1998. Main items are
summarized below:
• Infiltration facilities require site specific infiltration testing such as falling head percolation
tests or double ring infiltrometer tests.
• At least three infiltration tests must be performed for each proposed infiltration facility at the
site.
• We expect that the soils encountered in our test pits are free draining and will exhibit
adequate infiltration rates.
r471777=
DMP, Inc.
Mr. Mel L. Dalex P.E. -3-
CLOSING
August 6, 2004
043-1101.000
We appreciate the opportunity to assist DMP, Inc. on this project If you have any questions, do not
hesitate to call us at (425) 883-0777.
Sincerely,.. _
GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
Scott D. Zajac, EIT C
Project Engineer
Andrew J. Walker, P.E.
Associate
SDZIAJW/ngs
080604,61
Golder Associates
18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200
Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333
Telephone (425) 883-0777
Fox(425)882-5498
www.goider.com
March 21, 2005
DMP Engineering
726 Auburn Way South
Auburn, Washington 98002
Attention: Mr. Hans Korve
Our Ref: 043-1101.001
i
APR 1 1 2005
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: CLARIFICATION OF RESPONSE COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF AUBURN
RE: COMPLETENESS OF THE REZONE (REZ04-0006), PRELIMINARY PLAT
(PLT04-0008), AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION (FILE NO.
SEP04-0033) ADAMS VISTA PROJECT
Dear Hans:
On Monday, February 28, 2005, Ted Sager and Tim Johnson of Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) met
with Monte Adams, Hans Korve and Mel Daley of DMP Engineers (DMP), and representatives from
the City of Auburn to discuss written comments from the City of Auburn (City) regarding the subject
property checklist application. The City's comments were contained in a letter to Mr. Korve and
Mr. Adams, dated February 11, 2005, and titled "Completeness of your rezone (REZ04-0006),
preliminary plat (PLT04-0008), and Environmental Checklist Application (File No. SEP 04-0033) for
"Adams Vista".
During the meeting, it was expressed to Golder and DMP that the City needed clarification of three
issues. The three issues included 1) infiltration restraints in regards to lot size; 2) geotechnical
constraints for construction within the 15 foot building set back line and the buffer zones; 3) and draft
language for a plan condition to address future geotechnical review of lot grading. The following are
Golder's responses to the three geotechnical issues.
INFILTRATION
Comment
Page 3 of the City's letter, under Section, 5: Additional Information, ie: Storm drainage system. The
comment includes the entire second paragraph of the section. The comment is restated below for
completeness:
"Also, please clarify if downspout infiltration is possible for lots smaller than 22,000 square
feet. The geotechnical report is not clear."
Response
Based on the field studies and available information, downspout infiltration is suitable for lots under
22,000 square feet, if the lots that are located on coarse to medium sands. If the lots are under 22,000
square feet and are not located on coarse to medium sands, then downspout dispersion should be
used.
OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA. ASIA. AUSTRALIA, EUROPE. NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA
l
DMP Engineering March 21, 2005
Mr. Hans Korve -2- 043-1101.001
Downspout dispersion must meet the criteria established in the King_Coun(y, Washington. Surface
Water Design Mamral (KCSWDM 1998) section 5.1.2, and any applicable provisions of the City of
Auburn's Design and Construction Standards Manual. The preliminary geotechnical findings at the
site are considered favorable for infiltration and Golder Associates considers them more then
adequate for the purpose of reviewing the Preliminary Plat Application. As the application moves to
the Engineering phase of review, we feel that it is of import to commission additional geotechnical
studies to determine actual infiltration rates and facility location for the required public
improvements. We also recommend that Golder Associates, or another qualified Geotechnical
Engineer, review all individual_ lot infiltration and grading plans during the subsequent building
application phase of the project. We understand that these lots will likely be sold to custom home
builders in the future and that further geological evaluation will depend on the actual foot print of the
building. This recommendation should appear on the face of the Plat as a condition of Approval.
BUHMING SETBACK AND BUFFERS
Comment
This comment from page 5, section B, Environmental Elements, 1. Earth, Item D includes the entire
second paragraph. The comment is re -stated below:
"The geotechnical report recommends observance of a 30 foot and 50 foot setback from
structures and an additional building setback What facilities are prohibited from building
setback areas?"
Response
In Golder's June 8, 2004, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study Steep
Slope Hazards, Adams Preliminary Plat, Auburn, Washington, and response letter to the City dated
December 10, 2004, Golder recommends observance of a 30 foot and 50 foot setback/buffer from the
defined steep slopes. This setback is for all structures. As noted in our December 10, 2004 response
any setback/buffer areas that are graded during construction must be re -vegetated with natural growth
plants. No buildings or structures (patios or decks) are allowed to encroach within the 30 foot and
50 foot setback/buffers. Golder did not require a building setback line (BSBL) in our report. The
BSBL shown on the civil grading plans is not required from a geotechnical standpoint.
PLAN CONDMON LANGUAGE
We understand that the City is concerned that potential lot grading could destabilize slopes or could
be done in a manner inconsistent with the geotechnical report. Therefore, we recommend that the
City place a condition on the face of the plat which clearly identifies the procedures for future
development. We have attached a DRAFT condition for your review:
"The Applicant or subsequent owner shall have Golder Associates, or other qualified Geotecbnical
Engineer, review all individual lot infiltration and grading plans at the time of building permit
application."
DMP Engineering
Mr. Hans Korve
-3-
March 21, 2005
043-1101.001
We trust the comment response, and the contents of this letter, meet your needs. Please contact us if
you have any questions.
Sincerely,
INC.
Ted L. Sager
Project Mans er
Andrew J. Walker, P.E.
Associate — Geotechnical Engineer
cc: Mr. Monte Adams
TLS/JGJ/AJW/ngs
mvosuu
)&4 -
fames G. John n, L.G., L.E.G.
Associate Engineering Geologist
Golder Associates
w
16r,r717-T7 !=C 71
18300 NE Union Hill Road Suite 200
Redmond. WA USA 98052-3333
Telephone (425) 883-0777
Fox (425) 882-5498
www.goider.com
December 10, 2004
DMP Engineering
726 Auburn Way South
Auburn, Washington 98002
Attention: Mr. Hans Korve
1 1
®'1 M
Our Ref: 043-1101.000
RECEIVED
DEC 15 2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF AUBURN REGARDING THE
COMPLETENESS OF THE REZONE (REZ04-0006), PREIRM NARY PLAT (PLT04-
0008), AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION (FILE NO. SEP04-
0033) FOR THE "ADAMS VISTA" PROJECT
Dear Hans:
On Thursday, November 4, 2004, Ted Sager, Don West and Andrew Walker of Golder Associates
Inc. (Golder) met with Mr. Monte Adams to: 1) discuss the location and nature of planned
site grading at the subject project, and 2) discuss Golder's proposed responses to the comments
from the City of Auburn (City) regarding the subject property checklist application. The City's
comments were contained in a letter to Mr. Hans Korve and Mr. Monte Adams, dated October
15, 2004, and titled "Completeness of your rezone (RF.Z04-0006), preliminary plat (PLT04-0008),
and Environmental Checklist Application (File No. SEP04-0033) for "Adams Vista".
For the first item of our discussions with Mr. Adams, the focus was on whether the site grading, and
associated vegetation removal, could adversely affect slope stability at the crest of the steep slope at
the site. The two items of discussion are addressed separately below.
Proposed Site Grading
Mr. Adams indicated that grading on the subject property would be focused in Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8. The
primary purpose of the grading would be to create more useable space for the subject lots, and
to create borrow material for the planned fills in the project area. The grading would be down
to approximately elevation 280 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in Lots 5, 6 and 7, and down
to about 270 feet amsl in Lot 8 (as indicated on Drawing 03300PP, Adams Vista Site Plan, dated
23 September 2004).
According to Mr. Adams, the site grading in the subject lots would be such that surface drainage of
the final grades would be directed to the north, away from the crest of the steep slope. In addition,
natural vegetation would be re-established within the 30, or 50 foot setback/buffer from the crest of
the steep slope. The lowering of the high areas within the subject lots, combined with the surface
drainage improvements, and the re-establishment of the vegetation in the setback/buffer area, would
tend to enhance the slope stability conditions in the graded areas.
DMP Engineering December 10, 2004
Mr. Hans Korve -2- 043-1101.000
Response to City of Auburn Comment
General
As a result of discussions with Mr. Adams, it was concluded that Golder should respond to the
comment from the City as stated on page 3 of their letter, under the section, "B. Environmental
Elements, 1. Earth". The comment includes the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section,
and the entire second paragraph of the section. The comment is restated below for completeness:
'The site grading for individual lots has the potential to contribute to instability that is
currently not addressed."
"The geotechnical report recommends observance of a 30 foot and 50 foot setback [for]
structures. More specific information is needed regarding the treatment of hillside and
setback areas. Is all alteration prohibited from hillside and setback areas? Fences, patios,
tree removal?"
Response
Although no detailed site grading plans were available for review, Golder's discussions with Mr.
Monte Adams, that covered the location and nature of the proposed site grading, indicate that the
results of the planned grading in Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 will not adversely affect the stability of the crest
area of the steep slope along the upper elevations of the proposed Adams Vista development. This
conclusion is dependent on final grades in the subject lots be such that surface drainage is positively
directed to the north, away from the crest of the steep slope, and that the natural vegetation is
re-established in the 30 and 50 foot setback/buffer areas. The surface drainage improvements, and the
re -vegetation, along with the lowered slopes resulting from the grading, should enhance slope
stability conditions along the crest of the steep slope. Where site grading does not impact the
setback/buffer areas, the natural slope and vegetation conditions should be maintained within the
setback/buffer areas. The maintenance of the natural vegetation in the setback/buffer areas would
preclude alteration such as fences, patios, tree removal, etc.
We trust the comment response, and the contents of this letter, meet your current needs. Please
contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
GOLDE"SSOCUTES INC.
Ted L. Sager
Project Manager
Andre �alker,v
Associate — Geotechnical Engineer
TLS/DOW/AJW/ngs
121 o hi
cc: Mr. Monte Adams
�' onald O. W st, L.G., L.
E.G.
Senior Project Manager
EXPIRES o�
Golder Associates
CITY OF M +
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subiect
Date:
Public Hearing Application No. REZ04-0006
8/10/05
Department: Planning
Attachments: Please see exhibit list
Budget Impact:
Administrative Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezone request based upon the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions as outlined.
Background Summary:
REPORT OF FACTS:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Monte Adams, owner, represented by Hans Korve, DMP Inc.
REQUEST:
The rezoning of 13.14 acres from RR (Rural Residential) and RMHP
(Residential Mobile Home Park) to R3 (Duplex Residential).
LOCATION:
The site is located east of the south terminus of Hemlock Street SE. The
site is located between the Auburn Way South and the White River.
EXISTING ZONING:
RR, Rural Residential and RMHP, Residential Mobile Home Park.
EXISTING LAND USE:
The site is vacant.
COMPREHENSIVE
"Moderate Density Residential (northern portion) and
PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
"Open Space" (southern portion)
SEPA STATUS:
The City issued a Final Determination of Non -Significance on July 20,
2005.
evlewe y ouncil &
Committees:
Reviewed
by Departments&
Ilmsions:
Arts Commission
COUNCIL COMMITTE
S:
Building
Airport
Finance-- -
Cemetery
Mayor
Hearing Examiner
Municipal Serv.
Finance
Parks
Human Services
Planning & CD
Fire
IM&O
Planning
Park Board
Planning Comm.
Public Works
Legal
Police
Other
Public Works
Human Resources
Action:
?ommitteeApproval:
Council Approval:
eYeseNo
Yes No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to
Until
Tabled
Unto 7- 7-
Councilmember: Norman
Staff: Dixon
Meeting Date: August 16, 2005 1 Item Number:
EXHIBIT 1
AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Date:
ation No. REZ04-(
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site and surrounding
properties are:
Site
Moderate Density
1""W Residential & Undeveloped
Residential
RMHP,Residential =Mobile '
(northern portion)
Home Perk
Open Space
Southernportion)
North
Moderate Density
R3, Duplex Residential and Single family
Residential and
R4, Multiple Family Residences,
High Density
Residential with C1, Light Condominiums and
Residential
Commercial Beyond Commercial
East
Moderate Density
RMHP, Residential Mobile Residential Mobile
Residential
Home Park Home Park
Sout
Open Space and
RR, Rural Residential White River and
h
Rural
Vacant
West
Moderate Density
R3, Duplex Residential and Fire -Damaged Single
Residential and
P1, Public Family Residence
Public and Quasi-
and Federal Aviation
Public
Administration
Offices
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Staff Report
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 Completed Preliminary Plat Application
Exhibit 3A Completed Rezone Application
Exhibit 4 Notice of Application
Exhibit 5 Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 6 Affidavit of Posting
Exhibit 7 Affidavit of Mailing
Exhibit 8 Confirmation of Publication of Lega[ Notice
Exhibit 9 2001 Aerial Site Photograph
Exhibit 10 Environmental Checklist Application, Revised March 15, 2005
Exhibit 11 Final Staff Evaluation of Env. Checklist Application, File No. SEP04-0033
Exhibit 12 Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, dated July 20, 2005, File No. SEP04-
0033
Exhibit 13 July 1, 2005 Comment Letter from Winchester Heights Condo Assoc.
Exhibit 14 City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Winchester Heights Condo
Assoc.
Exhibit 15 July 6, 2005 Comment Letter from Patricia Smith
Exhibit 16 City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Patricia Smith
Exhibit 17 July 6 2005 Comment Letter from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Exhibit 18 City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Exhibit 19 July 7, 2005 Comment Letter from Donna Flemming
Exhibit 20 City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Dnna Flemming
Exhibit 21 July 8, 2005 Comment Letter from Hanis Greaney, Attorneys at Law
Exhibit 22 City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Hanis Greaney
Exhibit 23 Letter from Hans Korve, DMP Inc., dated July 14, 2005 Responding to comment letters
Page 2 of
Agenda Sublect Date:
Public Hearing Application No. REZ04-0006 8110105
Exhibit 24 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study Steep Slope Hazards
Adams Preliminary Plat Auburn Washington, Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 2004
Exhibit 25 Adams Preliminary Plat On -Site Infiltration Systems, Auburn Washington, Golder
Associates Inc. August 6, 2004
Exhibit 26 Response to Comments from the City of Auburn Regarding the Completeness of the
Rezone, Plat and Environmental Checklist Applications for the "Adams Vista" Project,
Golder Associates Inc. December 10, 2004
Exhibit 27 Response to Comments from the City of Auburn Regarding the Completeness of the
Rezone, Plat and Environmental Checklist Applications for the "Adams Vista" Project,
Golder Associates Inc. March 21, 2005
Exhibit 28 Supplement Letter to Environmental Checklist Application, DMP Inc. April 11, 2005
Exhibit 30 Adams Vista Topography Information, Sheet 2 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004,
revised April 6, 2005
Exhibit 31 Adams Vista Site Plan, Sheet 3 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004, revised April 6,
2005
Exhibit 32 Adams Vista Composite Utility Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, DMP Inc., April 7, 2005
Exhibit 33 Previous Rezone Application (File No. REZ0003-96)
Exhibit 34 Previous Final Determination of Non -Significance (File No SEP96-0017)
Exhibit 35 Previous Winchester Heights Condominium Association Appeal (File No. HAP97-0001)
Exhibit 36 Previous Hearing Examiner's Decision on rezone
Exhibit 37 Previous Hearing Examiner's Decision on appeal (HAP97-0001)
Exhibit 38 Previous Winchester Heights Condominium Association filed a request for
reconsideration of the Examiner's decision on the appeal and rezone on September 4,
1997
Exhibit 39 Previous Hearing Examiner's Order (decision) on the request for reconsideration
Exhibit 40 Previous City Council decision denying the rezone (Ordinance No. 5038)
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Monte Adams, applicant, has requested rezoning of a single parcel from RR (Rural Residential) and
RMHP (Residential Mobile Home Park) to R3 (Duplex Residential). The site is roughly rectangular
in shape with the longer axis oriented east -west. The site is located east of the south end of
Hemlock Street SE and adjacent to the White River.
The majority of the parcel is currently designated RR, Rural Residential (the western approximately
11.64 acres) while the portion zoned RMHP, Residential Mobile Home Park is limited to the extreme
northeastern corner (approximately 0.5 acres) where the access road to the adjacent mobile home
park bisects the site. The site is currently vacant.
2. The rezone is sought in order to develop a preliminary plat referred to as "Adams Vista" in
accordance with the requirements of the R3, (Duplex Residential) zoning district. The preliminary
plat consists of subdivision of 13.14 acres into eight (8) lots and three tracts to be developed in a
single phase (File No. PLT04-0008). The request is proposed to be a gated subdivision pursuant to
ACC 18.48.140.
3. The northern portion of the property is designated "Moderate Density Residential" and the southern
portion is designated "Open Space" on the Auburn Comprehensive Plan land use map. The
northern 6.9 acres to contain the home sites is designated "Moderate Density Residential". Chapter
14 of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that R3 (Duplex Residential) zoning district is appropriate to
implement the "Moderate Density Residential" comprehensive plan designation.
4. The R3 (Duplex Residential) district allows one single-family residence or one duplex per lot as an
outright permitted use. Certain other uses are also allowed outright or by a conditional use permit.
Page 3 of 7
Date:
No.
The stated purpose of the R3, Duplex Residential zoning district is given at Auburn City Code
section 18.16.010:
"The duplex residential zones are intended to permit a limited increase in population density in
those areas to which this classification applies by permitting two dwelling units on a minimum size
lot while at the same time, by means of the standards and requirements set forth in this chapter,
maintaining a desirable family living environment by establishing minimum lot areas, yards and
open spaces. A related consideration is to provide a transition between single-family areas and
other intensive designations or activities which reduce the suitability for single-family uses."
The applicant's preliminary plat application indicates that the property that is subject to the rezone
will be developed as single-family residences. This rezone request is consistent with this intent
statement.
5. The property was annexed to the City of Auburn in 1959. The current zoning of the property
appears to date from approximately 1987.
6. The site has been subject to previous rezoning requests. In May of 1996 an environmental checklist
application (File No SEP96-0017) was submitted by Monte Adams and Shirley Titchenal for the
rezoning of the northern 6.8 acres of an approximately 14 -acre parcel from RR, Rural Residential, to
R3, Duplex Residential and development of the site with sixty-six (66) multiple family dwelling units.
Simultaneously, the City received a rezone application (File No. REZ0003-96) by Monte Adams and
Shirley Titchenal to affect this zone change. Subsequently, the environmental checklist application
was revised to address only the rezoning of the property and to eliminate the development proposal.
On May 13, 1997 the City issued a Final Determination of Non -Significance (File No SEP96-0017).
The City received nine comment letters in response to observance of a public comment period. The
Final Determination of Non -Significance was subsequently appealed by neighboring property owners
of the Winchester Heights Condominium Association (File No. HAP97-0001). The Hearing Examiner
held a hearing on August 19, 1997 to consider the rezone and the SEPA appeal. The Examiner
denied the appeal concluding that the environmental review of the rezone was adequate. The
Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the rezone with two conditions. One condition required
the subsequent preparation of a legal description for the portion of the site being rezoned and the
second condition required that an environmental review be conducted for any further development of
the site.
8. The attorney of the Winchester Heights Condominium Association subsequently filed a request for
reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal and rezone on September 4,
1997. On September 17, 1997 the Examiner denied the Request for Reconsideration citing that no
errors were made in procedure or judgment, and there was no discovery of new evidence. On
October 20, 1997, the City Council conducted a closed record hearing on the rezone request and
denied the rezone by Ordinance No. 5038.
9. In response to the recent application, on July 20, 2005 the City issued a Final Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) for the rezoning and plat. The City received five
comment letters in response to the public comment period for the Notice of Application and the
Proposed Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. Three of the letters were received
during the public comment period, two are from neighboring property owners and one from the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Two other letters were received after the close of the comment period,
one is from a neighboring property owner and the other is from the attorney of an adjacent property
owner. Some minor clarifications to Final MDNS were made in response to comments.
In response to one of the public comment letters received prior to the close of the public comment
Page
Agenda Subiect Date:
Public Hearing Application No. REZ04-0006 8/10/05
period, the applicant's agent indicated by letter that a cultural resource assessment report will be
prepared. A condition was added to the Final MDNS to ensure the report will be completed prior to
issuance of grading or land clearing permits, that a copy of the report will be provided to the City &
Tribe, and to ensure the report's recommendations will be incorporated into subsequent city
approvals as determined by the Planning Director.
10. The rezoning if approved, will change the classification of the subject property however, the right-of-
way located to the west and proposed to be developed as a public street by the plat will continue to
reflect the RR (Rural Residential) zoning. It would be surrounded by R3 (Duplex Residential) on
three sides and the P1 (Public) classification on the fourth side.
CONCLUSIONS
ACC Chapter 18.68 provides certain criteria for approval of a rezone:
1. The rezone must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The R3 zone implements the "Moderate Density Residential" Comprehensive Plan designation per
Chapter 14 of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan states that the purpose of the "Moderate Density
Residential" comprehensive plan designation is:
"To provide a transition between single family residential areas and other more intensive
designations, as well as other activities which reduce the suitability of potential residential areas
for single family uses (such as high traffic volumes). In so doing this designation will offer
opportunities for housing types which balance residential amenities with the need to provide
economical housing choice, in a manner consistent with conserving the character of adjacent
single family areas".
The change in zoning is consistent with this stated purpose since it provides a transition between
different land uses and different intensities. The site is proximate to government offices (the Federal
Aviation Administration) to the west, a mobile home park to the east and commercial uses along the
heavily traveled arterial of Auburn Way South, located to the north.
The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan states that the purpose of the "Open Space" comprehensive
plan designation is:
"To ensure adequate open space amenities for present and future residents by reserving and
protecting important open space resources and to identify lands useful for public purposes (RCW
36.70A.150) as well as open space corridors (RCW 36.70A.160) as required by the GMA."
The discussion of the "Open Space" designation in Chapter 14 of the Comprehensive Plan
acknowledges that:
"Land in this category which is privately owned will generally be zoned for low density residential
use. Where the open space is linear it may be appropriately managed by means other than
zoning, such as public ownership or easements particularly as development takes piece on
adjacent land. "
The portion of the site designated "Open Space" is proposed to be publicly dedicated and protected
by a native growth conservation easement (NGPE) to ensure its preservation.
Page 5 of 7
Date:
REZ04-0006
2. The rezone must be initiated by someone other than the City in order for the Hearing Examiner
to consider the request.
This rezone request was not initiated by the City.
3. Any changes or modifications to a rezone request made by either the Hearing Examiner or
City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
Staff is not recommending any changes or modifications to the request.
In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has identified other general rules for rezone
applications (see Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d.454; 573 P.2d 359 (1978)):
1. Conditions in the area must have changed since the original zoning was established.
The zoning of the site was established in approximately 1987. The vicinity has been subject to
change in the intervening eighteen years. The property located to the west (Parcel No. 2821059024)
was rezoned from RR, Rural Residential to R3, Duplex Residential, in September of 1997 by
Ordinance No. 5019 (File No. REZ97-0001).
Inarguably, the amount of traffic on Auburn Way South has increased substantially in the intervening
18 years. The increase in traffic along Auburn Way South is attributable to the Muckleshoot Casino,
White River Amphitheater and general development, which have occurred, in the intervening time.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has also undergone expansions and upgrades in the
intervening time.
Development of the site has been made difficult by the site's location and geologically sensitive
areas. The geotechnical report prepared by applicant provides additional technical information on
site's limitation and relationship to development.
In addition to changes in the area, a decision issued by the Central Puget Sound Growth
Management Hearings Board (see Bremerton, et. al. v Kitsap County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0039c,
Final Decision and Order, October 6, 1995)) established, as a general rule, that 4 units/acre should
be the minimum residential density in urban areas (unless certain exceptions can be demonstrated).
The proposed rezone would be consistent with this decision by rezoning land that has a minimum lot
size of 4 acres and that can be served by public facilities.
2. The proposed rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the
community.
The rezone will allow for future development of the property consistent with the established land use
pattern in the vicinity and with the "Moderate Density Residential" comprehensive plan designation for
the site. The provision of additional housing through increased density is also consistent with the
city's approach to encouraging a variety of housing development to provide a balance with the City's
high proportion of low and -moderate -income housing. The rezone provides a transition between
different land uses and different intensities consistent with the following comprehensive plan policy
"LU -34 Siting of moderate density units shall be encouraged as a buffer between single family
areas and more intense uses. Such buffering is appropriate along arterials where existing platting
prevents effective lot layout for single family units. Also, such buffering is appropriate between
single family areas and commercial and industrial uses. Where there are established single
family areas, the design and siting of moderate density units shall be controlled to reduce
potential conflicts and to ensure buffering of uses. Higher density units are not to be considered
such a buffer."
Page 6 of 7
.6a
RECOMMENDATION
Date:
Based upon the application and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the staff report, Staff recommends
that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the rezone.
Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised
subsequent to the writing of this report
HDAMSTRZ04-6
Page 7 of 7
APPLICATION NO.: REZ04-0006 and PLT04-0008
APPLICANT: Monte Adams
REQUEST: Request to rezonero fr
LOCATION:
F. perry om the existing RR, Rural Residential District and RMHP,
Residential Manufactured Home Park District to proposed R-3, TWO Family (Duplex) Residential
District. Applicant also requests a preliminary plat of 8 lots on 13.14 acres,
east of the south end of Hemlock Street SE between Auburn Way South and the White River
CITYOF M
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subiect
Date:
Public Hearing Application No. PLT04-0008
8/10/05
Department: Planning
Attachments: Please see exhibit list
Budget Impact:
Administrative Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner to recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat based upon the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions as outlined.
Background Summary:
REPORT OF FACTS:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Monte Adams, owner represented by Hans Korve, DMP Inc.
REQUEST:
The preliminary plat known as "Adams Vista" for subdivision of 13.14 -
acres into eight (8) lots and three tracts to be developed in a single phase.
The request is proposed to be a gated subdivision pursuant to ACC
18.48.140.
LOCATION:
The site is located east of the south terminus of Hemlock Street SE. The
site is located between the Auburn Way South and the White River.
EXISTING ZONING:
RR, Rural Residential and RMHP, Residential Mobile Home Park.
EXISTING LAND USE
The site is vacant.
COMPREHENSIVE
"Moderate Density Residential (northern portion) and
PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
"Open Space" (southern portion)
SEPA STATUS:
The City issued a Final Determination of Non -Significance on July 20,
2005.
Review y ounc &
Arts Commission
Committees':
COUNCIL COMMITTE
S:Building
--
ewewe y epa in
----
IVISIons:
M&O
Airport
Finance
Cemetery
Mayor
Hearing Examiner
Municipal Serv.
Finance
Parks
Human Services
Park Board
Planning & CD
Fire
Planning
Public Works
Legal
Police
Planning Comm.
Other
Public Works
Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval:
Council Approval:
YesNo
BYesBNo
Call for Public Hearing
Referred to
Until
Tabled
Until —7-7—
Councilmember. Norman
Staff. Dixon
Meeting Date: Au ust 16, 2005
1 Item Number:
EXHIBIT 1
AU$URN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
m
Date:
The Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning designation and land uses of the site and surrounding
properties are:
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3A
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Page 2 of
Staff Report
Vicinity Map
Completed Preliminary Plat Application
Completed Rezone Application
Notice of Application
Notice of Public Hearing
Affidavit of Posting
Affidavit of Mailing
Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
2001 Aerial Site Photograph
Environmental Checklist Application, Revised March 15, 2005, SEP04-0033
Final Staff Evaluation of Env. Checklist Application, File No. SEP04-0033
Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, dated July 20, 2005, File No. SEP04-
0033
July 1, 2005 Comment Letter from Winchester Heights Condo Assoc.
City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Winchester Heights Condo
Assoc.
July 6, 2005 Comment Letter from Patricia Smith
City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Patricia Smith
July 6, 2005 Comment Letter from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
July 7, 2005 Comment Letter from Donna Flemming
8it8
Moderate Density RR, Rural Resident) & Undeveloped
Residential RMHP, Residential Mobile
(northern portion) Home Park
Open Space
Southern portion)
North
Moderate Density
R3, Duplex Residential and
Single family
Residential and
R4, Multiple Family
Residences,
High Density
Residential with C1, Light
Condominiums and
Residential
Commercial Beyond
Commercial
East
Moderate Density
RMHP, Residential Mobile
Residential Mobile
Residential
_
Home Park
Home Park
Sout
Open Space and
RR, Rural Residential
White River and
h
Rural
Vacant
West
Moderate Density
R3, Duplex Residential and
Fire -Damaged Single
Residential and
P1, Public
Family Residence
Public and Quasi-
and Federal Aviation
Public
Administration
Offices
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3A
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Page 2 of
Staff Report
Vicinity Map
Completed Preliminary Plat Application
Completed Rezone Application
Notice of Application
Notice of Public Hearing
Affidavit of Posting
Affidavit of Mailing
Confirmation of Publication of Legal Notice
2001 Aerial Site Photograph
Environmental Checklist Application, Revised March 15, 2005, SEP04-0033
Final Staff Evaluation of Env. Checklist Application, File No. SEP04-0033
Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, dated July 20, 2005, File No. SEP04-
0033
July 1, 2005 Comment Letter from Winchester Heights Condo Assoc.
City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Winchester Heights Condo
Assoc.
July 6, 2005 Comment Letter from Patricia Smith
City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Patricia Smith
July 6, 2005 Comment Letter from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
July 7, 2005 Comment Letter from Donna Flemming
r+genaa suoiect Date:
Public Hearing Application No. PLT04-0008 8/10/(
Exhibit 20 City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Donna Flemming
Exhibit 21 July 8, 2005 Comment Letter from Hanis Greaney, Attorneys at Law
Exhibit 22 City response dated July 20, 2005 to comment letter from Hanis Greaney
Exhibit 23 Letter from Hans Korve, DMP Inc., dated July 14, 2005 Responding to public comment
letters
Exhibit 24 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study Steep Slope Hazards
Adams Preliminary Plat Auburn Washington, Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 2004
Exhibit 25 Adams Preliminary Plat On -Site Infiltration Systems, Auburn Washington, Golder
Associates Inc. August 6, 2004
Exhibit 26 Response to Comments from the City of Auburn Regarding the Completeness of the
Rezone, Plat and Environmental Checklist Applications for the "Adams Vista" Project,
Golder Associates Inc. December 10, 2004
Exhibit 27 Response to Comments from the City of Auburn Regarding the Completeness of the
Rezone, Plat and Environmental Checklist Applications for the "Adams Vista" Project,
Golder Associates Inc. March 21, 2005
Exhibit 28 Supplement Letter to Environmental Checklist Application, DMP Inc. April 11, 2005
Exhibit 29 Adams Vista Site Information, Sheet 1 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004, revised April
6, 2005
Exhibit 30 Adams Vista Topography Information, Sheet 2 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004,
revised April 6, 2005
Exhibit 31 Adams Vista Site Plan, Sheet 3 of 3, DMP Inc., September 23, 2004, revised April 6,
2005
Exhibit 32 Adams Vista Composite Utility Plan, Sheet 1 of 1, DMP Inc., April 7, 2005
FINDINGS OF FACT
Monte Adams, applicant, has requested approval of a preliminary plat referred to as "Adams Vista."
The proposal includes subdivision of an approximately 13.14 -acre site into eight lots and three
tracts. The lots would occur the northern 6.94 -acres of the site. The applicant has not identified any
phasing of the plat thus, it would occur in a single phase. The request is proposed to be a gated
subdivision pursuant to ACC 18.48.140.
2. The three tracts are proposed to consist of:
• Tract A (approximately 0.16 acres) to be privately owned and maintained for access and
utilities to Lots 14
• Tract B (approximately 6.2 acres) to be publicly dedicated to the City of Auburn
containing forested, sloped hillside, and
• Tract C (approximately 1.29 acres) to be privately owned and maintained for access and
utilities.
3. The applicant has also requested a rezone from RR (Rural Residential) and RMHP (Residential
Mobile Home Park) to R3 (Two -Family Residential) (File No. REZ04-0006). The rezoning, if
approved, will allow more intensive development of the site. The R3, Duplex Residential zoning
district allows one single-family residence (per 5,000 square foot lot) or one duplex (per 7,200
square foot lot).
Auburn City Code (ACC) Section 18.16.040 applicable to the R3 zoning district requires a minimum
lot size of 5,000 square feet for single family residential, a minimum lot depth of 80 feet and a
minimum lot width of 60 feet. Each of the proposed lots meets or exceeds these minimum area and
dimensional standards.
Page ;3 of 9
Agenda Subject Date:
Public Hearing Application No. PLT04-0008 8110105
4. The property was annexed to the City of Auburn in 1959. The current zoning of the property
appears to date from approximately 1987.
5. The site has been subject to previous requests for land use approvals. In May of 1996 an
environmental checklist application (File No. SEP96-0017) was submitted by Monte Adams and
Shirley Titchenal for the rezoning of the northern 6.8 acres of an approximately 14 -acre parcel from
RR, Rural Residential, to R3, Two -Family Residential and development of the site with sixty-six (66)
multiple family dwelling units. Simultaneously, the City received a rezone application (File No.
REZ0003-96) by Monte Adams and Shirley Titchenal to affect this zone change. Subsequently, the
environmental checklist application was revised to address only the rezoning of the property and to
eliminate the development proposal.
6. On May 13, 1997 the City issued a Final Determination of Non -Significance (File No SEP96-0017).
The City received nine comment letters in response to observance of a public comment period. The
Final Determination of Non -Significance was subsequently appealed by neighboring property owners
of the Winchester Heights Condominium Association (File No. HAP97-0001). The Hearing Examiner
held a hearing on August 19, 1997 to consider the rezone and the SEPA appeal. The Examiner
denied the appeal concluding that the environmental review of the rezone was adequate. The
Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the rezone with two conditions. One condition required
the subsequent preparation of a legal description for the portion of the site being rezoned and the
second condition required that an environmental review be conducted for any further development of
the site.
The attorney of the Winchester Heights Condominium Association filed a request for reconsideration
of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal and rezone on September 4, 1997. On
September 17, 1997 the Examiner denied the Request for Reconsideration citing that no errors were
made in procedure orjudgment, and there was no discovery of new evidence. On October 20,
1997, the City Council conducted a closed record hearing on the rezone request and denied the
rezone by Ordinance No. 5038.
8. The subject property is roughly rectangular in shape with the longer axis oriented east west. The
site consists of approximately 13.14 acres of undeveloped property bounded to the east, west and
north by residential and business development and to the south by the White River. The north,
approximately one-third of the site is situated on an upland ridge -that lies between about elevation
238 and 322 feet. The southern one-third of the site slopes steeply (>40 percent) down to the south
to a nearly flat sand bar along the White River. There are three ravines on-site sloping south
towards the White River.
9. Critical areas on site include steep slopes (landslide, erosion and seismic hazard areas). A
preliminary geotechnical report and supplement and an infiltration study was prepared and reviewed
during the SEPA review process. Discussion of the critical areas and mitigation measures to
address impacts to critical areas are incorporated into the SEPA Final Mitigated Determination of
Non -Significance (MDNS) issued July 20, 2005. The geotechnical report concluded the site is
appropriate for the proposed development with observance of certain mitigation measures. The
mitigation includes but is not limited to, additional geotechnical studies, monitoring of grading
operations and temporary and permanent slope protection measures.
10. The site is bordered to the south by the shoreline of the White River. The City's critical areas
inventory does not show any other surface waters on the site. However, the report: Preliminary
Page 4 of 9
„uyliuo oUuiau Date:
Public Hearing Application No. PLT04-0008 8/10/05
Geotechnical Investigation and Critical Area Study Steep Slope Hazards Adams Preliminary Plat
Auburn Washington, Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 2004, notes: "...a groundwater spring was
identified near the toe of the steep slope and near the eastern end of the older fluvial terrace about
20 feet in elevation above the White River. The spring was flowing at about 50-100 gallons per
minute at the time of geologic reconnaissance (March 11, 2004).”
The construction associated with the plat is greater than 200 feet from the ordinary high water of the
White River and outside the identified spring. Therefore, a Shoreline Substantial Development
permit is not required. According to the applicant's environmental checklist application, Tract B,
approximately 6.2 -acres, and the geotechnical report recommended setbacks are proposed to
remain undisturbed. Tract B is proposed to be dedicated to the City.
11. The site contains FEMA 100 -year flood elevation associated with the White River. However, the
floodplain elevation at the west edge of the property is 160 feet in elevation according to Panel No.
1266 of 1725, revised May 16, 1995. The lowest elevation of the proposed plat development is 240
feet.
12. The subject parcel is predominately covered with native forest. The report:
Washington, Golder Associates Inc. June 8, 2004 characterizes the site as: "...forested with sparse,
mature second growth trees consisting of fir, cedar, alder, maple and others. The understory is
dense to open with abundant ferns and low-lying berry bushes with moderate amount of downed
trees. The site timber appears to have been thinned recently."
The proposed construction would remove trees and other vegetation within the northern 50 feet for
construction of the private street and drainage system. Trees and other vegetation will be removed
for grading of the lots for the home sites. The environmental checklist application indicates: "No
clearing is proposed for the steep slopes or their associated buffers." The trees along the north,
west and a portion of the southern perimeter of property will require evaluation prior to site clearing
to determine opportunities to retain trees and avoid affecting off-site trees controlled by others.
Mitigation measures to address impacts to site vegetation are incorporated into the SEPA Final
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) issued July 20, 2005. The Checklist
application identifies that individual trees adjacent to the site will need to be evaluated by an arborist
during and after construction to determine if they warrant removal for safety reasons.
13. No dedication of land for park and recreation purposes is required pursuant to City subdivision code
requirements (ACC 17.12.260) since the plat is fewer than fifty dwelling units, the level at which
dedication of land is required.
14. In response to a comment letter received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe during the public
comment period for the Notice of Application and MDNS, the applicant's engineering firm, DMP Inc.,
has volunteered to produce a resource assessment report to investigate the potential for
archaeological and cultural resources to exist at the site. The Applicant's letter also indicates a
willingness to coordinate with the Tribe. Correspondingly, the City has modified the Final Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance (Final MDNS) to recognize the preparation of the resource
assessment report.
15. Undeveloped right-of-way that measures 50 feet by 192 feet intervenes between the site and the
developed right-of-way of Hemlock Street SE. A public street is proposed to be constructed within
this right-of-way to provide access to the proposed plat.
Page 5 of 9
rwcnua auuieci Date:
Public Hearing Application No. PLT04-0008 8/10105
16. The proposed project includes extending a public street approximately 290 feet east of Hemlock
Street SE through existing undeveloped right-of-way and land to be dedicated to the City as a public
road and City standard cul-de-sac. The road (shown as 26th Street SE) will continue east an
additional approximately 1,000 feet as a private street (within Tract C) to provide access to the
individual lots. A private access tract, Tract A is proposed to extend southward to provide access to
Lots 1 through 4.
17. The private street extension is planned to be gated and will be required to meet the City standards
as a gated residential subdivision, ACC 18.48.140.
18. Policy TR 13 and the City's Design and Construction Standards, Section 10.02.5.2, limit dead end
street length to 600 feet but recognizes that dead end streets can be longer if constrained by
environmental issues or parcelization issues such as the fact that it is bordered by development that
would limit additional access. As authorized by the City's Design and Construction Standards, a
deviation request would need to be submitted to the City Engineer for the additional length of the
road. A deviation may also be required for to have the road construction offset from the centerline of
the right-of-way. The City Public Works staff has reviewed each of the deviation requests and
determined they are supportable and approvable but is deferring approval until after preliminary plat
approval to ensure consistency of the decisions.
19. Per Auburn's Design and Construction Standards, Section 10.01.3.1. and Section 10.01.3.4, public
and private streets at a minimum shall be designed to the local street standard that most closely
reflects their intended use. That standard would be the "Local Residential Street" standard which
requires a 28 -foot wide roadway. The Local Residential Street standard would ensure that one side
of the street does not allow parking and is marked as a fire lane as would a public street in the City.
The preliminary plat drawing shows a 24 -foot wide roadway.
20. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable transportation impact fee at the time of building
permit application.
21. The City of Auburn will provide police protection, fire protection, water and sanitary sewer and storm
drainage services. The plat is within the Auburn School District and the City collects impact fees on
behalf of the school district.
22. Utilities will be provided to the site as follows:
Storm Drainage — The project proposes both public and private storm drainage systems. The
project proposes to discharge runoff from the public portion of the street to an infiltration sump
located at the east end of the public portion of the road. Runoff from the private portion of the street
will be managed via catch basins and underground piping discharging to a linear on-site infiltration
trench paralleling the north side of the private road. In addition, each lot will utilize infiltration to
address rooftop and other runoff from the lots.
The suitability of the site for infiltration is addressed in the supplemental geotechnical report: Adams
Preliminary Plat On -Site Infiltration Systems Auburn Washington, Golder Associates Inc., August 6,
2004. The report contains recommendations about the design and construction of the roadway
storm water infiltration and the roof downspout systems.
Water — Water will be provided by the City of Auburn. An eight -inch diameter line is proposed to be
rage 0 ut ZI
Agenda Subject Date:
Public Hearing Application No. PLT04-0008 8/10/05
extended from its existing end in Hemlock Street SE south and then east along the width of the
property and connect to the water line in the mobile home park located to the east.
Sanitary Sewer — Sewer will be provided by the City of Auburn. A sewer line shall be extended west
from the existing manhole in the adjacent mobile home park. Individual grinder pumps will be
required to provide sanitary sewer service to Lots 2 through 8 since the homes on these lots will be
located at a lower elevation than the line in the roadway.
23. The topography of the property and proposed irregular lot shape result in the need to ensure that
structures meet the applicable setback requirements of City Code. If approved, the preliminary plat
should be conditioned to ensure the accurate placement of the home/structure(s) in relationship to
the setbacks required from property lines, easements or other similar features associated with a lot.
24. The City received five comment letters in response to the recent public comment period for the
Notice of Application and the Proposed Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. Three of
the letters were received during the public comment period; two are from neighboring property
owners and one from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Two other letters were received after the close
of the comment period, one is from a neighboring property owner and the other is from the attorney
of an adjacent property owner. Some minor clarifications to Final MDNS were made in response to
comments. Copies of those letters and the City's response are attached as Exhibits to this staff
report.
In response to one of the public comment letters received prior to the close of the public comment
period, the applicant's agent indicated by letter that a cultural resource assessment report will be
prepared. A condition was added to the Final MDNS to ensure the report will be completed prior to
issuance of grading or land clearing permits, that a copy of the report will be provided to the City &
Tribe, and to ensure the report's recommendations will be incorporated into subsequent City
approvals as determined by the Planning Director.
CONCLUSIONS
N
Staff has concluded that the preliminary plat may be approved in that it is consistent with the followin 4
criteria necessary to approve a preliminary plat as outlined in Section 17.06.070 of the Land Division'
Ordinance.
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open
spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks, playgrounds and sites for schools and school grounds.
Adequate provisions have been or can be provided to serve the plat. Public utilities, public schools
and new streets will serve the proposed plat.
2. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed plat is consistent with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plans that have been adopted by the City Council.
Page
Agenda Subject Date:
Public Hearing Application No. PLT04-0008 8/10/05
The proposed plat is consistent with adopted policies and plans. In particular, it is consistent with the
policies within Chapter 9, Environment, related to geologically hazard areas and shoreline areas and
the policies of Chapter 11, Parks and Recreation, related to maintaining hillsides and vegetation as
open space and with the policies of Chapter 4, Housing.
4. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the Land Division
Ordinance as enumerated in ACC Section 17.02.030.
The plat is consistent with the purpose of the Land Division Ordinance.
S. Conformance of the proposed subdivision to the Auburn Zoning Ordinance and any other
applicable planning or engineering standards and specifications as adopted by the City.
The plat has been or is capable of being designed in accordance with all applicable planning and
engineering requirements including the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Design and Construction
Standards manual with the exception of the requested deviations to City standards to be determined
by the City Engineer and that are to be addressed separately.
6. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision are mitigated such that the
preliminary plat will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
The proposal was evaluated under SEPA, City File No. SEP04-0033. The City of Auburn issued a
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance on July 20, 2005 for the proposal with twenty-one (21)
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the Facts and Findings and Conclusions of the staff report, staff recommends that the
Examiner recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat subject to the foilcw
conditions: J
1. Approval of the proposed preliminary Plat is conditioned upon the approval of the requested
rezone changing the zoning designation from RR (Rural Residential) and RMHP (Residential
Mobile Home Park) to R3 (Two -Family Residential) (City File No. REZ04-0006).
2. In order to ensure the accurate placement of the home/structure(s) in relationship to the setbacks
required from property lines, easements or other similar features associated with a lot, the City's
Building Official may require that all applicable corners of the structure be surveyed and staked
prior to the pouring of footings or foundations.
3. The structures located on Lots through 2 and 8 must be served by grinder pump units to provide
sanitary sewer service as approved by the Sanitary Sewer Engineer. This requirement shall be
noted on the Final Plat.
4. In the event the City accepts dedication of the Tract B, the sloped hillside, either an access
easement across Lot 8 must be granted to the City or the boundary between the Tract B and Lot
8 adjusted to provide Tract B frontage onto the new public street proposed as 2e Street SE to
provide access.
Page 8 of 9
Agenda Subject Date:
Public Hearing Application No. PLT04-0008 8110/05
5. The preliminary plat shall be revised to meet the City's Design and Construction Standards,
Section 10. 01.3.1 & Section 10.01.3.4, which requires that the project's public and private street
segments shall be designed to the local street standard that most closely reflects their intended
use. The applicable standard would be the "Local Residential Street° standard as determined by
the City Engineer, which requires a 28 -foot wide roadway. The Local Residential Street standard
would ensure that one side of the street does not allow parking and is marked as a fire lane. The
current preliminary plat drawing shows a 24 -foot wide roadway.
Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised
subsequent to the writing of this report
HEWPPISTRP04-8
Page
Y
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of )
MONTE ADAMS )
For a Rezone and Preliminary Platt )
For "Adams Vista" )
NO. REZ04-0006
PLT04-0008
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Auburn City Council APPROVAL OF A REZONE
from Rural Residential and Residential Mobile Home Park to Duplex Residential of only the
northern portion of the subject property approximately 6 8 acres, and APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT for "Adams Vista," a single-family residential subdivision, subject to
conditions. The Hearing Examiner recommends DENIAL OF A REZONE from Rural
Residential to Duplex Residential of the southern portion of the subject property, approximately
6.2 acres.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request
Monte Adams (Applicant), through his representative Hans Korve of DMP Inc., requests
approval of a rezone and preliminary plat for "Adams Vista," a single-family residential
subdivision. The Applicant requests a rezone of one tax parcel from Rural Residential and
Residential Mobile Home Park to Two -Family (Duplex) Residential. Applicant requests
approval of a preliminary plat which would allow for eight lots. The subject_ property totals__
approximatet�t3.14 acres. The property is located within the city limits of' Auburn, south of
Auburn Way South and west of Hemlock Street. The property borders on the White River and
its associated buffers.
Hearing Date
An open record hearing on the request was held before the Hearings Examiner for the City of
Auburn on August 16, 2005.1
' At the public hearing, September 6, 2005, was set as the date the Hearing Examiner's
Recommendation was to be submitted to all interested parties. On September 5, 2005. the
Hearing Examiner, consistent with ACC 18.16.140, requested an extension for submission of his
Recommendation until September 14, 2005. The request was granted. Exhibit 45.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams - Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page I of 18
Testimonv
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Mr. Jeff Dixon, Planner, City of Auburn
2. Mr. Joseph Welsh, Transportation Engineer, City of Auburn
3. Mr. Steve King, Assistant City Attorney, City of Auburn
4. Mr. Hans Korve, DMP Inc., Applicants' representative
5. Mr. Walt Wojeck, Development Review, City of Auburn
6. Mr. Robert Beatty, President, Winchester Heights Condominium Association
7. Ms. Jane Ryan Koler, Attorney, representing Ms. Frary Breckenridge
8. Ms. Frary Breckenridge, neighboring property owner
Exhibits
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record:
1. Staff Report - REZ04-0006 and PLT04-0008
IA. Condition #6 for Preliminary Plat
2. Site Map
3. Preliminary Plat Application (PLT04-0008)
3A. Rezone Application (REZ04-0006) including site map and narrative
4. Notice of Application for both rezone and preliminary plat, dated June 21, 2005
r 5. Notice of Public Hearing for both rezone and preliminary plat
6. Certificate of Posting of Legal Notice for both rezone and preliminary plat, dated August
3, 2005
7. Certificate of Publication and Mailing for both rezone and preliminary plat, dated August
3, 2005
8. E-mail dated July 29, 2005, from King County Journal confirming publication on August
3, 2005, of REZ04-0006 and PLT04-0008
9. 2001 Ariel Photograph of Site
10. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist, dated March 15,_2005
11. Final Staff Evaluation for SEPA Checklist (SEP04-0033), dated May 6, 2005
12. Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (SEP04-0033), issued July 20, 2005
13. Letter from Robert Beatty, President of Winchester Heights Condominium Associated,
dated July 1, 2005
14. Letter from City of Auburn to Winchester Heights Condominium Association in response
to their July 1, 2005 letter, dated July 20, 2005
15. Public Comment Letter from Patricia J. Smith, dated July 6, 2005, and City of Auburn's
response, undated
16. Letter from City of Auburn to Patricia J. Smith in response to her July 6, 2005 letter,
dated July 20, 2005
IT Letter from Steve Taylor, Planning Director for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated July
6, 2005
18. Letter from City of Auburn to Muckleshoot Tribe in response to their July 6, 2005 letter.
dated July 20, 2005
19. Public Comment Letter from Donna Fleming, dated July 7, 2005
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page 2 of 18
20. Letter from City of Auburn to Donna Fleming in response to her July 7. 2005 letter. dated
July 20, 2005
21. Letter from Brian J. Hanis and Patrick M. Hanis of Hanis Greaney PLLC. Attomevs at
Law, representing Ms. Frary Breckenridge, dated July 8, 2005
22. Letter from City of Auburn to Brian J. Hanis and Patrick M. Hanis of Hanis Greaney
PLLC in response to their July 8, 2005 letter, dated July 20, 2005
23. Letter from Hans Korve, DMP Inc., dated July 14, 2005
24. Preliminary Geotechnical Report and Critical Area Study, dated June 8. 2004
25. Letter from Golder Associates Inc. to DMP Inc., dated August 6, 2005
26. Letter from Golder Associates Inc. to DMP Inc., dated December 10, 2004
27. Letter from Golder Associates Inc. to DMP Inc., dated March 21, 2005
28. Letter from Hans Korve, DMP Inc., dated April 11, 2005
29. Preliminary Plat Drawings - Site Information
30. Topographical Map (existing conditions)
31. Preliminary Plat Drawings - Site Plan
32. Preliminary Plat Drawings - Composite Utility Plan
33. 1996 Rezone Application, REZ0003-96, dated May 3, 1996
34. Final Determination of Non -Significance (SEP -0017-96R) for 1996 Rezone Application
(REZ0003-96)
35. Letter from Robert Beatty, President of Winchester Heights Homeowners' Association,
dated May 27, 1997
36. Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner for the City of Auburn on REZ0003-96.
dated August 28, 1997
37. Letter from the City of Auburn to Winchester Heights Homeowners' Association with
attached August 28, 1997 Hearing Examiner's decision, dated August 28. 1997
38. Request for Reconsideration, with attachments, of Hearing Examiner's August 28. 1997
decision, from Winchester Heights Homeowners Association. submitted Mr. Henry t'.
Lippek, Attorney from The Public Advocate, dated September 4, 1997
39. Order Denying Request for Reconsideration, dated September 17, 1997
40. City of Auburn Ordinance 5038, City Council's denial of rezone
41. Letter from Ms. Jane Ryan Koler, Attorney representing Ms. Frary Breckenridge. dated
August 16, 2005
41 A. Letter from AML Geotechnical Services Inc., dated August 14, 2005
41 B. Letter from Ms. Jane Ryan Koler, Attorney representing Ms. Frary Breckenridge, dated
August 10, 2005
41 C. Letter from City of Auburn to Ms. Jane Ryan Koler in response to her letter of August
10, 2005, dated August 12, 2005
42. Memorandum from Ms. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, dated
August 15, 2005
43. Public Comment Letter from Ms. Darlene G. Kern, dated August 16, 2005
44. Oral Testimony Exhibits 1 - 6 for Ms. Frary Breckenridge
45. Letter from DMP Inc., dated September 5, 2005, stating no objection to extension For
Hearing Examiner's recommendation.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page 3 of 18
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing. the
Hearings Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. Monte Adams (Applicant), by and through his representative Mr. Hans Korve of DMP
Inc., requests approval of a rezone of one parcel of land, totaling approximately H). 14
acres. The rezone would reclassify the property from Rural Residential (RR) and
Residential Mobile Home Park (RMHP) zoning designations to a Two -Family (Duplex)
Residential (R3) designation. Applicant asserts that the rezone is necessary due to the
environmental issues of the site and would permit reasonable use of the property by
allowing for a more concentrated development pattern. The Applicant further asserts that
the proposed R3 zone promotes the property's Comprehensive Plan designation. F,.rhibit
1, Staff Report (Rezone) page 1 and 3; Exhibit 3A, Rezone Application Narrative:
Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
2. As part of the application, Applicant has requested approval of a Preliminary Plat for a
single-family residential development - "Adams Vista". Applicant proposes to develop
Adams Vista in one phase. The development would be eight lots, ranging in size trom
16,575 square feet (Lot 4) to 61,830 square feet (Lot 8), located on the northern 6.94
acres of the site. Average density would be 1.64 dwelling units per acre. Although the
R3 zone allows for multi -family dwellings, Applicant proposes only single-family
residences. The plat is to contain two privately owned and maintained tracts for access
and utilities (Tract A and Tract Q. Applicant seeks to dedicate Tract B. approximately
6.2 acres of sensitive areas, to the City of Auburn. Exhibit 1, Staff Report (Plat), page I
and 3; Exhibit 3, Preliminary Plat Application; Exhibit 31. Site Plan.
3. The subject property is identified as King County Parcel No. 282105-9021. The parcel is
within the city limits of Auburn and contained within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
Exhibit 3, Preliminary Plat Application; Exhibit 3A. Rezone Application; King County
-ax Assessor's Records.
4. Both applications - rezone and preliminary plat - are being processed by the City
concurrently and were consolidated at the public hearing. Testimony gf:41r. Dixon
5. Notice of Application was issued on June 21, 2005 for both the rezone and the
preliminary plat. Exhibit 4.
6. Notice of the public hearing was posted on the property on August 3, 2005. Notice of the
public hearing was mailed to all property owners located within 300 feet of the affected
site and published in the King County Journal on August 3, 2005. Exhibits 5, 6. i, and 8-
7. All but 0.5 acres of the parcel is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR). In the extreme
northeastern corner of the property, approximately 0.5 acres. is zoned Residential Mobile
Home Park (RMHP). The northern portion of the property (approximately 6.9 acres) is
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams-Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page 4 of 18
designated as Moderate Density Residential on the City of Auburn's Comprehensive
Plan's Land Use Map (LUM). The southern portion (approximately 6.24 acres), located
along the buffer for the White River, is designated as Open Space in the LUM. The
parcel has been zoned RR and RMHP since 1987.2 Exhibit 1. Staff Report (Rezone and
Plat), pages I and 3; Exhibit 3, Preliminary Plat Application; Exhibit 3A. Rezone
Application; Chapter 14.
8. The subject property is currently vacant and undeveloped. Surrounding land uses consist
of residential and commercial development and open space.3 Residential development is
comprised of condominiums to the north, a mobile home park and tribal lands to the east,
and single family residences to the west. Light commercial development is located to the
north and to the west of the subject property.4 Most of the neighboring commercial and
residential activities were developed prior to 1980. South of the property is the White
River and its associated buffer. The site is forested with sparse, mature second growth
conifer and deciduous trees with a dense to open understory. The site has experienced
previous unpermitted logging. Exhibit 1, Staff Report (Rezone), page 2: Exhibit 9. Aerial
Photograph; Exhibit 24, Geotechnical Report, page 2: Exhibit 40, Ordinance 5038: King
County Tax Assessor; Testimony of Ms. Breckenridge.
9. Pursuant to ACC 18.68.020(A)(1), a rezone is an amendment to the Zoning Map and may
be initiated by a request from one or more property owners. The Applicant is the owner
of the property involved in this rezone and filed an application with the City on
September 24, 2004. ACC 18.68.020: Exhibit 3A, Rezone Application.
10. The RR zone is intended primarily to provide for single-family residential uses with
characteristics of a rural or agricultural environment. This zone is intended to represent a
long term commitment to rural uses and to protect areas with significant environmental
constraints or values from urban levels of development. The RMHP zone is intended is
to provide a residential zone of single-family manufactured homes exclusively within a
planned park. The R3 zone is intended to permit a limited increase in population density
by permitting two dwelling units on a minimum size lot while at the same time
maintaining a desirable family living environment. The R3 zone can be used to provide a
transition between single-family areas and other intensive designations or activities that
reduce the suitability for single-family uses. The purpose of the Moderate Density
Residential designation is to provide an area of transition between single-family
residences and other more intensive land use designation while offering housing types
which balance residential amenities with the need to provide economical housing. fhe
purpose of the Open Space designation is to ensure adequate open space for present and
future residents by reserving and protecting the resource. ACC 18.08.010. AC'C
2 Auburn adopted its current zoning code in 1987.
s Zoning applicable to surrounding properties includes R3 - Duplex Residential, R4 - Multi -Family Residential. C I -
Light Commercial, RMHP- Residential Mobile Home Park, PI - Public, and RR - Rural Residential. Exhibit 1,
Staff Report (Rezone), page 2.
"Offices of the Federal Aviation Administration are located to the west. Condominiums, single family residences,
and light commercial are located to the north.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone; Preliminary Plat
Page 5 of 18
18.20.010; ACC 18.16.010; Chapter 14, Land Use Element ofAuburn's ('omprehensive
Plan.
11. The Applicant previously requested a rezone of the subject property's northern 6.8 acres
in 1996 from RR to R3 (Exhibit 33 - Application No. REZ0003-96). A SEPA
Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued for the proposed rezone on May
13, 1997 (Exhibit 34). Winchester Heights Homeowners Association (HOA) appealed
the issuance of the DNS stating, among other things, that the determination tailed to
consider "likely adverse environmental impacts" of the proposed rezone and the
development such a rezone would permit (Exhibit 35). A public hearing on the rezone
and the appeal of the DNS was held on August 19, 1997. The City's Hearing Examiner
at the time issued her decision on August 28, 1997, recommending approval of the rezone
to the City Council (Exhibit 36) and denial of the SEPA appeal (Exhibit 37). The
Hearing Examiner concluded that the environmental impacts of the proposal would be
adequately addressed when a site specific development plan was submitted to the City.
Winchester Heights HOA submitted a Request for Reconsideration to the Hearing
Examiner on September 4, 1997, asserting that the proposed rezone was inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan; there has been no change in circumstances to justify the rezone;
the rezone was not in the public interest; and the environmental analysis was not adequate
(Exhibit 38). Finding no error in the August 28, 1997 decision, on September 17, 1997,
the Hearing Examiner issued an Order denying the Request for Reconsideration (Exhibit
39). Exhibits 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39.
12. The City Council held a closed record hearing on October 20, 1997, to consider the
Hearing Examiner's recommendation for the proposed rezone.5 On November 3. 1997,
the City Council passed Ordinance 5038 (Exhibit 40) denying the rezone. The City
Council's denial was based primarily on the fact that the property was a geologically
critical area, removal of vegetation had exacerbated instability of the slopes, and adequate
environmental analysis had not been conducted. However, the City Council stated that if
the Applicant were to develop the property, submittal of a development proposal and
corresponding geological reports would be required. Exhibit 40, City Council Ordinance
5038.
13. Neighboring property owner, Ms. Frary Breckenridge, through counsel, asserted that the
present rezone is barred under the legal doctrine of Res Judicata.6 Ms. Breckenridge
asserts that there has been no substantial change in the rezone applications. Ms.
Breckenridge argues that the same Applicant, the same property, and the same rezone
5 Pursuant to ACC 18.66, the City's Hearing Examiner has not been granted the authority to make final decisions on
land use actions but only the authority to make recommendations to the City Council.
6 The doctrine of Res Judicata ("the thing has already been decided) seeks to prevent repetitious litigation and to
provide binding answers. The doctrine bars reasserting the same claim in a subsequent land use application. Hilbop
Terrace Homeowner's Assn v. Island County, 126 Wn.2d 22, 31, 891 R2d 29 (1995). in Hilhop. the Washington
Supreme Court formulated a four-part test to determine when a claim has been previously decided for purposes of
Res Judicata: "Res Judicata occurs when a prior judgment has a concurrence of identity in four respects with a
subsequent action. There must be identity of (1) subject matter; (2) cause of action; (3) persons and parties; and (4)
the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made." Hilltop, 126 Wn.2d at 32 (quoting Rains v .Sidle,
100 Wn.2d 660, 663, 674 P.2d 165 (1983)).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Palle 6 of 18
proposal - RR to R3 - was denied by the City in 1997, thereby barring the present rezone
request. She stated that the 1997 denial raised serious concerns in regards to slope
stability; whether the Comprehensive Plan designation was appropriate. and
tree/vegetation removal; all of which have not yet been properly addressed by the City.
Assistant City Attorney, Mr. King, reviewed Ms. Breckenridge's Res .hcdicata claim and
concluded that Ordinance 5038 did not permanently bar the proposed rezone but it was
denied until such time as environmental concerns, such as slope stability and vegetation
removal, were properly addressed. Mr. King determined that Applicant's 1996 rezone
application did not properly address environmental issues, but that Applicant's current
rezone application does address them, thereby satisfying the "substantial change"
required by the Hilltop test. Mr. Korve also testified that, in 1997. though no
development proposal was submitted the Applicant had desired to construct a high
density multi -family project (approximately 66 dwelling units) and conducted no analysis
as to impacts on the sensitive areas. Mr. Korve stated that the current application
includes a geotechnical report that adequately addresses environmental concerns. and
seeks to develop only eight lots, all with single-family residences. Mr. Dixon testified
that the current rezone application differs because no specific information on a
development proposal or critical area impacts was included in the 1997 application and
the current application includes such considerations. Exhibit 41. Letter from Ms.
Breckenridge's counsel, Jane Ryan Koler; Testimony of M.s. Koler; Testimony of Mr.
King, Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr. Korve.
14. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21 C, the City of
Auburn acted as lead agency for the review of environmental impacts caused by the
proposed rezone and preliminary lat. A SEPA Environmental Checklist (SEP04-0033)
was completed by the Applicant. City Staff evaluated the Checklist and issued a Final
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) on July 20, 2005. The MDNS
states 20 conditions which are incorporated as conditions of this recommendation.
Exhibit 10, SEPA Checklist, Exhibit 11, Staff Evaluation of Checklist. Exhibit 12, Final
MDNS.
15. Critical areas are present on the site. The southern two-thirds of the property slopes
steeply down to the shores of the White River, containing three ravines that drain to the
White River. Pursuant to ACC 16.10.080(G), a slope of greater than 40 percent is
classified as a critical area due to the possibility of landslide, erosion, and seismic
hazards. The City mapped the site as being within a Class I "Known" landslide Hazard
Area and a Class III "Unknown" Landslide Hazard Area. Golder Associates Inc.
prepared a Geotechnical Investigation and Steep Slope Hazard Study for the �roposal
(Exhibit 24). The report noted five localized, small, shallow debris landslides on the
steep slopes, ranging from 60 to 150 feet in width. Golder Associations predicts that
resulting slope retreat would range from 10 to 25 feet over a 50 year period. Golder
Associates recommended mitigation measures to address the long-term effects of
'The Checklist was originally prepared in September 2004 and revised in December 2004. A second revision was
completed March 15, 2005. Exhibit 10 is the 2°' Revised Environmental Checklist of March I5. 2005.
a Golder Associates state that these landslides appear to have been triggered by erosion of the toe of the steep slope
and are not deep-seated landslides. Exhibit 24, pages 7 and 12.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat Pace 7 of 18
continued landslide activity. Such measures included a minimum 30 -foot or 50 -foot
building/structure setback from the crest of the steep slope9 and control of surface water
drainage. Golder Associates concluded that the portion of the project site being proposed
for development was suitable for construction of single-family homes, townhomes, multi-
family apartments, or condominiums. Exhibit 24. Geotechnical/.Steep .Slope .4nidy.
Section S. pager 5-13.
16. Public comment was received on landslide activity and unpermitted tree removal
occurring on the subject property. Ms. Breckenridge retained ALM Geotechnical
Services Inc. to provide comments and opinions regarding certain geotechnical aspects of
the rezone (Exhibit 41A). ALM reviewed the geotechnical report prepared by Golder
Associates and conducted a site visit. ALM concurred with Golder's proposed setback of
30 -feet but opined that a 50 -foot setback is preferred. Based on ALM's calculations,
construction of the proposed turn -around at the northwest corner to the site would result
in a "permanent and irreversible encroachment of 33 -feet into the minimum allowable
setback of 30 feet." Exhibit 19, Letter from Donna Fleming; Exhibit 41A. .4LM
Geotechnical Review; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr. Beatty; Testimony of
Ms. Breckenridge; Exhibit 44, Breckenridge Testimonial Exhibits, photograph.
IT The subject property is bordered to the south by the shoreline of the White River. During
their review of the site, Golder Associates discovered a groundwater spring near the toe
of the steep slope. However, the proposed location of the lots is greater than 200 feet
from the ordinary high water mark of the White River and from the spring and a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is not required.10 A portion of the site is
within the FEMA 100 -year flood elevation associated with the White River. The lowest
r . elevation of the proposed residential development is 240 feet, 80 feet over FIMA's
floodplain elevation of 160 feet. No development is proposed within the buffer of the
White River. Exhibit 1, Staff Report (Plat), page S: Exhibit 10, Environmental Checklist.
page 3; Exhibit 7, Staff Evaluation of Checklist, page 7: Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
18. RCW 36.70A, Washington's Growth Management Act, requires the City of Auburn to
develop a Comprehensive Plan.11 Pursuant to several sections of the ACC, 12 a rezone,
andplat must be consistent and/or in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis of the proposal's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided for in
the Final Staff Evaluation for the Environmental Checklist (Exhibit 11). Policies
included EN -66 (no development of land that increases potential for landslides); FN -I 1
(water quality); EN -2, EN -4, and EN -14 (stormwater drainage); EN -6, EN -23, and EN -24
Golder Associates recommends a minimum 30 foot set back from the crest of the slope in the western 3/4"' of the
site and a 50 foot setback. from the crest of the slope along the eastern 1/411. ahibit 24 page 13.
10 RCW 90.58, Washington`s Shoreline Management Act, requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for
any non-exempt development occurring within the shorelines of the state. Shorelines are defined in RCW
90.58.030 as lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from
the ordinary high water mark.
" The City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in August 1986. It has been amended in 1995,
2003, and 2004.
" Rezone - ACC 18.68; Plat - ACC 17.06
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page 8 of 18
(vegetation and wildlife); LU -20 (flexible development standards); LU -22 (shoreline
development); UD -1 (maintaining existing neighborhood character); UD -12
(underground utilities); HP -1 and HP -3, and HP -7 (historical preservation); LU -45. TR -
21, and TR -23 (transportation); TR44 (sidewalks); CF -38 and CF -39 (drainage). Fxhihit
12, Staff Evaluation ofSEPA.
19. ACC 18.68.030(B)(1) requires the Director of Planning and Community Development to
review a rezone application for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the
Director determines that the application is consistent, the application shall be scheduled
for a public hearing. The Director determined that the application was consistent and the
required public hearing was held on August 16, 2005. ACC 18.68.030; Exhibit 1. Stall
Report (rezone), page S.
20. The Applicant has the burden of proof for rezones. In its application, the Applicant
stated that the proposed zoning is supported by the current Comprehensive Plan
designation, Moderate Density Residential, and is consistent with the type and density of
development on neighboring properties. The City submitted that the surrounding area
has been subject to change since the site was originally zone in 1987. It noted that an
adjacent parcel west of the subject property was rezoned in 1997 to R3 and that traffic
volumes had substantially increased along nearby Auburn Way South. The City further
asserted that the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing Board's "Bright Line
Rule" of a minimum of four residential dwelling units per acre within urban areas
supports the rezone.13 ACC 18.68; Exhibit 1, Staff Report (Rezone), page 6.
21. The proposal is within the Auburn School District. In Washington, making ample
provision for the education of children is a paramount duty of the state. 14 This
requirement is further stated in the laws of the State and the City of Auburn. RCW
58.17.110 states that subdivisions must make appropriate provisions for the general
welfare of the community including provisions for schools and for safe walking
conditions for students. RCW 36.70A.020(12) states that when a City is planning for
growth, they are to ensure that public services, such as schools, necessary to support
development are adequately available to serve the development. ACC 17.060.070(A)
states that a subdivision must make adequate provisions for the general welfare of the
community, including schools. The record is devoid of any comments from the Auburn
School District. The Applicant conceded that he has had no communication with the
Auburn School District but that ACC 19.02 allows the City to collect school
impact/mitigation fees, approximately $4,500 per building permit, on behalf of the school
district. Adams Vista proposes an internal private roadway and sidewalks to Hemlock
13 The Board's `Bright Line Rule" (4 dwelling units per acre) was first articulated in 1995 (See Bremerton v. Kiasup
County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0039C, FDO, October 6, 1995) to provide cities and counties with a definition of the
term `urban density' which the GMA mandated they provide for. The Board recently upheld their rule in two cases
stating that the rule promotes certainty and predictability for cities and counties planning under the GMA. (See
1000 Friends VII v. City of Issaquah, CPSGMHB No. 05-3-0006, FDO, July 20,2005; 1000 Friends VII! (Kaleas)
v. Normandy Park, CPSGMHB No. 05-3-00070, FDO, July 29, 2005).
14 Washington State Constitution, Art. 9, §I
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page 9 of 18
Street for sate passage of children must be provided. Exhibit 1. Staff Reprint lPlatl. page
6; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr. Korve.
22. The City of Auburn would provide police and fire protection. Exhibit I. Staff' Report
(Plat), page 6. Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
23. The City of Auburn would provide water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage services.
Water would be provided via an 8 -inch connection to the water main currently existing at
the end of Hemlock Street SE and running eastward to the water line in the adiacent
mobile home park. A new sewer line would be installed, extending westerly from the
existing line contained within the mobile home park. Due to reduced elevation. Lot 2 to
Lot 8 would be required to have individual grinder pumps. Applicant proposes both
public and private stormwater drainage systems. Runoff from the public road would be
discharged to an infiltration sump located at the eastern end of the public road. Runoff
from the private road would be managed via a catch basin and underground piping
discharging to a linear on-site infiltration trench on the north side of the private road.
Infiltration would be utilized control runoff from each residence. Exhibit 1. Staff Report
(Plat), pages 6 and 7; Exhibit 10, Environmental Checklist, page 19. Exhibit I1..Sictff
Evaluation of Checklist, pages 6-8: Exhibit 12, FDNS: Exhibit 25; Exhibit 27: Exhibit
28; Exhibit 31. Composite Utility Plan: Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
24. Winchester Heights Condominium Homeowners Association (Winchester Heights HOA)
submitted both written and oral comments. Written comments pertained primarily to the
SEPA review and requested conditions, which would limit the amount of vegetation
removed and access to sensitive areas. In addition, Winchester Heights HOA stated that
the proposed R3 zone would allow for a significantly different building scheme than the
one proposed and evaluated in the SEPA checklist. Mr. Robert Beatty, President of
Winchester Heights HOA, stated that although the proposal currently under consideration
is far better than the 1996 proposal, The HOA is concerned about vegetation removal,
erosion of the steep slopes, and impairment to urban wildlife passage. The City
responded that Condition N6.13b of the MDNS requires installation of a permanent fence_
- to control intrusion into the property's steep slopes and buffers; that vegetation removal
is not proposed in critical areas; and that under the R3 zone a total of 16 residences (8
duplexes) could be constructed, and that the construction of duplexes instead of single-
family residences would not substantially change the impacts of the project. Exhibit 13.
Winchester Heights Letter; Exhibit 14, City's Response: Testimony of Mr. Beatty.
25. Comments were received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Exhibit 17) who asserted
that priority was not given to archaeological resources that may be on-site. The Tribe
asserted that MDNS Condition No. 20 does not adequately protect archaeological sites
because it is retrospective. The City responded to these comments (Exhibit 18) stating
that the Applicant has volunteered to prepare a Resource Assessment Report to
investigate the potential for archaeological and cultural resources on the subject property.
Ms. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist for the Tribe, met with the Applicant regarding the
proposed project. After review of the geotechnical report, Ms. Murphy concluded that a
professional archaeologist be retained to survey the property for the presence of
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams-Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page 10 of 18
significant archaeological resources. City Staff testified that the Staff Report
erroneously states that the MDNS has been modified to reflect the Tribe's request; the
MDNS has not been modified. At the public hearing, City Staff submitted an additional
condition requiring the preparation of a Cultural Resource Assessment prior to issuance
of permits (Exhibit IA). Exhibit IA. Additional Condition; Exhibit 17, Letter Irom
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Exhibit 18, City's Response to Tribe; Exhihn 42; Memo Irom
Ms. Murphy; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
26. Access to the site would be via Hemlock Street SE. Applicant proposes construction of a
public street on an undeveloped right-of-way that extends approximately 290 feet east of
Hemlock Street SE, terminating in a cul-de-sac. Applicant intends to develop Tract A
and Tract C as private streets for access to the development from the right-of-way
extension from Hemlock Street SE. The proposed streets would be designated as a "Local
Residential Street" under the City's Design and Construction Standards. Exhibit 1. Staff
Report (Plat), page 6; Exhibit 28, Letter from DMP Inc.; Testimony of Mr. Dixon;
Testimony of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Ms. Breckenridge.
27. City Standards require that the roadway be 28 -feet wide with parking allowed only on
one side.l` The Applicant stated that the property's topography allows for only a
roadway of 24 -feet in width. Ms. Breckenridge testified that a 28 -foot roadway would
require removal of mature conifer trees along Ms. Breckenridge's northern property line.
Exhibit 1. Staff Report (Plat), page 6; Exhibit 28, Letter from DMP Inc.; Testimony of
Mr. Dixon; Testimony of Mr. Welsh; Testimony of Ms. Breckenridge.
28. Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Policy TRO and the City's Design and Construction
Standards, Section 10.02.5.2, a dead end street may not exceed 600 feet in length.
Applicant proposes a private street of approximately 1000 feet, denoted as 26'h Street SE.
A deviation request is required for streets in excess of City standards. Applicant has
submitted the deviation request and it has been reviewed by the City Public Works staff.
Public Works determined that the deviation request is supportable but is deferring
approval until after the preliminary plat has been approved in order to ensure_ consistency
with the City Council's decision.tb No Public Works documents were submitted into the
record. Mr. Welsh, City Transportation Engineer, testified that the City is recommending
approval of the 1000 foot roadway so long as Applicant provides two opportunities for
vehicle tum -around plus emergency access. A tum -around will be provided at the
entrance to the development, at the western edge of Tract C, and will be dedicated to the
City.'? Tract A will provide for the additional tum -around. A 'crash gate' for emergency
access purposes will be located at the eastern end of the proposed private street,
providing access through the adjacent mobile home park. Exhibit 1, ,Staff Report (Plat).
page 6; Exhibit 28, Letter from DMP Inc.; Testimony of Mr. Dixon Testimony q/ Mr.
Welsh; Testimony of Ms. Breckenridge.
1s City standards require two traffic lanes 14 feet in width with one side available for parking and marked as a fire
lane. Section 10.01.3.1 and Section 10.01.3.4.
16 It is noted that the process of deviation used in this matter may not be consistent with RCW 36.706.
'7 The area to be dedicated to the City is denoted on the Site Plans as a hatched area on the western edge of "haat C.
Exhibit 29, page L `
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page IIofIS
29. The southern portion of the subject property, Tract B, is approximately 6.2 acres. This
portion of the property is designated as Open Space under the City's Comprehensive Plan
and Applicant proposes to dedicate it to the City of Auburn and have it encumbered by a
Native Growth Conservation Easement (NGPE) to ensure its preservation. Exhibit 1.
Staff Report (Rezone), page 5; Testimony of Mr. Dixon..
30. Pursuant to ACC 17.12.260, the dedication of park land is generally not required for a
development of fewer than 50 dwelling units. Applicant proposes construction of only 8
dwelling units. ACC 17.12.260; Exhibit 1, Staff
Dixon. Report (Plat). page 5: Testimony o1 Mr.
31. Public comments were received on impacts to wildlife. Applicant's SEPA documents
state only songbirds and rodents were observed and that there are no known threatened or
endangered animal or plant species on or near the site. The City's evaluation of SEPA
documents concurred, finding that urban wildlife will be impacted by the proposed
development but that preservation of existing vegetation and re -vegetation could reduce
the adverse impacts to local wildlife. The City would seek to protect any threatened or
endangered species identified on the property as required by law. Condition No. 13(b)
of the Final MDNS requires construction of a permanent fencing at the boundary of the
steep slope setbacks to control human intrusion into the sensitive area, allowing for its
preservation as wildlife habitat. The condition requires the fence to be a minimum of 3.5
feet that would probably not impair urban wildlife passage. Re -vegetation of the steep
slope setbacks and limitation on human intrusion into the sensitive area will also serve to
lesson erosion of the slope thereby reducing sediment discharge into the adjacent White
River, a salmonid bearing river. 18 Exhibit 10, Environmental Checklist, pages 8-9:
Exhibit 11, Staff Evaluation of Checklist, pages 9-10: Exhibit 12, Final MDNS, pages 15-
16, Exhibit 23; Testimony of Mr. Beatty; Testimony of Ms. Breckenridge.
32. Due to the size of the proposed development, the City did not require a Traffic Impact
Analysts (TIA). Traffic impact fees will be required at the time of issuance each single-
family residence building permit. ACC 19.04: Exhibit 1, Staff Report (Plat), page 6:
Exhibit 11, Staff Evaluation of Checklist, page 13.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear
and make recommendations to the City Council. Jurisdiction for the Hearings Examiner to make
is The White River and its tributaries serve as spawning, rearing and transportation areas for Chinook, pink, chum,
and coho salmon, as well as winter steelhead and cutthroat trout. The native spring run Chinook salmon is listed
under the Endangered Species Act as threatened. Sediment discharge into the river and its tributaries is seen as an
impairment to water quality and salmon habitat. Washington Conservation Commission, "Salmon Habitat Lhniiing
Factors - WRIA l0" (July 1999).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Pre I im i nary Plat
Page 12 of IS
recommendations for an application for rezone is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(1)) and 18.68.030
and for an application for preliminary plat is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(A) and 17.06.050.
Criteria for Review:
In order TO APPROVE A REZONE, the Hearings Examiner must find that the following
criteria, as set forth in ACC 18.68, are satisfied:
1. The rezone shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezone was initiated by a party, other than the City, in order for the Hearing
Examiner to hold a public hearing and consider the request.
3. Any change or modification to the rezone request made by the Hearing Examiner or the
City Council will not result in a more intense zone than the one requested.
In addition to the requirements set forth in ACC 18.68, the Washington Supreme Court" has
stated that prior to approval of a rezone, the Applicant must demonstrate that:
1. The rezone is based on a change in neighborhood conditions.
2. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
In order TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT, pursuant to ACC 17.06.070, the Applicants
must have provided support for the following:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for
open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary
wastes, parks, and sites for schools and school grounds.
2. Conformance to the general purposes of the City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, to the
general purpose of Title 17.02, and to the general purposes of any other applicable
policies or plan that have been adopted by the City Council.
3. Conformance to the City ofAuburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable planning
or engineering standard and specifications.
4. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that the
proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or abate
public nuisances.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. Res Judicata does not bar the rezone application. Whether Res Judicata bars approval
of the current rezone application depends essentially on whether there is an identity of
subject matter between the first and second rezone applications. The Washington State
Supreme Court has previously stated that a second application on a land use proposal
19 Parlvidge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454; 573 P.2d 359 (1978)
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams-RezonelPreliminaty Plat
Pale 13 of 18
may be considered, without violating the Res Judicata doctrine, if there is a substantial
change in circumstances or conditions relevant to the application or a substantial change
in the application itself. Hilltop, 126 Wn. 2d at 33. In 1997, the Auburn City Council
denied the Applicant's request for rezone due to the fact that adequate environmental
review, primarily geotechnical review, had not been conducted and a development
proposal had not been presented. In Ordinance 5038, the City Council specifically stated
that if the Applicant presented a development proposal and corresponding geological
reports, a rezone could be considered. In the current application, the Applicant requests
rezone -of not only the northern portion of the property but of the full parcel. The
Applicant has submitted a development proposal, SEPA documents, and a geotechnical
report. Although the request has similarities to the 1996 request, the application has been
changed substantially and the necessary environmental documents have been submitted
and are available for review. The current application is substantially different from the
1996 application and is thus not barred by the doctrine of Res Judicata. Findings ojFoci
Nos. 1, 2, 11. 12. and 13.
2. The rezone was initiated by the Applicant -Property Owner and not the City.
Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030(B)(1), in order for the Hearing Examiner to hold a public
hearing and consider a rezone request, the rezone must not be initiated by the City. The
Applicant is the owner of the property subject to the rezone. Finding of Fact No. 9.
3. Conditions in the area have substantially changed and the rezone bears a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
A. In considering a rezone, the Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating that
conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning and that the rezone
bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978). A variety of factors may be utilized to
satisfy a change in circumstances including changes in public opinion, local land use
patterns, and on the property itself. Bjarnson v. Kitsap County. 78 Wn. App. 840.
846 (Div. 1, 1995). Finding of Fact No.- 20
B. The goals and regulatory provisions of the GMA create a 'framework' that guides and
give a broad range of discretion to local jurisdictions in the development of
comprehensive plans and development regulations. RCW 36 70A.3201. Neither the
GMA nor the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to the GMA directly regulate
site-specific land use activities, but it is the local development regulations, includine
zoning regulations, which direct the individual landowners. Viking Properties v.
Holm, WA Supreme Court Docket 75240-1, decided Aug. 18, 2005, RCW
36.70A.030(7); Cougar Mountain Assocs. v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742. 757
(1988) (finding that a conflict between a zoning ordinance and a comprehensive plan
will be resolved by applying the zoning ordinance). The City's argument that the
Growth Management Hearing Board's (GMHB) four dwelling unit 'bright line' rule
justifies the rezone has possibly been weaken by the Washington Supreme Court's
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Pa, -,e 14 of 18
recent decision in Viking Properties, supra. In the Viking Properties case'(), the Court
stated that the GMHB has no authority to make such a rule because it amounted to
`public policy' and that the GMA creates only a general framework not `bright line'
rules. In finding that the GMA creates no bright line rules, the Court noted that the
existence of a covenant that predated the enactment of the GMA allows for the local
jurisdiction to exercise the broad discretion granted under the GMA. Id.
In 1997, the City's Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the rezone due to the
fact that the R3 zone implemented the Comprehensive Plan's Moderate Density
Residential designation. Despite intervening amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, this designation has not changed. The fact that the existing
zoning pre -dates the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan, a plan that has since
been amended three times, and the fact that the proposal is consistent with the goals
and policies of the existing Comprehensive Plan, gives credence to the `change in
circumstances' within the community warranting a rezone of the property. Except for
its southern border, the subject property is completely surrounded by dense residential
and light commercial development. Both the Comprehensive Plan designation and
the surrounding land uses justify the rezone of the northern portion of the property.
Findings of Fact No. 7, 8, 10, 18, 19, and 20.
C. The southern portion of the property, Tract B, does not carry the Moderate Density
Residential designation but rather an Open Space designation under the
Comprehensive Plan and is bordered by the White River and its associated buffer.
Rezone of this portion of the property to R3 would be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The community's general welfare would not be served by the
rezone of Tract B and public policy would not justify this rezone, as open space is
currently being preserved and protected for future residents and the environment.
Findings of Fact No. 7, 17, and 29.
4. The Hearing Examiner is not recommending any change or modification to the
rezone request that will result in a more intense zone than the one requested by the
Applicant.
5. The rezone and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
other applicable goals and policies of the City Council.
The Director of Planning determined that the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The goals and policies of the City Council are embraced in the
City's Comprehensive Plan and ACC. A portion of the subject property is designated as
Moderate Density Residential on the City's LUM. The balance of the property is
designated as Open Space on the City's LUM. The recommended rezone of the property
will allow for development that is consistent with the established land use pattern in the
20 The Viking Properties case dealt with a covenant that dated back to the late 1930s and limited density to I
dwelling unit per half -acre lot.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page 15 of 18
vicinity and with the Moderate Density Residential designation of the site. Findinj�s of
Fact Nos. 7, 8, 10, 18, 19, and 29.
6. The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, water supplies, sanitary wastes,
parks, playgrounds, or schools.
Applicant has submitted a development proposal that adequately addresses water,
sanitary sewer, and stormwater drainage. Creation of Tract B and dedication to the City
provides for open space and serves the community's general welfare by increasing the
City's acreage of open space and protecting the steep slope area from erosion which
could result in increased sedimentation of the White River. Although the Applicant has
had no communication with the Auburn School District, due to the limited size of the
development and the requirement to pay impact fees to the District, established fees
should adequately address the minimal impact the District will incur. Roadways have
been conditioned to provide safe travel lanes; sidewalks must be included to ensure sate
passage for children walking to and from schools and/or school bus stops. Findings of .
Fact Nos. 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 29.
7. The Preliminary Plat is in conformance with the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance
and any other applicable planning or engineering standard and specifications.
As conditioned, the Applicants' proposal is in compliance with all related City codes and
standards. Findings of Fact Nos. 18 and 19.
8. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that the
proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
All conditions set forth in the MDNS have been incorporated in this recommendation.
Mitigation measures should adequately mitigate environmental impacts. Findings off'
Fact Nos. 14, 15. 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, and 32.
9. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or
abate public nuisances.
Public nuisances are referred to throughout the ACC and are spoken to directly in ACC
8.12. A public nuisance is something that affects public health and property values by
creating visual blight, harbors rodents and/or pests, or creates unsafe pedestrian and
traffic situations. Compliance with City design standards, such as standards for road
safety (width, sidewalks, visibility) will ensure safe pedestrian and traffic access within
the development. As recommended, the development of a Homeowners' Association and
the associated Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions will ensure that visual blights and
dangers to public health are reduced/eliminated, thereby promoting both general public
welfare and protecting property values. Findings of Fact Nor. 19, 26, 2'. and 28.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Page 16 of 18
RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Auburn City Council DENIAL of a rezone from
Rural Residential to Duplex Residential of the southern portion of the subject property_
approximately 6.2 acres The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Auburn City Council
APPROVAL of a rezone from Rural Residential and Residential Mobile Home Park to Two -
Family (Duplex) Residential of only the northern portion of the subject property, approximately
6.8 acres, and APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat for "Adams Vista." a single-family
residential subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat is conditioned upon the approval of the
requested rezone (Rezone Application No. REZ04-0006), changing the zoning
designation from Rural Residential (RR) and Residential Mobile Home Park
(RMHP) to Two -Family (Duplex) Residential (R3).
2. In order to ensure the accurate placement of homes/structures in relationship to
the setbacks required from property lines, easements, or other similar features
associated with a lot, the City's Building Official may require that all applicable
comers of the structure be surveyed and staked prior to the pouring of footings or
foundations.
3. The structures located on Lots 2 through 8 must be served by a grinder pump unit
to provide sanitary sewer service as approved by the City's Sanitary Sewer
Engineer. This requirement shall be noted on the Final Plat.
4, The City should accept dedication of Tract B, the sloped hillside. as a sensitive
open space. The tract should be publicly dedicated and protected by a Native
Growth Conservation Easement (NGCE) to ensure its protection. If accepted.
Applicant must provide the City with an access easement across Lot 8 or the
boundary between Tract B and Lot 8 must be adjusted to provide Tract_B frontage
onto the new street, proposed as 26"' Street SE, to provide public access. If
the City does not accept dedication of Tract B, the property will still be
encumbered by a Native Growth Conservation Easement.
5. The Preliminary Plat shall be revised to meet the City's Design and Construction
Standards - Section 10.01.3.1 and Section 10.01.3.4. These two sections require
that the project's public and private street segments shall be designed to the local
street standard that most closely reflects their intended use. As determined by the
City Engineer, the applicable standard would be the "Local Residential Street"
standard which requires a 28 -foot wide roadway. The "Local Residential Street"
standard would ensure that one side of the street does not permit parking and is
designated as a fire lane. The internal road system, both public and private, shall
have a sidewalk on at least one side of the street to provide safe walking passage
for school children.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Pa --,c 17 of 18
6. Prior to the issuance of grading, land clearing, or any permits for ground
disturbing activities, the Applicant shall retain a professional archaeologist to
prepare a Cultural Resource Assessment Report and provide a copy to the City
and to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The project shall implement the
recommendations of the Cultural Resource Assessment Report as determined by
the Planning Director.
7. All mitigating conditions set forth in the Final Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance, issued on July 20, 2005. for the rezone of the property and the
proposed plat are incorporated into this recommendation and shall be adhered to.
8. A Homeowners Association should be created. Proposed Conditions, Covenants.
and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted
for review and approval by City Staff prior to final plat approval.
Decided this --�— day of September, 2005.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
Hearings Examiner for the City of Auburn
Monte Adams -Rezone/Preliminary Plat
Driscoll "
gs Examiner for the City of Auburn
Page 18 of 18
September 28, 2005
Memo to City of Auburn
Duplication of the document Motion for Reconsideration of Hearing Examiner's
Decision (S 4 2005 ay be duplicated with color photos in color.
Frary H. Breckenridge
RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 2005
pLANNING WARTMENT
09/27/2005 22:42 8516225 PAGE 01/02
FROM : BRECKEWIDGE PjaE NO. : 2M833d819 SLP. 28 2005 05:34AM P2
BEFORE THE AUBURN CITY HEARING EXAMINER
in re Manta of Application ofMont Adorns
MOTION FOR RECON3@ERATtON
re Application REZ04.0006 and PLT04-M I OF HEAMO WWMIIM S DEagION
Comm NO4v Me. 191= midge and seek MCOWWM*m of the Heatiaag BxaroiDwr's
"Skm, dated Sepkmber 14, 2005, in In Re Matter OfAppliwdm of Mosis Adaau, REZw
40061 PLT04- 0 . Ms. Btecklridge amka a sligbt atieaatian is the dsddm of tiro B= nbw to
allow prates of the Itees looded on Iter Ply, =hr acoria to the proposed A4ww
devel,DMern wad south faring banks, makft. Tbw Motion for RmonstderetW is based on the
mPort of Robin w wflumns, Cmsuftho wbmisk dkftd Augaat 30.200. (A l) Ms.
BrwkoaMV owns m6dmgW Phoperty at 2610 Hcmlwk Drive SB, which is adjacent rn ft
PWposed m*&visdon.
The deckdon of the Hearing bmniw Deeds to be slightly sttalxed because the
aWficaWs Faelhaitaary Pla daawho Bail to Dhow Bae axiatroca of Detre than twmivo (12)
s*'5a2t trees'mmediately ID the east ofihe Brwkmddgo Ply, only two (2) maple trees
Oft idit"Od (AUac m M 2 and 3). Removal of dhow trees in coWuncttoo wlth oonah xdq
a
road on 4te C1ty nght„d �y artd the oweRtly p mkof the twn around which is adjacaaet
W& l ridge's pWarty, will raatlt in da lose afoot ady 1) lura. bmcbmid® s Uses, 2)
safety and Vc tw monftnvmbgfty gqr amorSmay vahi01e dnvas, 3) ngmgcaM stabilizgm of
the SDUdtWW= corm of AdWW irivts ad the sow pow of Ms. Bmckeeadge+s
book, but it will also 4) gun azme tlta Ummuotattd'sc=oachmmt into the cro*,a aetbwk
(Pietas Onto on AtfaebmmW 4 *ere are only two Dor stabaIZWS, ,her cast prol>arts•'s bade If the
Um for the c ffeWy P *Powd tetra U* and we CM thole two D gr will Petiah due to a book of
bunt Potion fim fiver winds.
M71WKFORRF nWftthRRA7T(W- 7
09/27/2005 22:42 8515225 PAGE 02(02
FROM : BWOKENRI GE
Further, arborist Williams' M&LYMS 9400Y altars the design Of the new road to prevent
damage to the roots Of trees located on the BreckaddIpproperWS north boundary. %
] ridge dart WpVd Marr J Jacobs, PE, PME of MD% Trak n? Inc. on
AWMA 25,2005. He stated that he had woded with the City°a Tl%ft Plantar. bek
're
and the
PTIS oabc and doable achdiona could be nwhad
to aecouaphish a 28' wile street_ Mr. Jacobs
justified the d oo emcee beeaase the "tweaks" honored the in-depth andyafa by cent
arborist Williams and goo teclmicd XMcipal ftWnCM J.nmadear, The alight dif kranm still
gives lite MY Of Auburn a 28' wide arrest and shifts the tum around further cast where ft Iand
widNStS and the set bock is not violated. AttaohaMant 6 does show a rwanded corner where
Hemlock Street SE joins 262,%vet SE. This facilitates the ease and safety of smergeney
vehicles tunuW rather than a sharp 90 degree ft*, Tho rounded comer also saves the City's
D.fir stand and its incheion ileo the news, landaeapiagPfd by the Cttp It also
allows the nordlern batch' of the WW Str0a to butt to the emOmmes northern boundary. R is mt
S my Pie of private pnapaty-
Ms' %eckenridip has mqwmd only stightt chMSM in theZxatniner,, decisim
Un bttunaWY, the plat doctuncM did not show the sees immediately abates the ileacs lite on
the mss' WoMW. ffius, it was not po� to sweat the effects of the proposed projects on
such trees. Further, chapag the moa of 26th Sweet SE would promote the safety ad
cOuvellisbaa of the public.
DATED tbUY— day of September, 2005.
ATTACHMENT i
To
Frary Breckenridge
3319 20`x' St. SE,
Auburn 98092
8/30/05
Overview
90356 46lti Avs NS
SsM**Ms WA 989 25
PftM04M3 6SZ 726=
Pax (306) S66 0373
www�tr��� rf sp�cMr. ¢ o r�
Plans are underway for the development of the property adjacent to the
Breckenridge property at 2610 Hemlock Dr. in the City of Auburn. Current plans
include the installation of an access road and tum -around. Future plans may
involve the removal of trees immediately to the east of the Breckenridge property.
A Tree Inspection was requested to evaluate the health and condition of trees on
the Breckenridge property. The evaluation was to assess the effects of the
proposed construction on the trees and to advise on the potential repercussions
of the removal of the trees immediately abutting the fence -line.
This is the report of the site visit and the Tree Inspection, which took place
on 8/29/05.
Tree Inspection
To develop an accurate picture of tree health, information must be
gathered about the multiple, changeable, influences which shape tree vitality and
stability. Vital, healthy tree growth is the result of a complex arrangement of
many aspects and influences and to consider each tree as an isolated entity is to
fall short in understanding the whole picture. As a practical matter, t'�is
information must be gathered and structured in the best way to communicate the
results of the observations and to impart any recommendations for treatment.
Individual tree inspection begins at ground level; tree genus and species is
determined and soil quality, rooting conditions, soil level, irrigation and drainage
characteristics are observed. Soil is a living micro -system that relies on an active
working relationship between material and living components. The physical
condition of the soil is most commonly adversely effected.
The quality of the soil may be
assessed in its ability to contain
and disperse available moisture
and the level of soil compaction
may be tested to evaluate the
aeration capacity of the soil.
Some soil types are easily
compacted and although they are
high in nutrient quantity, little of
that nutrient quality is available to _�
the growing tree. The heavy
equipment used in construction or
frequent traffic of any kind can --------
cause sensitive soils to become compacted. Compact soils cause problems by
restricting the trees ability to discharge the gasses produced as part of the
growth cycle. The visible parts of the tree; the trunk, branches and leaves live in
balance with the unseen roots. Damage to the soil leads to inhibited root growth
and causes a lack of vitality and decline within the tree as a whole. The effects of
construction in soil compaction may not become apparent for decades.
2
If signs of stress are present, a soil test may be made to assess the
fertility of the soil. Testing establishes the presence and degree of vital nutrients
and micro -flora. Vital soil is essential to vital tree growth, the presence of
rJi'
,a
cls
nutrients and organisms within the soil
mean that growth can continue. An
imbalance of nutrients can cause poor
vitality; often exhibited by leaf
discoloration or lack of annual growth.
Poor nutrition will slow growth and can
diminish the trees natural defense
mechanisms and expose the tree to
disease.
In nature, few tree species grow
alone; the forest is their natural and
protected setting. Whether native or
introduced, irregardless of a trees origin;
trees in a landscape setting demand
special attention. Although bound by the genetic code of its predecessors each
tree is also the product of its local environment in terms of health and stability.
Looking at the overall picture, the health of the soil, turf and other plants
and trees can reveal the cause of disease, or indicate potential problems. The
presence of certain species of fungus can indicate decay. Certain decay funai
may destroy support tissues and leave conductive tissues unharmed. The tree
may appear healthy and continue to grow until the internal decay outpaces the
new outer growth.
3
3
A root crown
examination may be
necessary if root decay is
suspected. By removing the
soil at the base of the tree, the
location. health and condition
of the absorbing and support
roots can be determined.
In the primary examin-
ation of the root crown and
trunk a mallet is used to test
for loose bark. Bark lifting can indicate dead or hollow areas and give signs of the
presence of decay in the root crown zone and at the base of the trunk. The mallet
may be used to "sound" for decay but has limited reliability. If decay is suspected
the tree will be tested using the Resistograph. The Resistograph is an instrument
that inserts a constant velocity probe into the suspect area of the tree. The
resistance to the probe is graphed by the machine. The graph profile can tell a
great deal about the internal character of the wood. Internal defects can be
detected, cracks, hollows and early stage decay. The type of decay and its effect
on the stability of the wood depends on the species of fungus involved. Soil and
root tissue samples may be taken to determine the cause of disease by
laboratory testing.
El
The inspection continues with an
evaluation of the tree crown, first by eye or
with the use of binoculars then, if
necessary, by climbing into the canopy of
the tree. The color, size and condition of
the leaves, trunk, branches and twigs is
assessed. The form and formation of all
the trees components give information
about health, vitality and structural
strength. The crown density, the number of
leaves on each stem, and past and current
growth extension, indicate current health
and reveal previous problems. Changes in
growth rate in older growth may indicate prior disease or injury.
An evaluation of the general growth habit will reveal any problems related
to vigor, or the genetic component of tree growth. Previous treatments such as
pruning or cabling are observed, the quality of the work, and its effect on the tree.
Any growth abnormalities are noted : weak limbs, discolored or missing bark,
cracks or cavities in branches or trunks and the presence of disease within the
canopy of the tree in the form of leaf blight, stem canker or insect activity.
Trees produce adaptive growth to compensate for the stress related to
growth and injury. The shape and formation of limbs and trunks can show the
ability of the tree to compensate for weakness or indicate internal problems that
may lead to failure. The interpretation of these changes in form is part of a
growing body of knowledge pioneered in Europe. The knowledge is not new but
the application is: Dr. Claus Mattheck of the Karlsruhe Institute and colleagues,
have developed a system of structural evaluation based on the principals of bio-
engineering. I have chosen to use this approach to augment my own knowledge
and experience.
5
Observations
Eleven Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) were
examined in all. The trees with
their Diameters at Breast
Height (DBH is measured at
4.5') are listed below, they were
inventoried from west to east,
the tree on the left of the
photograph is tree 1.
1.
DBH 28"
2.
DBH 18"
3.
DBH 27"
4.
DBH 23"
5.
DBH 21"
6.
DBH 21"
7.
DBH 17"
8.
DBH 12"
9.
DBH 31"
10,
DBH 16"
11.
DBH 34"
The trees show good overall condition and
appear to have been maintained over time.
Maintenance has included the removal of
deadwood and shade limbs on the lower trunk.
With moderate to good overall vitality, leaf color
and growth extension, the trees are free from
significant defect or disease. The site appears to
have been free from disturbance for a number of
years and the trees have developed in response
to the lack of disturbance. The site is not highly
maintained or regularly irrigated. Given site
conditions and the location of the trees, in close proximity to the fence -line,
A
the roots of the trees may be expected to extend into the City of Auburn right of
way which is proposed for development.
With the north -south orientation of the lot, which is at the top of a bluff, the
trees on the Breckenridge property are highly exposed to wind and weather. The
trees on the neighboring property to the east and southeast form a contiguous
stand with the trees on the Breckenridge property and provide shelter from the
prevailing wind which comes from the southeast out of the White river valley.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Of primary concern is the potential for damage to the Douglas firs on the
north fence -line. To preclude damage to the roots of the trees, precautions will be
necessary. Design accommodations and specialized construction techniques will
be necessary to avoid catastrophic damage.
Common misconceptions about the size, shape and location of
tree root systems are the main reason that so much damage occurs to trees
during construction. In normal conditions the major woody support roots of most
trees grow within three feet of the surface and the majority of the fibrous,
absorbing roots are commonly found within six inches of the surface.
This proximity to the surface makes them very susceptible to damage. In this
case the lack of regular irrigation and the site conditions will ensure that the tree
roots are close to the surface particularly on the north side.
To minimize the deleterious effect of excavating, grading and the
installation of the roadway design measures will be necessary. Roadway design
should make the following accommodations:
• Minimize roadbed width.
Allow the maximum distance from the trees to remain undisturbed, without
excavation or grading.
Allow flexibility in the placement of curbstone footings to accommodate
any woody roots that are uncovered during hand digging.
7
Construction techniques should also be modified to accommodate tree
growth.
• Minimize compaction of roadbed substrate.
• Use hand digging techniques within the dripline area of the trees (the
dripline extends 20' from the current fence -line.
• Use porous road surfacing to allow gas exchange between tree roots and
the surface and to allow water infiltration.
Also of concern is the effect the removal of the trees on the adjacent lot to the
east will have on the trees on
the trees on the Breckenridge
property. The neighboring trees
provide lateral support and
protection for the Breckenridge
trees. The Breckenridge tree
canopies and root systems
` have developed in relation to
the protection provided by the
neighboring trees. Any
reduction in that protection by the removal of the trees, will lead to an increase in
the likelihood of wind -snap and windthrow. The increase in the likelihood of tree
failure produces an elevated level of hazard posed by trees. The hazard relates
to the potential for damage or injury in the case of the failure of part, or all of one
or more of the trees.
I hope this information proves useful. Please let me know if there are further
questions.
Yours scerely,
Robert W. Williams
Consulting Arborist, PNO176A
Ell
ATTACHMENT
HI
D
n� m
a_ Dm�m3Nto
3
of=a II=
om*1Zw0
o 1Z. (A
>Jr WGG
c90
X
VVVVV
-ATTACHMENT3
ATTACHMENT 4
�
*k—y
t 2
�
ItmL GEOTECHNCIAL SERVICES. INC
Retainine Walls. Slone Stabilitv. Soil & Rock Mechanics. wormwarer rveananev:
August 14, 2005
`''_e Hearing Examiner
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Regarding: Adams Vista Rezone, SEP04-0033
Dear Sir:
Ms. Frary Breckenridge; the owner of grorleriy Located at 26LO Hemlock. Street, adQWDPt ft gxoVXty
owned by Mr. Adams (and the proposed access to that property) has retained this company's services to
provide comments and opinions regarding certain geotechnical aspects of the above -referenced rezone. We
have previous experience of the area, and performed a geotechnical investigation of Ms. Breckenridge's
property in 1999, with a follow-up re-evaluation in 2003. In order to provide her with the following
opinions we have (a) reviewed the geotechnical report prepared for DMP Inc. by the engineering firm of
Golder Associates, addressing grading plans and other issues such as building setbacks, buffer zones,
subsurface conditions, and slope stability, and (b), visited the site and carried out a visual examination of
certain key areas. Our review of the site and the materials referred to above has left us with the impression
that the City of Auburn has displayed a somewhat cavalier approach to this project. Ms. Breckenridge has
three primary concerns regarding the development. These are:
The proposed location of a 90 -foot diameter turnaround at the northeast comer of her property_
The apparent inadequacy of measures being proposed by the City of Auburn to restrict public
access to the designated Sensitive Area Tact B.
The proposed removal of three large evergreen trees adjacent to the northwest comer of her
property, and within 23 feet of her property, and 30 feet of several equally large evergreen
trees within her property.
These issues are discussed below; the first two are related, and shall be treated as one issue in the following
section. Ms. Breckenridge's concern is, in our opinion, well founded, based upon the proximity to the
slope crest of the proposed turnaround. As noted above, the proposed location for the 90 -foot wide
turnaround is immediately adjacent to the northeast corner of the Breckenridge property, and as shown on
the plan prepared by DMP Inc. provides for a widening to the south only, of the existing 50 -foot private
street. The plan prepared by DMP shows this as being possible while still providing a setback of barely 40
feet from the crest of the bluff. In actual fact, this is impossible. First of all, it should be noted that the
Golder Associates report recommends a minimum setback of 30 feet from the crest of the bluff for all
construction, and goes on to state a preference for 50 -foot setback. As geotechnical engineers we
unequivocally endorse these recommendations. However, the situation on the ground shows that the plan
as shown on the DMP drawing is in fact not an option without permanently violating the minimum setback
recommended by Golder Associates. The area upon which the proposed turnaround would be constructed
is marked by a gully, the south edge of which approximately coincides with the eastern boundary of the
Breckenridge property. The topographical map provided by DMP shows that this gully reaches a depth of
14 feet (confirmed by our own inspection) within 85 feet of the Breckenridge property line, thus the
construction of the turnaround at this location will require a 14 -foot lift of compacted fill. This fill would
then have to be extended to the east to carry the proposed private road to the east side of the gully. At this
point it should be noted that the Golder Associates report also recommends that the out -slopes of any
embankment
ovvy Jon Court SE Telephone. 360-413-1745
Olympia, WA 98513 Fax: 360-413-3917
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Retaining Walls, Slope Stability Analyses, Soil & Rock Mechanics, Stormwater Management
-2-
composed of compacted fill shall not be inclined at more than 2H: IV, and again goes on to say that an
inclination of 3H: 1V would be preferable. To comply with these recommendations (with which we
completely agree; these are commonly accepted geotechnical standards) it will therefore be necessary to
extend the actual foot print of the turnaround considerably beyond that shown on the DMP plan. It is
standard procedure when placing structures on compacted fill (unless the fill is contained by an engineered
retaining wall) to extend the compacted fill a minimum of 5 feet beyond the limit of the structure, in this
case the pavement and/or sidewalk. Taking all of these geotechnical realities into consideration means that
the footprint of the proposed turnaround would result in a permanent and irreversible encroachment of 33
feet into the minimum allowable setback of 30 feet from the crest of the bluff. Even if the crest of the bluff
were to be, in actual fact, 40 feet from the edge of the pavement as it is shown on the DMP drawing this
would result in a serious violation of the Golder recommendations, and result in the permanent removal of
a number of trees unacceptably close to the bluff crest. In fact, measurements made at the scene reveal that
the crest of the bluff is barely 30 feet from the edge of the pavement as proposed on the DMP drawing.
Thus the construction of the turnaround in this location would result in placing fill on or over the crest of
the bluff, an unacceptable proposition from both a geotechnical and also an environmental point of view.
The alternative would be to contain the fill within a retaining wall, but this would result in very
considerable expense, and would still entail the removal of frees close to the crest of the bluff, and some
encroachment into the recommended construction setback. A further consideration is that by constrncting
the turnaround at this location, where the road is at its' closest to the crest of the bluff, significant weight
would be added to an area just behind the crest, posing the risk of triggering a failure down-slope of surface
mantle soils during periods of prolonged heavy min, possible coupled with a major seismic event. We
consider such an event unlikely but by no means outside the realms of possibility. It is worthy of note, at
this point, that the Golder report states quite clearly that the areas most at risk from shallow landslides are
the near -crest section of the western end of the slope, i.e., the area in which the proposed turnaround would
be situated.
To summarize, it is clearly not possible to build the proposed turnaround in the location shown on the DMP
drawings without drastically and permanently encroaching upon the recommended setback from the crest
of the bluff. Furthermore, the location being proposed seems to serve no logical purpose; it does not
provide for the need for large emergency vehicles such as fire engines to have ease of turning around
within the development and is, from a geotechnical view point, the least suitable site possible.
With regard to the matter of restricting public access to the Tract B Sensitive Area, we regard this as an
important element in protecting the area from activities that would promote erosion, such as creating trails
that could channel water, and other generally undesirable activities, such as dumping of garden waste and
other assorted trash. It is recommended that the south side of the road leading into the plat, from the
northeast comer of the Breckenridge property, be fenced with a chain link fence not less than 6 feet in
height.
In the matter of the trees at the northwest entrance to the Breckenridge property, the furthest north of these
is 23 feet from the northern Breckenridge property line. This leaves 27 feet in which to construct the
proposed private road. The "typical" private residential street cross section on the DMP drawing shows a
24 -foot paved road with a 5 -foot sidewalk and curb on one side and a roadside ditch on the other. If the
sidewalk width was reduced to 3 feet, and the roadside ditch replaced by a curb it should be possible to
construct the road along the north side of the right of way without taking out any of the trees. Given the
exposure of this site, and its proximity to the crest of a high, steep bluff, the matter of free removal becomes
critical. Given the shallow root penetration of trees in these soils; while we claim no particular expertise in
the matter, we feel that the possibility that uprooting these tress, that are within only a few feet of those
within the Breckenridge property, may adversely affect the stability of the latter, which are already very
exposed to winds from the south. We recommend that before these trees are removed, a person with
expertise in forest management or a related field should be consulted.
4ML Geotechnical Services. Inc.
Retaining Walls, Slope Stability Analyses, Soil & Rock Mechanics. Stormwater Manaeemen:
-3-
This study has been carried out in association with GeoResources LLC, 5007 Pacific Highway East (Suite
16� Fife, whose technical review we hereby gratefully acknowledge. We trust that you will find our
comments helpful in the furtherance of this project, and we will be happy to provide answers to any
questions that you may have regarding the contents of this letter.
Very truly vours, �"��_
AML Geotechnical / / Inc.
Alastav Lumsden, P. Eng.
Geotechnical EngineerlPresident
1
1'ai Sv?3.ti /
-az 06 iF ob
GeoResources LLC
jzt,3 L Cl-`
Kurt W. Groesch, P.E.
Principal
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Retaining W1dls, Slope Stahilili' Anolrses, Soil & Rock Mechanics, .Stonnwaler Management
Looking west along the line of the proposed private road, showing the
entrance from Hemlock Street. The trees at left are 23 feet from the
Breckenridge north property line, marked by the fence just visible
to the left of the trees. The northern edge of the road right of way
is marked by the small shrub at center right. Distance from the
stake marking the property corner (barely visible at left edge of
the shrub) to the trees is 27 feet
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Relaining Walls, Slope Slabllitp Anal3wes, Soil & Rack Mechanics, Stormwater hfanagement
Facing east from the Breckenridge property line, across the ravine
and part of the proposed turnaround footprint
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Retaining Walk, Slope Stahiliti, Ana�j•.ses, Soil & Rock Afechunics, SYornnvater.7imrtzgetitent
Looking southeast across the ravine and the footprint of the proposed turnaround.
Most of the vegetation shown ties within the recommended 30 -foot setback from
the slope crest and within the turnaround footprint,
and would be permanently destroyed.
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Retaining Walls, Slope Sfabilih'.Inahvses, Soil & RoeA Mechanics, Slornnvrrter A9atuigenrenI
General view from the east of the 50 -foot right of way leading in from Hemlock Street.
Breckenridge northern property line is marked by the wooden fence at left. This
shows the proximity of the trees within the Breckenridge property to those that
the City of Auburn wants to destroy within the right of way.
AML Geotechnical Services, Inc.
Relaining Walls, Slope Slahiliti, Analyses, Soil & Rock Mechanics, Stormwaler Management
View down-slope to the south from the proposed location of the turnaround.
The trees at near right are against the fence on the east side of the
Breckenridge property.
ATTACHMENT c
Turn/transition Hemlock
Street into 26th St. SE
booking YJest
rage i of
t'f.
Two Point Ht
type Turf
Looking South
L
zz
http://e2.emaii.excite.com/viewer.php/?m=l&mid=1322&p=2&ArdSI=Oc2814dd99ea639139d2gfa35c5l3... 9/4/200
October 11, 2005
James Driscoll
Auburn Hearing Examiner
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
Re: Monte Adams Re -Zone. REZ04-0006 & PIT04-0008
Dear Sir.
RECEIVE[
OCT 1 1 2005
PLANNING DEPART' ll_NT
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the request for reconsideration submitted by the
representative of Ms. Breckenridge. While our client sympathizes with Ms. Breckenridge's concerns,
we object to the request for reconsideration and request that it be denied on the following grounds:
• As Ms. Jane Ryan Kolar should be aware, an open record hearing was held on August 16,
2005 for the subject proposal. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the Examiner dosed the
public record. A review of the exhibit list in the Examiner's report found no listing of an
Arborist Report. The report is in fact dated two weeks after the public record was closed.
Ms. Koler should be aware that new information can not be entered into the public record
once the record is closed except under extreme circumstances of malice or falsehood. Ms.
Breckenridge was fully capable of presenting this information prior to or at the public hearing,
and the applicant took no extreme action to deprive Ms. Breckenridge, or the City, of any
critical information related to the proposal. We request that the Examiner disregard the report
and instruct Staff to not make it part of the public record, as well as remove any mention of
the report or its findings from the request for reconsideration prior to its presentation to the
City Council.
We respectfully assert that it is inappropriate for the Hearing Examiner to make detailed
engineering decisions as part of his approval of the re -zone and plat, except under extreme
circumstances. The Examiners current decision includes the enforcement of City road
standards. Any further analysis or site specific design should be allowed to occur between
the Applicant's Engineer and City Staff. Deviations in pavement profile, curb placement and
road alignment are best addressed during site design and not as part of the plat conditions.
Aside from the additional information presented in the Arborist's report, neither Ms.
Breckenridge nor Ms. Koler presents any new information or objection that was not raised in
the hearing. Neither party presents any flaw in the Examiner's decision or the Staff
presentation nor a point of law incorrectly applied. No facts in the case have been altered
and no allegations of false presentation have been made. On this basis, we see no grounds
for reconsideration.
Sincerely,
Hans A. KorW
Planning Manager
DMP Engineering
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
OF THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. REZ04-0006
PLT04-0008
Monte Adams )
Adams Vista Plat
For Preliminary Plat ) RESPONSE TO
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
BACKGROUND
Monte Adams, represented by Hans Korve of DMP Inc. (Applicant), requested approval
of a rezone of one parcel of land, approximately 13.14 acres, from Rural Residential and
Residential Mobile Home Park designation to Residential Duplex (R3). As a part of the
request, the Applicant sought approval of a preliminary plat subject to the new zoning
standards. The plat would divide the parcel into 8 lots for future single-family residential
development, an open space tract', and two privately owned and maintained tracts for
access and utilities. The subject property is located within the city limits of Auburn.
south of Auburn Way South and east of Hemlock Street.
An open record hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Auburnon
August 16, 2005. Eight individuals testified at that hearing and 50 exhibits were
admitted. Following a review of the testimony and exhibits, and based on the criteria
established by the City Council, on September 14, 2005 the Hearing Examiner issued a
recommendation for approval of a rezone for only the northern 6.8 acres of the property
and approval of the preliminary plat. Denial was recommended for the rezone for the
southern 6.2 acres. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation had eight conditions.
The City of Auburn issued the Hearing Examineesrecommendationto, the -public on
September 21, 2005. On September 28, 2005, Ms. Frary Breckenridge, through her
attorney Ms. Jane R. Koler, filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Hearin*
Examiner's recommendation. The Applicant submitted a response to Ms. Breckenridge's
request on October 11, 2005.
REQUEST
Ms. Breckenridge testified at the open record hearing and submitted several documents
that were admitted into the record. (Exhibits 21. 41, 41A, 41B, 41C, and 44). Her
Request for Reconsideration references the geotechnical report commissioned by her
(Attachment 5, previously entered into the record as Exhibit 41A) and issues raised at the
prior hearing. The request further seeks to admit new evidence - Report of Robin W.
Williams, consulting arborist, dated August 30, 2005, including Attachments 1. 2, and 3:
and Statements of Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE of Jakes Traffic Engineering Inc., including
' Applicant has proposed that the open space tract be dedicated to the City of Auburn.
Request for Reconsideration
Monte Adams - REZ04-0006, PLT04-0008
Attachment 6. (Request for Reconsideration, Page 2). The request alleges that the
Hearing Examiner's decision needs to be "slightly altered" because the decision: (1)
does not adequately protect trees located on Ms. Breckenridge's property. (2) does not
recognize that alternatives exists which would provide a safer right-of-way access to the
proposed plat; and (3) does not protect the stability of the southern facing banks of the
White River. The request closes with a plea that the Hearing Examiner's decision be
"changed" in order to mitigate the stated adverse effects and "promote the safety and
convenience of the public."
RESPONSE TO REQUEST
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66.150, a Request for Reconsideration must be
received "within seven days after the written decision of the examiner has been
rendered." Z Although the Hearing Examiner rendered his recommendation on both of
the applications on September 14, 2005, corrections were required due to a scribner's
error and the corrected recommendation was submitted to the City a few days later. The
City issued the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the public on September 21,
2005. Ms. Breckenridge's request was received by the City of Auburn Planning
Department on September 28, 2005. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner finds that Ms.
Breckenridge's request was timely filed.
The request filed by Ms. Breckenridge seeks to submit new evidence for the Hearing
Examiner's consideration, namely the arborist's report (Attachment 1) and the opinion of
a traffic engineer3 (Request for Reconsideration, Page 2). Pursuant to ACC 18.66.150,
new evidence may only be considered if the evidence "could not [have been] reasonably
available at the prior [public] hearing." The evidence that Ms. Breckenridge seeks to rely
on is of a type that could have been reasonably available at the time of August 16'x'
hearing or is evidence that the Hearing Examiner has already considered when making
a The Hearing Examiner is guided by ACC 18-66-150 when reviewing a request for reconsideration. That
section states that:
The planning director or any interested party affected by the recommendation of the
examiner who asserts that the hearing examiner based that recommendation on an
erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing, may make a
written request for review by the examiner within seven calendar days after the written
decision of the examiner has been rendered. The request for reconsideration shall set
forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the examiner may, after
review of the record, take further action as the examiner deems proper. The examiner
may request further information which shall be provided within 10 calendar days of the
examiner's request. The examiner's written decision on the request for consideration
shall be transmitted to all parties of record within 10 calendar days of receipt of the
request for reconsideration or receipt of the additional information requested, whichever
is later.
3 The traffic engineer, Mr. Jacobs, seeks to justify his conclusions on an analysis of AML Geotechnical
Services Inc.'s report, a document that was submitted into the record at the prior hearing as Exhibit 41 A.
Request for Reconsideration
Monte Adams — REZ04-0006, PLT04-0008
his recommendation. Submission of all new evidence is therefore not proper and is
denied.
The Hearing Examiner does, however, recognize that Ms. Breckenridge's concerns are
primarily based on potential impacts to trees on her property, due either to construction of
the right-of-way or removal of trees on Mr. Adams property, and slope stability. These
concerns were raised at the prior hearing (see Findings of Fact Nos. 8, 11, 11 13, 15, 16.
and 24) and were evaluated in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) (Exhibit 12). The Hearing Examiner has
re-evaluated only the evidence submitted at the prior hearing and concludes that Ms.
Breckenridge's concerns are substantiated by the record and mitigation of the impacts
associated with these concerns were not properly addressed in the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that, due to prior unpermitted logging which has
compromised the stability of the steep slope, without adequate protection trees on Ms.
Breckenridge's property, as well as the adjacent critical area, could be adversely affected.
This conclusion is supported by several conditions provided for in the MDNS:
Conclusion 1 (City to ensure land is not developed in a manner that will significantly
increase the potential for slope slippage, landslide, or erosion); Conclusion 5 (City to
prevent injury to property); Conclusion 6 (City to retain vegetation); Conclusion 27 (City
to discourage unnecessary disturbance of natural vegetation); and Condition 19
(requirement for Applicant to retain certified arborist and to protect a tree's critical root
zone). An additional condition will be recommended to address this issue.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that no error occurred in regards to the City's right-of-
way. After reviewing all evidence submitted at the prior hearing, the Hearing Examiner
finds that the proposed right-of-way conforms to City of Auburn road standards and that
any deviations or site specific design will be addressed during the final plat approval.
DECISION _
Based on the above, the Hearing Examiner decides that the conditions of his September
14th Recommendation shall be modified as follows:
1. Anew condition is added to the approval of the preliminary plat, Condition 9, and is
to read as follows:
Trees to be retained on the subject property and/or public right-of-way must be
protected during construction by fencing located at the edge of the critical root
zone. Trees on neighboring properties, whose critical root zones extend into the
subject property and/or public right-of-way, and may be adversely impacted
during construction, must be protected by fencing located at the edge of the
critical root zone impacted. Construction activities within the critical area zone of
any tree, either on-site or off-site, must be limited in order to preclude or reduce
Request for Reconsideration
Monte Adams — REZ04-0006, PLT04-0008
root damage. Protective fencing must be placed as directed by a qualified,
professional forester.
In all other regards, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the record developed at the
open record hearing supports his recommendation and there was no error of procedure,
law, fact, or judgement.
So ordered this day of October 2005.
DRISCOLL & HUNTER
Hearing Examiner for City of Auburn
By:
Request for Reconsideration
Monte Adams — REZ04-0006, PLT04-0008
4
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
OF THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. REZ04-0006 .
PLT04-0008
Monte Adams )
Adams Vista Plat
For Preliminary Plat ) RESPONSE TO CITY OF AUBURN'S
COMMENTS TO THE REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
BACKGROUND
Monte Adams, represented by Hans Korve of DMP Inc. (Applicant), requested approval
of a rezone of one parcel of land, approximately 13.14 acres, from Rural Residential and
Residential Mobile Home Park designation to Residential Duplex (R3). As a part ofthe-
request, the Applicant sought approval of a preliminary plat subject to the new zoning
standards. The plat would divide the parcel into 8 lots for future single-family residential
development, an open space tract], and two privately owned and maintained tracts for
access and utilities. The subject property is located within the city limits of Auburn.
south of Auburn Way South and east of Hemlock Street.
An open record hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Auburn on
August 16, 2005. On September 14, 2005 the Hearing Examiner issued a
recommendation for the proposal which was made available to the public on September
21, 2005. On September 28, 2005, Ms. Frary Breckenridge, through her attorney Ms.
Jane R. Koler, filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation. The Applicant submitted a response to Ms. Breckenridge's request on
October 11, 2005.
On October 12, 2005, the Hearing Examiner submitted his decision on the Request. The
Hearing Examiner denied Ms. Breckenridge's request to submit additional evidence into
the record but amended the September 14 recommendation to include an additional
condition, Condition 9. The purpose of Condition 9 was to recognize the proposal's
potential impacts to treks in the area and to slope stability in the adjacent critical area.
REQUEST
On October 12, 2005, the City of Auburn requested clarification of the Hearing
Examiner's additional condition. The City stated that in order to construct the city
standard roadway for access to the Adams Vista plat, trees must be removed and that the
condition refers to the retention of trees within the public right-of-way. The City
questioned whether the condition mandates that trees within the public right-of-way be
retained. The City also argued that the additional condition refers to securing the services
of a professional forester and questioned whether this would be in addition to the certified
' Applicant has proposed that the open space tract be dedicated to the City of Auburn.
Request for Reconsideration
Monte Adams — REZ04-0006, PLT04-0008
arborist that is required by the Final Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance
(MDNS).
RESPONSE TO REQUEST
In the review of the Request for Reconsideration and in determining whether to amend
the prior recommendation, the Hearing Examiner reviewed the record and noted the
potential impacts to trees on private property and to slope stability, due either to
construction of the right-of-way or removal of trees on Mr. Adams property. The
additional condition, Condition 9, was recommended to address this issue.
The City misreads the Hearing Examiner's condition. Condition Number 9 states thal
"Trees to be retained ... must be protected during construction." The condition does not
prohibit the removal of trees necessary for construction of the city standard roadway.
The condition only requires that, if the City selects to retain any trees within the right-of-
way, it must ensure the health and integrity of such trees by protecting their critical root
zones during construction.
The Hearing Examiner does recognize the confusion between the verbage "qualified
professional forester" and "certified arborist". Given that the recommended condition is
intended to preserve the health and integrity of retained trees, a certified arborist is the
correct individual to supervise the placement of fencing meant to protect the critical root
zone areas of retained trees.
DECISION
Based on the above, the Hearing Examiner modifies Condition 9 by replacing -qualified.
professional forester" with "certified arborist".
In all other regards, the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner remains the same.
So ordered this d % day of October 2005.
DRISCOLL & HUNTER
Hearing Examiner for City of Auburn
Request for Reconsideration
Monte Adams — REZ04-0006, PLT04-0008
Page 1 of 1
Jeff Dixon
From: MDaley2118@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:54 PM
To: Jeff Dixon
Subject: Adams Vista
Jeff:
This e-mail is to acknowledge that exceeding the 120 day time period for final approval of this project is
acceptable to us and my client.
Sincerely:
DMP, Inc.
Mel L. Daley, P.E.
12/6/2005